Hacker News Reader

Comment by criddell | Hacker News Reader

> The sad part of democracy is that it aims to represent the views of the voting majority.

That's warped by the fact that rural votes count more than urban votes thanks to the electoral college.

And the Senate. But another question I don't see answered much is, why are rural blocs so different in their moral stance from urban ones, and what can we learn from it?

Cultural path dependence? Rural voters in places like Vermont are maybe not so different in moral stance from urban voters.

Nothing. There is no equivalency, there is nothing to learn from it. Rural block voters can go about not getting same-sex marriages and not getting abortions and it won't impact anyone else, just like other people having same sex marriages and getting abortions doesn't impact them, aside from their desire to control how other people live their lives.

edit: My point - since it seems I was not clear - is "rural" people that object to the activities that Roe, Lawrence, Olbergefell, and Griswold allowed can individually decide to not do those things. They should not be able to compel other people to make the same decisions. Abortion was correctly determined to be a federal right. So are same-sex marriage, contraceptives access, and the choice to have oral or anal sex (that's literally what Thomas explicitly talks about wanting to overturn, the right to engage in "sodomy" as determined in Lawrence vs Texas). People that don't like these things should NOT DO THEM and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

> Nothing. There is no equivalency. Rural block voters can go about not getting same-sex marriages and not getting abortions and it won't impact anyone else, just like other people having same sex marriages and getting abortions doesn't impact them, aside from their desire to control how other people live their lives.

That's libertarian BS that misunderstands moral beliefs about collective "how society should be" as individualist "what actions I take." It's also usually hypocritical, as I'm guessing you wouldn't be fine with rural county clerks going about not registering same-sex marriages, since it "doesn't impact you."

> That's libertarian BS that misunderstands moral beliefs about collective "how society should be" as individualist "what actions I take."

This is you dictating how I behave - which I find a much larger pile of BS, personally.

> It's also usually hypocritical, as I'm guessing you wouldn't be fine with rural county clerks going about not registering same-sex marriages, since it "doesn't impact you."

This is not fucking hypocritical - once is a personal moral belief, that a person is welcome to either choose or not (abortion). The other is a clearly defined job you have been hired to do.

It is not hypocritical to insist that you do the job you are being paid to do - even if you disagree with parts of it. If you disagree so strongly that you feel you cannot do the job - Great. Stop fucking doing it.

> This is you dictating how I behave - which I find a much larger pile of BS, personally.

Societies dictate how their members behave in significant ways according to moral beliefs. It's always been that way and it always will be. The libertarian solution is BS in this context, because it appeals to libertarian morals that aren't actually held by the people who are being complained about.

> Societies dictate how their members behave in significant ways according to moral beliefs.

Of course they do - what we're arguing about is how we divide the pie. How much of your time and actions do you owe to society for the privilege of being a member.

I thought, as an American, it was fairly clear that we had decided that I owe you no part of the pie regarding my religion (1st) nor do I owe you any right to unreasonably search my body or possessions (4th).

I actually think we literally wrote those things in the MOST BASIC FUCKING CONTRACT we have that spells out how we expect our society members to behave. We call it the constitution.

Additionally I think that vast majority of the members of this society have decided that not only should we be secure in our right against unreasonable searches of body/home/possessions/mind stemming from religious bullshit, we should also be secure in our right to have confidential conversations with the people we literally trust our lives to: Doctors, Lawyers, Priests.

So when you say that my libertarian solution is BS - I'm a tad confused, where exactly did I get this wrong?

What part of this is not religious bullshit dictating how I behave, in a private setting where we have decided you don't get a fucking say? The only people who get a say are the woman who is dealing with the situation, her doctor, and the tiny pile of cells inside her. Turns out the tiny pile of cells makes a really shite debater, and it's only alive because it's sucking energy out of the lady.

So if, for example - that tiny pile of cells is killing the lady, or is going to die inside the lady either way, or is going to be born and then die shortly after, or fuck it... even if the lady just doesn't feel like letting it stay inside her anymore. I think that's a decision she can make for herself. With her doctors help. And without you nosing in like a fucking asshole.

I'm pretty sure that's the expectation for almost every other case of this. Why is this one different? Where did I misread the contract?

What about their minor children? What about their minor children who have been raped (possibly by their parents or relatives)? Sadly, these are not theoretical concerns

If I were to take their words at face value, this group considers abortion to be murder. Because I don’t expect an argument of the form “if you don’t like murder, don’t do it” to have a good outcome, I would instead focus on the fact that in all other regards bodily autonomy is so important that we are not obligated to perform even safe procedures such as donating blood in order to save the lives of others, and indeed this respect for bodily autonomy (in the USA) also extends to organ donation after death being opt-in rather than opt-out.

Not to be harsh, but who cares what they think? Other major religions differ, and flat out contradict these viewpoints. It's a question of someone's religious doctrine, not federal law. We don't favor a particular religious viewpoints in the US - that is explicitly in the Constitution.

And people wonder why decisions can be made and polarization continues to increase.

"Who cares what they think indeed"

They believe they should dictate the behavior of other people, that's fundamentally asymmetrical to the counterpoint. The "other side" is not advocating compulsory abortions, they are advocating individual freedom to make a deeply personal decision. The people that want to ban abortion for all people are taking away rights from people they disagree with. Who cares what they think, indeed.

If I want to disband and illegalize the Southern Baptist Convention because I sincere believe they are heretics, who cares about my sincerely held beliefs about what others should do? I should should just not go to a Southern Baptist church.

This group happens to have enough power that saying "who cares what they think" leads to them doing exactly what you don't want them to do. The only way I know to reduce that power while retaining your system of government is to make an argument which actually convinces them, which requires you to care what they think, both in order to understand their motivations well enough to actually construct an argument with this effect, and as an indicator of how much progress you're making with it.

Their response would be that it isn’t that simple. That baker in Colorado (I think it was Colorado?) who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding was sued. Republicans see this and say that it isn’t as simple as not participating in an action since you will still be forced to do things against your conscience.

Pardon me, you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

"In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality."

Urban populations tend to include more low-income earners, who are more likely to favor receiving more assistance from their government, as such is likely to increase their quality of life. Rural blocks tend to earn enough to live independently and provide for themselves, so their QOL is likely to increase more with taxes being lowered rather than assistance programs they'd be means-tested against (or at least presume they would be).

There are plenty of rural poor, but providing services to them is logistically difficult.

But there tend to be fewer rural poor per-capita compared to rural middle/upper class per-capita, which is why election maps tend to show blocks of blue in metro areas with red elsewhere.

Income and voting patterns are much less correlated than other factors. Income differences do not explain the rural-urban divide. The highest income counties in the US are... not red.

I wonder if churches take up the slack of providing social services in rural areas, increasing their sway in rural communities ...

Red States (made of rural blocks) collect FAR more federal subsidies per capita than blue states. Practically every blue state contributes positively to the federal budget while practically every red state siphons federal funds, ie. "welfare."

there seems to be, broadly, an inherent difference in mindset in populations based upon their densities.

That rural voters live different lives than urban voters? There isn't much commonality between them, other than almost everyone agrees they want the government to keep its nose out of their business.

I moved from an urban are to a rural one. I now constantly feel like the rules of the county (permiting and all that) are being decided by people who have no clue whatsoever what it's like to live where I do. On top of this, you get people who are into doing things like redrawing the districts so that each one has an equal representation based on superficial characteristics like skin color while ignoring more pressing things like geography concerning wildfires and infrastructure. It's definitely a "clueless city folk trying to legislate things they don't understand" vibe.

That said, my moral/political stances haven't changed much, in fact I'm becoming more radical as time goes on. Who knows if it's because of living here or if it would have happened in the city anyway. Probably a mix.

Valid concern. You don't like being told what to do with your body/property by someone else that doesn't understand those concerns, and isn't impacted by their own decisions. It seems like you would have a lot of empathy for all the women who are in the same position today.

Yes, I do have a lot of empathy for them. I think the original Roe vs Wade decision was probably the best moral and legal compromise we could have made, and the fact that people take issue with it says more about their twisted need to control or shame others than their supposed moral fortitude. This is a dark day for a lot of people and an upsetting signal for the direction the country is moving. I'm not thrilled about it.

speaking quickly with broad strokes that really have a lot more underlying nuance than im implying:

there is a greater sharing of ideas in urban locations. more progression happens. they fail to spread the progression to rural locations.

It is a dynamic and evolving ecosystem and we are failing to educate and / or motivate rural locations to care about these things properly.

Instead urban culture usually acts superior, makes demands, and assume what they believe should be obvious and by not coming to the same conclusions immediately during a confrontation that means rural people are evil.

Rural people double down on the beliefs because at the end of the day nothing really matters and they might as well stick to something that gives them a sense of belonging since they very obviously do not belong with urban culture.

Just because people don't share your worldview doesn't mean they're uneducated or that education is the way to change their minds.

"...at the end of the day nothing really matters..." is the exact kind of worldview that rural people would prefer stay in the cities. If by "educating" me, you want to make me into a solipsistic nihilist, you can keep your education to yourself.

The only education in this thread that I would like to distill onto the rural populations is that Freedom of Choice does not take away your ability to have babies on whatever terms you want, nor does it remove your ability form a community with like minded people where abortions are frowned upon and everyone agrees not to get them and anyone who does is exiled from the community.

It does however mean someone has the right to choose whether or not they want to be a part of your community, and takes away your ability to use state and federal resources to enforce your choice as being more important than someone else's choice.

One, your choices also affect the people around you. Two, before the overturn, state and federal resources have been used to enforce and support those who choose to abort their babies, which is just the mirror of what you said, which negates your argument from that point. Three, all that happened is that now it becomes a state issue rather than a federal issue. Don't like your state? Move. Need an abortion but can't in your state? Get a flight or hop in a car.

> Don't like your state? Move. Need an abortion but can't in your state? Get a flight or hop in a car.

Texas and Missouri would like a word.

Texas: snitch on someone who had an abortion anywhere, and get paid.

Missouri: "Conspiracy to commit an abortion" is now a crime. The conspiracy happens when you get in your car or book the flight.

In my initial post I was obviously aware that I was not going to paint a perfect picture of my opinion in this text forum. but sure, ill bite.

One - no shit, pro-choice has considerably less consequences on the people around you than pro life does.

Two - Nothing is invalidated, I made a sound argument that you are free to disagree with using your own sound argument. Using resources to support someones choice is not the same as using resources to take away someones choice. Abortion can be legal, and your state can still control to what extent resources will be used to support it.

Three - Yes I understand. I directed my previous message at rural people. the ones who decide on the laws. However, you advocate for people to go get an abortion in another state. that is pro-choice in spirit, isnt it? Why do you care if they cross a state border to get an abortion? If you are pro-choice, dont you want your state law to reflect that?

>Need an abortion but can't in your state? Get a flight or hop in a car.

except for the fact that "your" state can put you in jail for committing a crime if you do this.

I agree though that people should try to leave the state (entirely) if it has unagreeable laws and the majority in that state wants to preserve them. I also think the prolifers in my state should stop standing outside planned parenthood and move to a different state also. It's pretty dumb that people try to be a part of their community and improve it rather than move somewhere that already agrees with them, right?

Who pays the bills?

(UK: we have similar issues about 'left behind' towns who are heavily subsidised by large cities)

A large part of the rural working class don’t have the right to vote, because they are migrant workers. And even if they do have the right to vote, they have don’t have any real chance of electing someone that represents their interests. Political candidates tend towards the owning class and tend to cater to the owning class.

Then when you don’t have a chance to vote for someone that represents your interests, your second best chance is voting for someone that matches your ideology. And ideology can be easily persuaded. The democratic party’s ideology obviously matches the ideology of the business class (or the coastal elite if you will), so what you are left with is the republican party. And ideology is easily persuaded so you start believing in the conservative talking points they use to pursue your vote.

And the Supreme Court. For each Supreme Court justice, have a look at the portion of voters who voted for the president who appointed them and the senators who confirmed them.

The urban vs. rural thing is so extreme I really feel like more effort needs to be put into understanding it. There really are no red states or blue states. There are states with more urbanized populations that tilt blue and states with more rural populations that tilt red. There are very few exceptions.

And those few exceptions are in the context of socialists or socialist lites who successfully appealed to agrarian voters over economic issues. Social issues are never a winning play for dems with rural voters

I grew up in rural Utah with plenty of religious conservatives. I spent 3 hours a week in church with them.

Now I live in SLC.

I've gotten to know a lot of different people and their perspectives.

Some are obsessively political, and no doubt will be celebrating this decision. They will spend 3 hours congratulating each other for it the day after tomorrow.

Others are quietly moderate. They believe in many of the same Christian values, but don't see it as government's place to enforce them.

A few are more loudly moderate. They will take the time to present a different perspective and actually argue for it.

The combination of these three creates a social dynamic that supports anti-abortion legislation and other conservative political goals. Despite it not being the desire of every person in the community, that is what the community at large will support politically. Those who disagree don't have the means or support to be represented.

Meanwhile, in the city, I walk around the corner to the trax station, and see a handful of homeless people going about their lives. They ask for help finding their way to court or therapy. They ask for change because they can't get it on their own.

What I have learned is that rural conservative communities are self serving. Conservative ideas are promoted, represented, congratulated, etc. Critical perspectives are either silently held, or spoken to deaf ears.

The fallout of conservatism can't make a home there, and must instead walk away to the city where she can beg for begrudgingly given change.

No, the Senate represents each state equally. Everyone seems to confuse the Senate and the House of Representatives and what each represents.

California has two orders of magnitude more people than Wyoming. I’m not sure they should have equal senate power.

Because the Senate represents the state, not the population of the state. That is why California has more representatives. Every state is equal in the Senate. This is basic civics.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31864204.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com