Comment by autoexec

> If you choose to live out in the middle of nowhere you’re going to have to pay for all kinds of expensive infrastructure or do without.

Naturally, people realize that the farther out they get the worse their infrastructure will be. That doesn't mean the US can't or shouldn't set some minimum standards for what's acceptable. Most people think it's pretty reasonable for every American to have access to broadband. Its in everyone's best interest to make sure all Americans can get online. One nice benefit is that people will be able to spread out a little more and still work from home. That means fewer cars on the road, and fewer harmful emissions hurting the environment. Eliminating the need for commutes will be especially helpful in remote areas because their commutes are often longer than average.

I suspect that at a certain point the US will need to start policing where people are allowed to live more aggressively, but rather than trying to get people to move into dense cities to save a little money in the short term I hope it's used to try to limit the number of people living in a given area according to its biocapacity. Encouraging people to leave areas we expect will be hit hardest by frequent flooding, or fires, or droughts would be helpful too. We waste a lot money rebuilding over and over after predictable events. I can't blame the US government for treading lightly though. People aren't used to the idea of being told that they have to leave their homes and move, let alone being told exactly what parts of the country they have to move to. Probably best to start with people legally immigrating. I'm sure a lot of people would jump at the chance to move to the US even if they weren't assigned their preferred location within in.