MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

If Rural Americans Are Being 'Left Behind,' Why Don't They Just Move?

President Trump and Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee want to help "forgotten" farmers. They won't be able to.

All of my grandparents, two from Ireland and two from Italy, emigrated to the United States during the 1910s. The political situations in both countries were not stable, but the reason they came to America was for economic opportunity. If 23andMe is accurate, my ancestors had lived in the same places for centuries and had essentially been bred to be subsistence farmers and near-serfs. Yet my grandparents, all of whom were born in the 1890s, moved the hell out of old Europe the first chance they got. Having visited the two villages in Ireland that my paternal grandparents hailed from, I can only underscore how happy I am that they did. The world is a lot smaller than it was 100 years ago, but the villages of Killybegs and Ougtherard in Ireland haven't changed very much in the past century. Neither has Fragneto Monforte in Italy (my maternal grandparents were from the same town and had an arranged marriage that was ultimately consummated in Connecticut). If you wanted a future, you had to move.

Which brings me to a recent tweet by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) complaining that

The congresswoman is actually talking about a memo and an executive order—remember when Republicans thought E.O.s were bad things?—that pledge "the executive branch will 'use all viable tools' to accelerate the deployment and adoption of affordable and reliable broadband connectivity in rural America." According to the Tennessean:

It goes on to say executive departments "should seek to reduce barriers to capital investment, remove obstacles to broadband services, and more efficiently employ government resources."

"Those towers are going to go up and you're going to have great, great broadband," Trump said, holding up the official order for the audience to see.

Under a separate memo signed by the president — in addition to the executive order — Trump also is requiring U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to develop a plan to support rural broadband deployment.

U.S. CensusU.S. CensusThe good news is that the moves by Trump apparently come with no money attached (story of his life, right, promising big changes but keeping his hands in his pockets when the check arrives). That's basically how it should be. If the markets are worth serving, the first action should be for government at all levels to get out of the way of investors. If some sort of subsidy in the interest of providing universal service and help is called for, that can and should come later, and the feds already spend a lot on subsidizing phone, mail, and internet service for rural America.

The bad news is that all the broadband in the world isn't going to transform rural America into God's Little Acre any more than a massively subsidized high-speed broadband boondoggle has turned Chattanooga in Blackburn's Tennessee into a bustling hub of activity (the city's population growth since 2000 is actually lower than the state's rate of 15 percent.) Yet both Trump and Blackburn want to portray yesterday's actions as somehow reversing the tide of history. The 1920 Census was the first one in which more people lived in urban areas than rural ones. That trend will not change anytime soon.

"You are forgotten no more," the president told 5,000 members of the American Farm Bureau assembled in Nashville. "We're fighting for our farmers." Blackburn too invokes "farmers" in her tweet and general rhetoric. But only about 1.5 percent of American workers are directly involved in farming, a figure that is projected to stay flat for the foreseeable future. When it comes to the broader category of people living rural vs. urban areas, it turns out that just 19 percent of Americans live in rural areas, compared to 80 percent living in urban ones (which includes suburbs too). Far from being "left behind" or "forgotten," it turns out that rural Americans have about the same household income as their urban counterparts (and a lower cost of living), are more likely to be employed and own their house, and less likely to be poor. Rural folk are indeed less likely to have internet access, but then again, they're also less likely to have cable TV or neighbors within walking distant. I suspect that many of them like it that way, just like they are more likely to live in the state in which they were born.

Which brings me back to my grandparents. They moved thousands of miles away from places that didn't care much about them and offered them no future other than being ground troops or collateral damage in wars. They were really left behind, by history and by elites. Their response was to get up and move to where the jobs and the future were more likely to be. Similarly, Donald Trump's main (anti-)immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, fled his native Santa Monica, California to be educated and employed every bit as far away from his homeland as my grandparents were. The answer to people being "left behind" isn't to bring the future to them (especially through tax dollars, which farmers and rural states soak up at massive rates). It's to make it easier for them to move.

Like my grandparents and Miller, I've moved thousands of miles all over the place in search of better jobs and opportunities (this includes years in rural America, by the way, in Texas and Ohio). The Trump administration, hell-bent on deporting immigrants and even building walls to keep them out, should instead be inspired by international and domestic migrants who go to where the future is and help build it. But instead, Trump and his team, and too many rural legislators, simply pander to the shrinking percentage of Americans who stay on the farm or out in the country while demonizing the very people who are willing to risk so much by pulling up stakes and starting a new life.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I have it on good authority that what this article is really calling for is white genocide.

  • 1980-f||

    Whose authority would that be?

  • Rich||

    all the broadband in the world isn't going to transform rural America into God's Little Acre

    But aren't we obligated to at least *try*?

  • 1980-f||

    Why? Time, money, people and other resources are finite. Which tasks are most worth spending on?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    My reading of the article: "Poor white people are trash and deserve to die and have their dirty, filthy, useless dead bodies and their children eaten by illegal Mexicans."

    -Nick Gillespie

  • hello.||

    Nick Gillespie absolutely believes that rural whites are trash and deserve to die impoverished if they fail to abandon their families to move to the city, and has said so very explicitly over and over again.

    You have to dive into the comments here before you can find anybody actually willing to let the mask drop and admit that they think white people's wealth should be appropriated for the benefit of beaners'n'bombers though.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Of all the broadbands in all the world, poor, white, trash will never use mine."

    -Nick Gillespie

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Poor, white, trash of the world, untie!"

    (Untie yourselves from Government Almighty, is my best advice).

  • JeremyR||

    I predict Reason will flip flop on this issue once they reason that it means Mexican migrant workers will now have broadband access

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Bunch of cuck-ass mothertruckers.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    AND THE COSMOTARIAN WAR ON THE YOKELTARIAN CONTINUES UNABATED.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    YASSSSS

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We should expect a rebuttal from the Glibs within a fortnight.

  • Zeb||

    Because they are fat and stupid and addicted to pain pills. Or so I'm told.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm imagining all these farmers moving to the land of juicero and Raw Water. They'll fit right in.

  • DaveSs||

    Because they hate the idea of living in cities.

    I lived 17 years in the Chicago suburbs. In that time I went to the City maybe 30 times and half of those were to go to a baseball game. I never really liked living in the suburbs either. When an opportunity to abandon the suburbs and moved to a small town came up, we jumped on it.

    Also this is something often brought up as urban/rural divide sort of thing, but you have to understand the definition.
    When it comes to the broader category of people living rural vs. urban areas, it turns out that just 19 percent of Americans live in rural areas, compared to 80 percent living in urban ones (which includes suburbs too).

    The Census Bureau's definition of urban areas/urbanized areas includes places like where I presently live. A town of 10,000 surrounded on all sides by corn fields.
    I daresay very few people in my town think of it as 'urban' or a 'city'
    More accurately, people think of it as rural, small town, or farm town.

    So you need to take that 80/20 and modify it a bit.

  • Longtobefree||

    Do you mean to say the federal government has gotten a definition wrong?
    Run for the hills!
    I think the common use of the term is urban = democrats and bad things; rural = republicans and good things.

  • Zeb||

    Urban=black, rural=racist

  • EscherEnigma||

    https://tinyurl.com/ybxvu33p (should be link to USDA article Defining the "Rural" in Rural America)

    They actually do a pretty good job of explaining when and why to use different definitions of "rural", pros and cons of each, and how to properly use them.

    So don't blame the government if you think that Gillepsie is using the wrong one here, they did the best they could to contextualize their data, and include which definitions to use if you want a "49% of America lives in rural areas" definition ("Rural defined as territory outside: Census Bureau places (administrative) with population less then 20,000")

    And hopefully that link works. If not, just google "census defining rural" and you'll probably find it.

  • DaveSs||

    The point is that the definition used by the government is a way of classifying things that doesn't very well match observations in the field.

    There's a rather significant difference between Villa Park IL (22,000) in the suburbs near Chicago, and Ottawa IL (18,500) which is 40 miles away from the nearest Chicago suburb.

  • The_Hoser||

    Ottawa is less stuffed full of dicks?

  • EscherEnigma||

    I look forward to hearing your Theory of Unified Rural Definitely.

    But no. The "point" was "lol, gov is stupid", ignoring that they already addressed the raised issue, and *do* have and use definitions that draw the very distinctions y'all think they're ignorant of. Gillepsie didn't give that context, but that's not the fault or responsibility of the government.

  • Kivlor||

  • DaveSs||

    Right
    The technical term used by the Census Bureau for where I live is an 'urban cluster' (2,500 to 50,000)

    As near as I can tell the total number of people living in 'urban clusters' is about 10% of the population.

    While we do have sidewalks and sewers like a 'city', we share a great deal more in common with our friends and neighbors who live outside of town and have septic tanks than we do with people living in what people more often think of as a 'city'


    I wouldn't be surprised if to see that there are perhaps another 10% living in places that by the maps and statistics contain between 50k and 100k, and aren't attached to a still larger city area that also more closely resemble rural than they do urban.

    So I'd be more inclined to say its 70/30 Urban/Rural and perhaps even as low as 60/40 if you include some of the places between 50k and 100k

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "only about 1.5 percent of American workers are directly involved in farming"

    Why won't those yahoos just move to the city and make a living generating YouTube videos for each other like forward-thinking Americans are doing?

  • ||

    Why won't those yahoos just move to the city and make a living generating YouTube videos for each other like forward-thinking Americans are doing?

    Do you think diversity just happens when socially and geographically disconnected people coming up with their own unique ideas of their own volition? No! You have to be yammering incessantly with your neighbors about Trump's tweets everyday, whether you want to or not, before you can even begin to understand diversity.

  • Heraclitus||

    Rural people are Republicans' base. So of course they have to contradict all that free-market BS they peddle. Sigh. Unfortunately the rural people don't understand that their way of life is in direct conflict with the free-market tripe they buy into constantly from the GOP.

  • Microaggressor||

    Take Nick's advice and move to Venezuela. A true socialist paradise unsullied by the free market.

  • ace_m82||

    Unfortunately the rural people don't understand that their way of life is in direct conflict with the free-market tripe

    How does simply not living in a city or suburb make my "way of life is in direct conflict with the free-market tripe"?

    I can't help it if government steals from others! I'm try to stop them. I'm also too busy trying to fight the Government-protected Co-op from killing more of the trees I planted!

  • esteve7||

    Because big cities suck? I live in the bay area and hate whenever I have to go to SF, it's dirty, crowded, just overall shitty. I live in SJ but commute to Oakland because I don't want to live near here

  • shawn_dude||

    Living like what?

    The city has a high standard of living with a great many amenities for people of all income levels (but especially for people with disposable income.)

    What are SF residents tolerating that shocks you?

  • JFree||

    The city has a high standard of living with a great many amenities for people of all income levels

    What are you smoking. Someone moving from Dayton (hardly rural) to SF would need a 75% pay increase to maintain the same standard of living. Houston to SF - 93%. Tampa - 93%. Bozeman - 72%. Omaha - 93%. Those are nowhere near the pay differences.

    Outside of maybe some tech jobs that SF has that others don't (ie comparative advantage), anyone moving to SF for the standard of living is simply stupid. Most people in SF would be far better off if they moved elsewhere - even at a pretty big pay cut. And why more companies aren't fleeing en masse in order to increase profits? Well that can only be a market failure - and I'd bet money that it is because of land subsidies that encourage immobility within the US now.

  • shawn_dude||

    Hey, thanks for including Tampa because that's where I moved from so I can speak directly to that!

    My pay increase from Tampa to SF was nearly 100%. It depends on your field, of course. If you're minimum wage in Tampa at $8.10/hr you'll be at $15/hr in SF but even $15/hr isn't a living wage here even if it is close to 93%. The pay differential is there if you work in the tech or bio industry--possibly finance as well.

    My partner worked in a hospital and his wage also doubled. This is because there is basically a single employer that runs all the hospitals and can undercut wages with "sun pay." So when you add up our wage increase here, even with the crazy-high cost of housing, we end up with more disposable income in SF than Tampa.

    The market is a bit more complex than you give it credit for. Part of the cost of hiring employees is finding them. Certain specialties, like tech, gain a certain critical mass of talent in a given area (no coincidence that Stanford, Berkeley, USF, and Santa Clara U are in the same area) which attracts employers which attracts more employees, etc and so on. A coder that moves from SF to Detroit, for example, may pay less for housing but will have a harder time finding their next job. And SF, all other things equal, is a pretty cool place to live with tons of amenities that most other places in the US cannot match. There are more aspects to the cost of employees than just their salaries.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    The key amenity that most big cities have is the smug assurance among inhabitants that their city is the best place to live. That holds true for old crowded cities (New York in the USA) and new trendy crowded cities (SFC, now passing the baton to places like Denver). And just being close to stuff they never use is part of the smug lifestyle.

  • Sedona Vortex Hunter||

    I grew up in SF, the city proper, not one of the many satellite cities. Lived there from 1972-1991, and still have family there.

    That being said, once I lived in other places I could no longer really tolerate living there. Its okay if you never have to leave the city, as the city used to quiet down and become more livable at night,

    But nowadays, the costs and the endless hassle are just too much. I still have friends who can;t imagine leaving, and one reason they give is all the museums and blah, blahs, blah....they are fooling themselves. I have known some of them for over 30 years and they don't do anything you can't do in any other city 99.5% of the time. Honestly many SF people are some of the most provincial, sheltered and cocooned people I have ever met...some of the most closed minded and intolerant as well..

  • shawn_dude||

    Ad hominem.

    It's not like the little towns all over the US don't also have a sense of smug over the things they value their town for. This isn't limited to city dwellers or suburbanites. It's universal human tribalism.

  • Curtisls701||

    I live in Los Gatos, and used to commute up the Peninsula. My wife and I recently made the decision to retire at 61 so we could enjoy what time we have left. To that end, we're moving out of this hell hole. Our destination? Manhattan KS. 55K people with a university is plenty for me.

  • shawn_dude||

    Sounds like a great plan!

    My husband and I plan to do something similar, though Kansas is obviously a bad place for a gay couple to retire. We'll need to stick to places where public accommodations won't turn us away which may mean staying in California but someplace less expensive like the Northern third of the state.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Oh that is fucking rich. I live in Fremont and work in downtown SJ and I can tell you that it's the same as Oakland just swap out the [Censored*] for the [Censored*] and Vóila

    *insert the ethnicities for yourself

  • Deep Lurker||

    Looking at the results of previous great migrations of poor rural whites (and poor rural blacks) into cities back in the middle of the 20th century, the wariness of current rural whites about doing the same thing makes a good deal of sense.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Almost every day Reason posts a piece about some insanity in the nations urban centers. Their police are violent and corrupt. Regulation and licensing requirements prohibit self employment. Soda taxes, cigarette taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, taxes and prohibitions on virtually every endevour. But yeah, some rural family in Iowa is gonna move to Seattle, triple their cost of living for a house one third the size, for high speed internet.

  • shawn_dude||

    I think the assumption is that it is for more job opportunities. The author of the OP doesn't seem to understand how the USA of 1910 is fundamentally different than the USA of 2018 when it comes to those opportunities.

  • JFree||

    I think the assumption is that it is for more job opportunities.

    What's the point if rent sucks up all the income? There is not a single city in the US where the rent/income ratio is even remotely comparable to that same ratio in say 1970. The only cities in the world that are comparable to the average US rent burdens are London, HK, Singapore, and a couple Chinese cities. The only 1910 US comparable to now is - the Lower East Side (admittedly rental stock is far better quality than that) - and that was people who got off the boat too broke to go more than walking distance so they had to pay the Astors.

    US is little more than a land speculation country now. Jobs/mobility do not matter. It is a reason labor force participation will keep dropping now. If you're inside the housing bubble, you are doing very well - and subsidized heavily. If you are outside that bubble, you will live in your parents basement forever and can't move. We have become serfs - without the ability to provide our own food/clothing. The only reason people are still migrating TO here rather than AWAY is because the old American myths are still very much alive even if they are now false.

  • shawn_dude||

    Wages have been pretty stagnant since 1970. In adjusted dollars, nearly identical, in fact.

    Pew Research

    Some of the rental differential you notice might also be due to the trend of people moving back to the cities where density would naturally limit supply and drive rents higher. If Americans still all lived in rural towns dotting middle-America, the difference would be less.

    But, I agree, overall the percentage of income consumed by rent is higher today than in 1970, even when accounting for migration back to the cities.

  • Slocum||

    Well, it's a dumb idea, but on the bright side maybe we'll get some decent (cheap, subsidized) broadband for our vacation cottage. Of course, our cell phones work just fine, but we can't even... Because -- it's horrible -- we don't have enough data for a weekend of watching Amazon and Netflix. Won't somebody think of us second-home-owning monocle polishers?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Your hardship highlights a relevant point: If we start investing heavily in wire infrastructure now it might just get lapped by wireless in the meantime. G5 is coming up, and the speeds for that are good enough for just about everything other than low ping activities.

  • JWatts||

    "The good news is that the moves by Trump apparently come with no money attached (story of his life, right, promising big changes but keeping his hands in his pockets when the check arrives). That's basically how it should be."

    Ok. Then why all the complaining Nick?

  • Kivlor||

    it turns out that just 19 percent of Americans live in rural areas, compared to 80 percent living in urban ones (which includes suburbs too).

    This "80%" includes any incorporated town with a population of 2,500.

    More disingenuous tripe from Gillespie.

  • ThomasD||

    Holy crap.

    That's not 'disingenuous,' it's mendacity.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If you look at that embedded "Our Changing Landscape" graphic, something becomes pretty obvious: most folks are moving. The "rural" population is flat while the "urban" population consistently grows. The portion of the rural population that's kids is only a smidge behind their urban counterparts, so it's not like they aren't having kids. And while some of those kids will stick around and inherit the house and continue being rural, their brothers and sisters are swapping teams.

    So why don't they move? The ones that aren't going to inherit the house do.

    So sure. They've been "left behind". By their own kids. Because they're unable to offer them something better then the "dirty, crowded, just overall shitty" cities.

    And they're able to do so because we keep throwing tax dollars to keep them propped up.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Also, I'm guessing we're arguing semantics a lot here. Where a city counts as everything from Bisbee to New York City.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It's not really "semantics" when you reject someone's operations definition and then refuse to agree to any alternate operating definition. That's just refusing to discuss with data.

    It's just like when talking about the "middle class". Any serious discussion starts with an operational definition. If you refuse to entertain the definition for the purpose of discussion, then you're just not having a discussion.

  • shawn_dude||

    This comment software needs an up/down vote feature.

    +1 to EscherEnigma.

  • hello.||

    You two are almost as stupid as each other, so that makes sense.

    Critiquing a crappy definition doesn't obligate you to substitute a better one, and especially when the crappy definition is embedded in a government report that's already been published.

    Defining the "middle class" is pretty fucking easy if you can wrap your head around quartiles. Naturally this is pretty tricky business for you two fucking retarded faggots.

  • shawn_dude||

    This retarded faggot thinks you'll have a hard time with a middle range using quartiles and suggests you wrap your mind around the concept of quintiles or thirds.

    Those "retarded faggots" over at Pew Research don't seem to use quartiles either... huh. Imagine that.

    Pew Research Middle Class

  • JFree||

    Subsidies aren't going to rural areas. Subsidies go primarily to homeowners with big mortgages/prices. Not just the interest deduction. The distortion of interest rates adds roughly 30-40% to the price of housing. The diversion of the tax base from property taxes to sales/income taxes raises home prices by 15-30% while putting more of the tax burden precisely on 'new' residents - and that diversion happens mostly (far more than % of population) in cities. 'Welfare' subsidies in cities are mostly designed not to be a 'safety net' - but to KEEP the urban poor there (which subsidizes landlords and house prices).

    Even transport infrastructure is not a 'rural' subsidy. In the US it is designed mostly to keep urban populations fed. If it were truly 'infrastructure' by any other countries definition, then the result would be to render 'transport cost differentials' less relevant for domestic company expansions. That is not the case for the US. Parts of the US are more expensive to transport goods to the rest of the US than it is to transport goods from Chinese ports to the US.

    Geographically, the US looks like a colony/core economy. A richer version of the Third World - not a Ricardian 'comparative advantage' type of trade economy.

  • ThomasD||

    "the diversion of the tax base"

    Diversion?

    Diversion?

  • shawn_dude||

    If the government pays for roads to distant businesses so those businesses can get their products to market, it's a subsidy. The fact that the product is food is irrelevant.

  • Headache||

    The government pays for roads to transport criminal from cities to prisons built in rural places, it's a subsidy.

  • Tony||

    I still don't understand the appeal of Trump's primary economic campaign message: "I promise to give you rubes all the shittiest jobs from the past!"

  • Ron||

    Because a shitty job is in the mind of the beholder just because you think something is shitty doesn't make it so and only shows your big city liberal blindness to real hard work

  • Tony||

    Uh huh.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Because Hillary's message was: "Fuck you, rubes. I've got NY and California sewn up, and I don't need to campaign in Michigan or Pennsylvania, let alone in East Bumfuck."

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    Because Tony, a "shitty" job (at least a shitty job to you) that pays a decent living wage is better than having no job and living off of welfare. This is why you leftist idiots lost the 2016 general election and Trump won: you're tone-deaf to your fucking base, something even the Republicans manage not to do to their fanatic evangelical base and Trump picked off of your slack and stole your base from you. Jesus Christ. You guys are some of the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever seen. You haven't learned anything from the most humiliating loss of the decade (maybe even the century) and you still act like elitist, arrogant pricks. Even the Neanderthals in the Republican Party haven't made mistakes of your calibre and they are extremely mistake-prone.

  • ||

    Tony is a Reason intern who has the duty of trolling in H&R.

    None of his (or her?) posts are serious.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    That really would explain so much....truly..

  • Tony||

    So the free-market fundies support government welfare for jobs the market won't support, jobs that happen to involve backbreaking labor and early death? WTF? Can't you see a retarded-ass appeal to boobs when you see one?

  • hello.||

    Those are english words alright. Somehow you managed to put them together and make them completely meaningless.

    Union-wage jobs in modern manufacturing aren't exactly back-breaking. That's why all the illiterate theird world peasants flocked to them instead of tilling a patch of dirt. Compared to slugging it out with Shauniqua and her 6 illegitimate kids for a welfare check it's a pretty easy calculus for most people. Not everyone is content to be a welfare parasite like you.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Give up, Lucius. Too many people have crossed the divide between the traditional concept of earning a living (and reaping the financial and existential rewards) to a living as a human right (with all the pissing and moaning about fairness and equality).

  • Headache||

    Tony doesn't realize that when Kim decides to light the match, Backwater MS will not be targeted. LA. SF, and Seattle probably are.

  • IceTrey||

    Your average human being isn't that smart. They are satisfied by a simple life.

  • Homple||

    Move where, and do what when you get there is what people need to figure out. Yeah, your grampa and gramma moved from somewhere and all went well. So did mine, but this is the USA in 2018, not 1902.

  • Ron||

    Yea going from famine ruined potato farms to fertile fields afar is not a hard choice to make

  • hello.||

    Or importing a permanent foreign underclass to change your kid's shitty diapers because it's better than working in the hot Mexican sun all day. Idiots like Nick Gillespie legitimately think that coal miners and ranch hands can be retrained as bankers and engineers as easily as his grandparents became human automatons in the factories at the turn of the last century. No. They will be lucky if they can be retrained as retail clerks. And minimum wage 50 hours a week in a 500 square foot apartment isn't exactly the fucking promised land for everybody.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But what happens when natural gas and feedlots undercut coal and free-range beef? I agree that too many idiots had impossible plans for displaced miners and cowboys, but we don't have federally supported whaling.

  • Brandybuck||

    The solution is NOT for everyone in rural red counties to move to urban blue counties. That's flipping arrogant. There may not be all the farming jobs left, but the farmland is still there. Junior might not have room on dad's farm, but that doesn't mean dad's farm just up and vanished.

    Maybe for a start we can get the government out of the way. Stop subsidizing the politically correct crops which encourages monoculture and mega farms. Stop with the state marketing boards that entrench traditional and politically connected crops. Places with thriving family farms are those that can still market the kinds of specialty and small acreage crops that are currently in vogue. Get rid of the punitive taxes that makes turns rural jobs into subsistence jobs. And stop acting like rural folk are the problem. Last I checked it was the city types who were in charge of things.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Stop subsidizing the politically correct crops [...]"
    Assuming you're including the corn subsidy in there, that'd be a disaster for "rural" folks in the mid-west. We're talking huge job killer. And most likely it won't be the big factory farms currently making corn, it'll be the small farms that suddenly have to compete with big factory farms that changed gears when they lost their subsidy.

    So sure, stop the subsidies. But don't think you'll be doing rural folk a favor in doing so.

    Last I checked it was the city types who were in charge of things.
    Not really. Depending on your definition of "rural", somewhere between 20 and 49% of the US lives in "rural" areas. And as you should know, that's not uniform across states. Many states have a rural majority (or at least close enough one to swing elections). Which is why one of the two major political parties regularly caters and panders to "rural" interests.

    So no. "city types" aren't "in charge" of things. We all share power. And the current president got there with the rural vote.

  • ||

    So no. "city types" aren't "in charge" of things. We all share power. And the current president got there with the rural vote.

    This is a bit of bullshit. This President didn't get to the White House with the rural vote any more than the previous one got there without it. This portrayal of the issue represents an intrinsic conceptual distortion; that there is the FedGov and no other. When, in reality the plain facts are that cities, counties, wards, townships, etc. all add weight to and dilute out/distort the federal-state-personal sovereignty layer cake. Collusion between and among can and does knowingly occur. It's not the farmers and rural hicks in charge of either the wonderful or the absolute cesspools that are Baltimore or Detroit or Chicago or Los Angeles or New York. It isn't some rural soda tax getting implemented exogenously on Philly. Rural Montana isn't the model for establishing emissions standards in LA and the world over. It's a rather obvious distortion of reality to deny that urbanization and the intrinsic evils that lots of libertarians in these parts (used to) like to point out about collectivization go hand in hand.

  • EscherEnigma||

    This President didn't get to the White House with the rural vote any more than the previous one got there without it.
    Until the next time we're talking about the electoral college vs. popular vote, eh?

  • hello.||

    The counties that your cunt queen lost to Trump weren't rural hicks you retarded faggot, they were the decimated ruins of the cities that used to make up the manufacturing sector.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Please tell me you have a newsletter.

  • ace_m82||

    But don't think you'll be doing rural folk a favor in doing so.

    Long term (by this I mean anything other than the very initial issues), it will be better for everyone to stop the subsidies. Including those addicted to the subsidies.

  • Brandybuck||

    Maybe, just maybe, those factory farms exist solely because of the corn subsidies. Last time I flew into Iowa, the ENTIRE state was wall to wall corn and soybean monocoltures, with a few hog farms here and there to take care of the waste cobs.

    But you couldn't actually see the corn, because the billboards praising the corn subsidies were too numerous and blocked out the sight.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Maybe, just maybe, those factory farms exist solely because of the corn subsidies."

    No one's arguing that. Mostly because at this point it's an academic point.

  • Brandybuck||

    City folk run things. California, a very rural state, is run by L.A. and S.F. voters. It's neighbor Nevada is run by Las Vegas voters. Oregon by Portland voters. Washington by Seattle voters. Seriously, go look at a map of red/blue counties.

    There are now more urban voters than rural voters, and urban voters don't like those icky Wal-Mart red counties.

  • EscherEnigma||

    California is a "very rural state"?

    Okay, I know there's a lot of debate over how to qualify "rural", but seriously? Over 50% love in cities of 100,000 or more. I can't even quickly dig-up how many live in cities of 50,000 or more because the "largest 100 cities" chart on Wikipedia only goes as small as 82,492.

    So thanks for the laugh.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Commifornia is a huge state and there is still a very open land state.
    rural vs urban

    Although California is the nation's most populated state, it is hardly running out of land. More than 94 percent of Californians live in urban areas which cover just 5.1 percent of the state. When rural places are added, no more than 8.6 percent of the state is developed. Since California's rural places have an average density of just 93 people per square mile, most of their land area probably qualifies as rural open space. The nation's second-most populated state, Texas, is even less heavily developed: 2.7 percent urbanized and 5.0 percent developed.
    Thoreau Institute

  • EscherEnigma||

    Dude, there are stretches on the 40 out of Barstow where you won't see construction for different miles or more. Those places aren't "rural", they're "un-inhabited".

  • EscherEnigma||

    Fifty, not different.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Most of that info is urban or rural.

    Rural is less than so many people per square mile.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    California is an Ag state. Only a mouth breather from one of the 49 dwarves would think it isn't.

  • JFree||

    Maybe for a start we can get the government out of the way.

    Honestly that is not really the problem. Government actions encourage rural stasis/decline - because that is cheaper. Govt does need to, for the first time ever, look at the US as a country that no longer has a frontier. We are a normal country now. Out west, it does mean federal land/water should stop being hoarded for the purposes of depopulation. It means that Congress needs to jack up its size so that population mobility is not a zero-sum threat to incumbents every census. And we will need to define interstate commerce infrastructure far more broadly than 'post roads/offices' - so that a startup (uniquely in big parts of the US) doesn't need to build its own basic infrastructure from scratch. Existing govt actions are a reaction to the lack of all that other stuff.

    Places with thriving family farms are those that can still market the kinds of specialty and small acreage crops that are currently in vogue.

    That sounds like Dukakis going to Iowa and telling farmers that growing Belgian endive is the solution.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    HFS...he actually did that....WiTaF??

  • JFree||

    To be fair - he also mentioned apples, blueberries, and flowers

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I generally enjoy Nick's articles but this one is pointless. Trump's EO appears to be an attempt to remove regulatory barriers that might slow the growth of broadband in rural areas. I fail to see a problem with that goal and apparently Nick doesn't either. But we have to get a serving of Trump is a big poopy head on the side because immigration and shit. I favor liberal immigration as well, but I don't see what it has to do with the topic at hand. And for the record, my grandparents also immigrated from Europe in the early 20th century and they were just as badass as Nick's if not more so. And I live in a rural area that I'm sure is classified as urban by the census. No fucking way am I moving back to some shithole city no matter how fast the broadband is.

  • IceTrey||

    The first two are great the third about government involvement sucks ass as it always does.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Enjoy being on the wrong side of the equation in your target rich environment during the zombie apocalypse, urbanites.

  • ||

    Zombie apocalypse, nuclear strike, conventional outbreak... hell probably half the stuff Nick frets about at the magazine is averted or ignorable by the majority of people in flyover country.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    they're not flying planes into the piggly wiggly.

  • ThomasD||

    No Piggly Wiggly in my area, but if they start flying planes into the Food Lion I'm not sure anyone would notice.

  • ||

    I often visit my relatives in Bedford County, Tennessee, population 40,000.

    They live just outside the city limits of Shelbyville, population 20,000.

    In their cul-de-sac I think dish TV is the only TV option, aside from streaming.

    I believe my relatives' WifI is tied to that, though from the routers I see on-line that would be available to me if I knew the passwords, I believe neighbors get WiFi from AT&T and other phone companies.

    The Wifi there works at least as well as what I find in Washington, D.C.

  • Ron||

    before the government stepped in and required all TV stations to go digital rural America could pick up all sorts of stations but once it went digital their only choice was satalite tv. Once again government regulations screwing people over.

  • ||

    once it went digital their only choice was satalite tv.

    Not to disagree with your overall point but this transition isn't how you portray it. Many of the stations that used to broadcast in analogue simply transitioned to digital (they were even somewhat responsible for the push to switch). The only transition generally lost or required by the consumer was to switch to digital receiver equipment. For quite some time, the government offered the digital-to-analog converters (DACs) for free.

    My folks (where I grew up) can't get reliable copper-wire beyond POTS of any sort. We didn't lose a single station in the conversion and could probably pick up a few additional ones. They had Hi-Definition OTA programming before satellite providers were offering it.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Many of the stations that used to broadcast in analogue simply transitioned to digital (they were even somewhat responsible for the push to switch).

    This doesn't really help the case for this being an organic change. Existing stations wanted to switch to digital and lobbied for government regulation to remove choice from consumers and erect entry barriers against competition.

  • ||

    It's "free" OTA TV. The "free" should clue you in that there's nothing 'organic' about it. Even when it was purely analogue. You could just as well argue that the analogue consumers (hardly just rural) were using the FCC to extort analogue signal out of broadcast networks long after it had become obsolete bordering on unfit for purpose.

    Either way, the point wasn't that the change was organic. Just that "[My] Stuff was taken away." is an inaccurate portrayal as the stuff was still there and conversion/remuneration was made available, for free, a priori. Your tractor getting painted blue with a bucket of red paint sitting on the driver's seat is in no way synonymous with "My red tractor is missing."

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm in Silicon Valley, but before I got cable, most of my rural red county friends got faster speeds than I did, thank to WiMAX.

    But if you're not streaming HBO titties with zero lag, you're still just an internet peasant.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    da wiki

    Top 10 metro areas in US: 86M people (27% of US population)
    Top 20: 123M (38%)
    Top 30: 147M (46%)
    Top 40: 166M (51%)

    Indeed 50% of the population lives in the top 37 metro areas. Keep in mind the 36th and 37th most populous metro areas are Nashville and Norfolk. So we're not talking huge cities here.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's one reason it's not a very good divider. They should just count what percentage of people are expected to be aided by this.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Have you *been* to Norfolk? It's got close to 250,000 folks next to the largest naval base in the world.

    So sure, it's not the biggest. But it's nowhere close to "rural".

  • IceTrey||

    Nick when your grandparents came here they got nothing. It was make or break. If you want immigration under the same conditions I'm fine with it. Of course the way to end the flow from the south is to end drug prohibition and export liberty. Make their countries better and they will stay there.

  • Homple||

    Trouble is, the entrenched kleptocratic elite who run much of the worlld don't want liberty for their people, they want to stay in power. We've been trying to export liberty since Wilson's Fourteen Points and have nothing to show for it but lots of dead people and pissed-away treasure.

    The bosses running the countries South of the border want an open border with the USA so the unhappy peons can head for the USA and send money home rather than stay where they are and foment revolution.

  • ThomasD||

    Woodrow Wilson and liberty should not be used in the same sentence.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It keeps getting close for Mexico at least. Ending the drug war would probably go a long way. But really, people seem to picture Mexico as some war torn wasteland, when actually it is an incredibly powerful and rich nation.

    Here is a purely anecdotal thing. My friend is Mexican from Mexico and works at the same high tech company as me. We both started right out of college. He is working abroad for fun basically and expects in the next few years to move back home.

    Mexico is not some prison planet to escape from

  • Homple||

    "Mexico is not some prison planet to escape from"

    That depends on whether you're a college graduate working at a high tech American firm or a landless peasant dodging bullets in a drug gang controlled part of the country.

    Mexico is also pretty good about giving people from Central American hellholes safe conduct to the US border. The country doesn't want refugees or asylum seekers. These are either halted at the border or expedited to the USA.

    Problems solved as far as Mexico is concerned.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "...when actually it is an incredibly powerful and rich nation."
    I think you are giving Mexico far too much credit.

    They don't really have a navy, army of air force to defend themselves. Nobody uses Mexican pesos in international currency exchanges. Corruption is rife at all levels. I could go on.

    Mexico is a third world nation. Maybe second world nation if you are being generous but they were not part of the Soviet bloc nations.

  • hello.||

    It's not because they couldn't though. Mexico has the 15th largest economy by GDP in the entire world. Just in remittances they take in more than most other countries entire economies. Mexico has shitty government but it's still a very rich nation comparative to the rest of the world.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Mexico will be the world's 5th largest economy by 2020 and now produce their own hi tech manufacturing (advanced communications and avionics to name but two). The country has very little debt and full employment. Also....TelCel girls.....muy caliente

    /lived in Monterrey...

  • GroundTruth||

    And perhaps, just perhaps, the people in rural areas *want* to be left alone. Did all of the altruists in DC ever think of that? Maybe broadband is nice, but being able to walk out and not have to see the hell that is other humans is its own value.

    Not everyone want broadband. Not everyone wants a 4-lane expressway to take them someplace where they don't want to go. Not everyone wants Washington, or Nashville or Sacramento telling them when to breathe and how to think.

    This is what the ruling powers of both major parties don't get: some people just want to be left alone.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Agreed. Just leave the market to itself.

  • ||

    Not everyone want broadband. Not everyone wants a 4-lane expressway to take them someplace where they don't want to go. Not everyone wants Washington, or Nashville or Sacramento telling them when to breathe and how to think.

    This is what the ruling powers of both major parties don't get: some people just want to be left alone.

    Whenever Nick starts bitching about flyover country, I immediately get the picture of "Libertarians - Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone." and Heinlein's quote, "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." in my head.

    It makes me think that, sometimes, Nick is the kind of guy who would manage to piss off people who are trying to mind their own business.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If rural folks just "want to be left alone", they should probably stop electing politicians that promise to "help" them.

    Or to put it another way... There are no altruists is Washington. Any politician who talks about "helping" rural communities has a rural constituency that is telling them they *want* help.

  • Homple||

    "This is what the ruling powers of both major parties don't get: some people just want to be left alone."

    You'd think that this would be uppermost in the mind of someone writing for a libertarian pubication. It seems not to be the case.

  • Homple||

    ...meant as a reply to GroundTruth.

  • Toots shor||

    City slicker!

  • The_Hoser||

    If Rural Americans Are Being "Left Behind," Why Don't They Just Move?

    Because if we did, we'd have to live next to city assholes.

  • ace_m82||

    Tru, dat...

  • gormadoc||

    I'm not sure if people read the article as closely as they think they did and are really just focusing on the title. The message I'm getting is "If rural Americans are being left behind, why don't they just move? Since they aren't, clearly their lives aren't as shitty as Republicans or Democrats think and they don't need (or want) their help."

    While the article is badly written (the weird Trump and immigration jabs are unnecessary to the point and the prose is clumsy), I think Nick intended to convey that if life was really that bad for these people, they would just move. You see that in poor rural counties in my state; most counties and cities are losing population while the two largest cities are gaining. We don't need to make expensive commitments to them so that they don't move; we shouldn't have to worry about it at all. People who have it good don't need it, people who have it bad aren't going to care, and the small number of people who might waver would be best served by a freer market.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Not all rural people or communities are the same. In poor Appalachian counties sometimes more than half the households in the county receive some form of government assistance. It's just giving these people false hope and discouraging them from taking responsibility.

  • Agammamon||

    "Those towers are going to go up and you're going to have great, great broadband," Trump said, holding up the official order for the audience to see.

    What do these people think broadband is for? Its for *video*. These guys aren't transfering multi-gigabyte project files, they're going to be watching Netflix with it. Rural internet access is already good enough for business and education. All we're doing here is the the equivalent of 'middle-class homes have books so if we buy poor people books they will become middle class'.

    We're going to pay so that farmer Jim-Bob can watch his porn without buffering while he's herding the automated combine around.

  • Cloudbuster||

    True. I don't have land-based broadband. I have satellite internet and it's good enough that I can stream Netflix, download large files and do WebEx conferences for work.

    These rural broadband projects are just socialism -- making other people pay for the costs of extending landline internet to my house. I don't believe I have the right to impose those costs on people. The main benefits I would receive would that it would be cheaper than satellite (serves me right for living in the middle of nowhere) and my latency for online gaming would be way lower (which hardly seems a fair reason for stealing someone else's money)!

  • Cloudbuster||

    True. I don't have land-based broadband. I have satellite internet and it's good enough that I can stream Netflix, download large files and do WebEx conferences for work.

    These rural broadband projects are just socialism -- making other people pay for the costs of extending landline internet to my house. I don't believe I have the right to impose those costs on people. The main benefits I would receive would that it would be cheaper than satellite (serves me right for living in the middle of nowhere) and my latency for online gaming would be way lower (which hardly seems a fair reason for stealing someone else's money)!

  • ||

    What do these people think broadband is for? Its for *video*. These guys aren't transfering multi-gigabyte project files, they're going to be watching Netflix with it. Rural internet access is already good enough for business and education. All we're doing here is the the equivalent of 'middle-class homes have books so if we buy poor people books they will become middle class'.

    We're going to pay so that farmer Jim-Bob can watch his porn without buffering while he's herding the automated combine around.

    And, worse, so that Pajama Boy can stream at full speed and get his socialist net neutrality jollies off on the notion that he's both at the height of modern technology and that everybody he sees from his parent's basement is too.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I live in Appalachia and this is what I always tell people. Appalachian development grants and welfare are incredibly corrosive. They encourage people to stay put and on the dole. They encourage formation of "businesses" that are nothing but schemes to collect grant money.

    The carrying capacity for rural Appalachia just isn't that high and the best thing for people who can't earn a living here is simply to leave. The remaining, much smaller, communities will be healthier for it.

  • ace_m82||

    Governmental intervention always does at least 2 bad things:

    It costs the payer money.

    It creates malinvestment in the economic actor "benefiting".

    And it usually does 1 more bad thing:

    It creates a moral hazard, the economic actor "benefiting" is usually incentivized into doing something bad.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    What you don't recognize is that you're looking at the results of a war on rural life, by the left, who've noticed that only people in cities find their ideas attractive, and so have resolved to force us all into cities.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Cosmotarian: "Let them eat shit and die"

  • PubliusVA||

    The problem is, members of Congress don't get re-elected by telling their constituents "if you're not finding the opportunities you want in this district, maybe you should leave."

  • Eric Bana||

    If someone doesn't suck Trump's cock and love THE WALL!!! (herp), they're a fagotty-ass proggie!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The flip side is that people who love socialist presidents like Obama and want government to force people into doing things they don't want to ARE progressive faggoty asses.

  • hello.||

    Coming from somebody who spent 8 years sucking Obama's big black cock and calls everyone who didn't a racist redneck, go fuck yourself.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Did you ever know that you're my hero?

  • tlapp||

    In modern times broadband is the equivalent of a road in the times of which Gillespie refers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The good news is that the moves by Trump apparently come with no money attached (story of his life, right, promising big changes but keeping his hands in his pockets when the check arrives). That's basically how it should be.
    Nick has too much TDS to admit this is the best possible outcome for free market in supplying broadband and Trump deserves the credit.

  • Eric Bana||

    Nick criticizes Trump's pandering rhetoric and gives him credit for not actually following through with any money.

    Seriously, shouting TDS has become like shouting racism. It gives people fatigue since it's used indiscriminately, thus making people apathetic even to real cases of it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its nothing like calling people racists when they are not.

    The term TDS captures the Trump hysteria perfectly.

    No matter how much Trump rolls back government or does things Libertarin-ish some people got the TDS.

    Jacket is one of them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    A libertarian who supports Trump is just a sheepish right-winger masquerading in unconvincing, garish, libertarian drag.

  • hello.||

    Seriously, shouting TDS has become like shouting racism. It gives people fatigue since it's used indiscriminately, thus making people apathetic even to real cases of it.

    Never stopped you from screaming RACIST every time someone didn't get on their knees to worship chocolate Jesus with you.

  • GeneralWeygand||

    Give it to them hot!!

  • J_L_B||

    I'm surprised Bernie hasn't jumped all over this. This seems like something right up his alley, I can imagine him saying:

    The 1% want you to move to where the corporations need you and get the skills the corporations want. The economy no longer works to serve you, instead you work to serve it and the 1%.

    Trump won with similar, but not as blatant appeals, and the Democrats did little counter that mentality. In 2020, they look like their strategy is gonna be to yell "racism" louder and more often.

  • HTuttle||

    If German Jews Are Being 'Left Behind,' Why Don't They Just Move?

    Nick Gillespie, Nazi

  • loveconstitution1789||

    If Native Americans Are Being 'Left Behind,' Why Don't They Just Move?

    Nick Gillespie, Native Indian hater

  • Hank Ferrous||

    On the flipside, if there are food deserts, horrific misogynistic catcalling and terrible violence in cities, urbanites could just pick up and move, Nick. Or perhaps lower income folks can't simply pick up willy nilly whenever the mood strikes. Yes, the political rhetoric you quote is silly, it's gamesmanship for funds.

  • shawn_dude||

    When your (a my own) ancestors moved thousands of miles to find better opportunities, the majority of honest labor was dependent on your ability to do basic, physical labor. That world is largely gone, though still exists in small, rural pockets of America. Today, your ability to take a risk and move thousands of miles for a job is based more on your skills, experience, and education. If you graduated from high school and went into a profession dependent on physical labor, your opportunities are limited and the risk is higher if you move. Staying put, even as opportunities dwindle, provides you with the security of your friends and family who can be relied on to help out when needed. If you pick up and leave them behind and move to a city full of strangers, you leave your safety net behind. It's harder to relocate for people who aren't in a union or don't have a high paid skill or sought-after college degree.

    What is a rural farmer going to do if they leave their farm and farming community behind?

  • EscherEnigma||

    What is a rural farmer going to do if they leave their farm and farming community behind?
    Become a food industry lobbyist.

  • hello.||

    Exactly. Nick Gillespie the retard thinks that a ranch hand is going to move to NYC (with his good looks and charm, apparently) and then... what, get his series 7 and start with a brokerage on Wall Street?

  • GeneralWeygand||

    "So I reckon these here pork bellies will be great commodities...the kicker is that I read it on the commode..."

  • Earth Skeptic||

    What is a rural farmer going to do if they leave their farm and farming community behind?

    Become anurban transgender community activist and professional protester?

  • Lester224||

    There are more jobs in the cities. The Chinese understood this, which is why a huge number of young people in China moved from farms to cities. Now the centrally controlled economy in China is trying to move industry to the sticks and they have leverage over companies to do this (plus wages are going up on the coasts).

    We can't force industry to move to the sticks. Even if there are all kinds of tax breaks industry won't move to a place where there is little infrastructure. (It makes sense for states to invest in infrastructure in many cases).The people have to move to the industry. If you don't want to be poor, move within commuting distance of the jobs. Of course it's hard to do this if your house won't sell- one reason people are stuck.

  • GroundTruth||

    We can't force industry to move to the sticks. We can't???? What about the Commerce Clause??? Besides, it's for their own good.

  • MOAB Maxine||

    low speed internet, high speed internet, gubbermint speed internet

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Let's just stop all funding for transportation infrastructure to get people more effectively into and out of urban core areas. Let all the money saved stay in the hands of locals.

    I'd guess the now stranded businesses in the urban core would start to be much more reasonable about remote workers, driving investment in satellite offices and faster internet, which would start a boom in support industries, etc...

    Or we can just continue to tax the crap out of everybody and pretend to want to perk the rural folk while our capitols get ever more wealthy.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    Lordy, what bizarre vitriol in these comments. Nick is just reiterating a basic idea - if you're not doing well financially where you currently live, then why not consider somewhere else? I see it playing out every day here in CA where people are moving away because they can't afford to stay in the state - so they're moving to NV or AZ or ID. Farm kids have been leaving Podunk for the big city for generations so they can go to college or get a career; there's no reason why their parents or grandparents can't think about doing the same thing.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, that is exactly what Nick is going on about.

    IOW shouting at clouds.

  • Guy Montag||

    Nick traded his early days in Buffalo for the Lou Reed Metrosexual gig, and the rest is history.

    Memo to Rural Hayseeds: Get a Leather Jacket and join the cool kids!!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Government has always built water, sewage, power, transportation, and communication infrastructure.

    Natural public goods. All tending toward natural monopolies. All using eminent domain. All with rules of the road for shared use.

    Rural broadband is a sensible and legitimate government enterprise. In this case, it really is about interstate commerce.

  • gulali||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online