Government should incentivize living in an urban area and disincentivize living in rural areas unless you're actual farmers or need to be there for some reason.
Are you of a fan of Ceausescu's Systematization?
Then, when those "decretei" babies reached adulthood, they were an integral part of removing Ceausescu from this earth.
In the US at least getting people to live in urban areas would be a good thing. Overall consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl. We could build much better effective public transit systems that would hopefully decrease car use. Would provide easier access to jobs and concentration of labor for businesses. No real reason for people to live in rural areas.
Wait...what?
I'm all for more public transit and a better environment, but this argument doesn't make sense at all.
Urban areas are the sprawl. Dallas-Fort Worth is one example of many. Our urban area has sprawled so large that it now takes over an hour to get from one part to the other. Is that a good example of "consolidation of services, less environmental destruction due to sprawl" and "decreased car use"? No. What you are likely referring to is people moving to the cities. The problem with that; however, is that in many urban cores the cities are already packed. For this reason, people move to the sprawling suburbs in the same urban area when they want to move away from a rural area.
Making more people move to an urban area won't solve the problem. It'll become the problem.
I don't mean urban area as in how the census department defines it, so no, suburban isn't urban. I mean dense city cores with condo/apartment towers or inner ring burbs, not the sprawl you're describing.
Read the bold. 
There is nothing "packed" about Dallas (3,876/sq mi), Fort Worth (2,181.0/sq mi), or Houston (3,660/sq mi). The contention that these places are congested entirely because of car-centered sprawl is entirely correct.
