> I understand that it has to be done to make the world work but it absolutely disproportionally effects rural people while the benefits go to the urban areas.
This seems like a bit of a stretch. The usage of extremely tiny portions of rural land for infrastructure pales in comparison to the ludicrously large subsidies of rural areas by urban areas.
> ludicrously large subsidies of rural areas by urban areas
Which subsidies are you referring to? The department of agriculture does have subsidies, but they measure in the (<10) billions which I don’t think we can call ludicrously large in comparison.
I'm mostly just talking about tax revenue versus public spending, since that's probably the easiest to get objective numbers for. But of course it's still going to depend on where you draw the line between "urban" and "rural" (I would probably want to look at dense urban centers versus everything else). With a quick Google you can find a bunch of studies showing that urban areas subsidize rural areas as well as a bunch of articles "debunking" those studies, so I'm sure anyone can find the conclusion they were looking for.
There is also subtler stuff that isn't exactly "subsidy" but is perhaps suggestive of societal conflict between urban and rural areas, for example vastly disproportionate political representation (in the United States).
This seems like a bit of a stretch. The usage of extremely tiny portions of rural land for infrastructure pales in comparison to the ludicrously large subsidies of rural areas by urban areas.