Originally Posted by spence
People seem to be missing the obvious, that the city is where a lot of the money is, the jobs are and this caused a lot of population density that persists today.
This paragraph is totally circular. Did population density occur because there was a lot of money and jobs in a lowly populated city and that attracted a density of newcomers, or, ipso facto, large numbers of people means more money and jobs.
A lot of people living in close confines requires different rules than in the country. A city is an inherently dense system, where in the country it's much easier to live by your own rules. An example of this might be restrictive handgun laws, which to a moderate might make more sense in a city than in the country.
You, of course, mean a large city of relatively small area. There are smaller cities that are not as dense a system and a bit larger ones that sprawl a bit. Unfortunately, laws are promulgated in uniform codes. That is, the country and city have to abide by the same laws. Close confines are a relative concept as well. The concept might more aptly apply to large families or tenants living in the same housing, or to a lesser degree to compacted housing that is not indicative of all large cities, nor to every district of our large cities in the U.S.
The needs of the city aligns better with some pure liberal values (that our strength comes from the village, which is nearly intrinsic) than perhaps pure conservative values (that our strength comes from the individual).
Of course, villages, by definition, are small "usually ranking in size between a hamlet and a town." Many, if not most small towns are of conservative persuasion. It seems that your perspective lends itself to a divergence from the views of our founding fathers.
Certainly if everybody shared the same high ethical convictions, this may not be the case. But in the real world, biasing towards the rights of the individual could easily prove disastrous in the city. Granted, there are some who advocate if everybody had a gun, there would be no crime, but I think this view is wacky.
It sounds like your concept of a city is like that of a commune. Almost marxist. "biasing towards the right of the individual" no matter the size of his community is, I think, what was meant by a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given that any group of people have differing personalities and pursuits, to constrain them to the ant hill of a group contradicts what we have been about for three hundred years. I understand that extreme leftists want to change that (even for folks who live in the country), but to be so open about it is a bit frightening. If we can divide now, not only by race, sex, financial status, but by city and country, how will we stand?
I don't think anybody advocates that if everybody had a gun there would be no crime. Gun advocates argue that those who have guns can better defend themselves against criminals who have guns. Whether this would lower crime rates is not the question. As for murder, Switzerland, which may have the highest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #56 our of 62 in murders per capita. The UK, which may have close to the lowest percentage of gun ownership, ranks #46 out of 62 in murders per capita.
None of this is meant as an excuse for bad behavior, but rather how things may have come to be. I'd also note that both parties have a habit for hypocrisy and a base attracted often to less universal qualities.
-spence
|