Alright. Here goes it.
Here's just the bare bones skeleton summary. I actually did pull it right out of my ass after a night of no sleep recently, yet if any step in it can't be overwhelmingly demonstrated on the Internet or by the appropriate source, I highly feel this argument can be adjusted slightly and virtually all conclusions will be the same. I have lots to back up each step, and I have a lot more up my sleeve after this.
industrial revolution occured -> population increased -> population got more dense -> denser population required denser resources there to live -> denser population also has less ability to generate basic resources internally -> intellectual resources are generally-speaking limited the same amount (yes I know they're unlimited but practically speaking they can be made at a finite accelerating rate)-> denser population must therefore live more off of rural areas as business to sustain itself -> people in rural areas can make business off urban areas the same as vice versa -> denser population must be more organized than rural areas to successfully gain their money -> denser populations are more professional and distribute the necessary network over a more determined nature -> people have less control over who they associate with as a matter of life and death and less intimacy to say, "Hey I need $5999 to get through the year." -> everyone is more professional from the street babbler to the corporate ceo (more schizophrenia too, another detriment to finding work and very expensive to treat) -> less resources means less safety nets -> people starve if not for more organization -> they demand liberal government, the more dense the more liberal -> they never get it due to average of voters, which causes massive damage, and conservatives in rural areas complain about too much government which is relatively like an unfair speed limit sign or taking down a crucifix on the highway to them -> dense population is underfunded in organization and government, allowing more crime, also allowed by inherently knowing a smaller percentage of the population -> the government must be more underground -> the government must use more deception in its running candidates to win, and more deception to run government (as everyone must use more deception call it professionalism if you would like. It may not be deception it just has to be the natural force sucking the rural areas dry of money when they are no more or less inherently intelligent) -> denser populations mean more money thrown at paralyzing the intellect of elected officials to overwhelm them on deciding issues -> less intimacy means less voter knowledge to judge -> also its like there is more density in the government itself, allowing more crime thereby -> the people at the bottom thank their lucky stars for the government as it is all that keeps them alive, and can't understand why libertarians and conservatives want them dead -> George Bush has nerves of steel! -> Kofi Annan!!. Government corruption I believe is mathematically balanced with corporate corruption as well as individual corruption, all just a function of what it is. -> the corruption is inherent in the size and agreed to by voters, it's just that they drive the size of their government by population density. -> As population density grows in variance, and it always does, the ever denser populations will be more left in the dark in terms of having enough government -> which, having nothing at all to do with Malthus, is why more and more will starve.
Big cities sell nothing but information. (What else comes out of them and that doesn't come in?) They buy legal goods from small towns, slap on information, and sell it back. They are completely at the mercy of the red areas. They sell information to small towns.
Now you can argue the statistics, but the fact that all the most densely populated areas vote liberal is undeniable. The reason is pretty well established by this argument, if they can't get more organization they can't sustain themselves because they inherently have less resources internally and less intimacy, and more and more will starve. One solution is for a president to run a campaign of big government for big cities and small government for small towns. I feel he'd/she'd get elected in a landslide. But if you can't do that, please realize that the big cities are the ones where the people suffer. Massively insufficient government is a humongous problem. Minorly overgoverning is just a minor inconvenience. So if we can't reach a compromise, I urge you to vote liberal for the sake of the real sufferers. Go to downtown Detroit, LA, NYC, Chicago, or Las Vegas and you'll see.
Oh, and this I believe is the one and only reason I will accept for why any liberal hates Wal-Mart. Nothing else accounts for it. Because they compete against big cities, to help those rural areas who both need and want absolutely no help, to damage those urban areas who both need and want the profits desperately. Liberals don't derive their living from communism. They have to be capitalists too. And Wal-Mart competes against liberals.
