NationStates Jolt Archive

i was thinking... wouldn't it be better if the world went back to how it was run before empires, with small city states. with each city being a sovereign body which trades with the countryside around it which would effectively be no-man's-land.
by compressing the country down to the size of a city, government could be significantly simplified, voting would be logistically perfect with only a hand-full of polling stations needed, welfare would be a lot more applicable and policing and border-control would be a hell of a lot easier.
as for the rural areas, they'd support themselves from the agricultural industry, which would be the only real place where you could get truly rich without eing heavily taxed, and if ever a peasant felt like they weren't getting anywhere, they head off to the city.
but for me, the best advantage would be the dissolution of nationalism. national pride always needs that leap of imagination for you to realise that the land you stand on has ideals and character, and with some people taking that leap then justifies evil deeds. with a city state, there's no such leap as it's fairly evident that you're part of something bigger so it'd probably reduce war quite considerably.

That's what Hong Kong is now, I guess. And the government is not running too efficiently nowadays, maybe because of increased meddling from Beijing. Therefore:

1. city state with no central government: constant feuding between them(natural sense to increase wealth, territory and population)

2. city state with central government: constant meddling from above (meaning less freedom and more bureaucracy)

neither of which is preferable to large extents :?

There is also Monaco and San Marino and the Vatican is a city state.

i was thinking... wouldn't it be better if the world went back to how it was run before empires, with small city states. with each city being a sovereign body which trades with the countryside around it which would effectively be no-man's-land.
by compressing the country down to the size of a city, government could be significantly simplified, voting would be logistically perfect with only a hand-full of polling stations needed, welfare would be a lot more applicable and policing and border-control would be a hell of a lot easier.
as for the rural areas, they'd support themselves from the agricultural industry, which would be the only real place where you could get truly rich without eing heavily taxed, and if ever a peasant felt like they weren't getting anywhere, they head off to the city.
but for me, the best advantage would be the dissolution of nationalism. national pride always needs that leap of imagination for you to realise that the land you stand on has ideals and character, and with some people taking that leap then justifies evil deeds. with a city state, there's no such leap as it's fairly evident that you're part of something bigger so it'd probably reduce war quite considerably.

**laughs** quaint, but ultimately futile. Look into the city-states of ancient Italy, the autonomous cities of France, or even the tribe and village based societies of any nation you care to look into. Their histories are not those of peace. They are those of near-constant war. Nationalism is just the latest way of describing peoples' abilities to go to war for just about anything. Little would be gained by shrinking our borders to our city limits, just banding together for world conflict could be seen as a small improvement really...

i was thinking... wouldn't it be better if the world went back to how it was run before empires, with small city states. with each city being a sovereign body which trades with the countryside around it which would effectively be no-man's-land.
by compressing the country down to the size of a city, government could be significantly simplified, voting would be logistically perfect with only a hand-full of polling stations needed, welfare would be a lot more applicable and policing and border-control would be a hell of a lot easier.
as for the rural areas, they'd support themselves from the agricultural industry, which would be the only real place where you could get truly rich without eing heavily taxed, and if ever a peasant felt like they weren't getting anywhere, they head off to the city.
but for me, the best advantage would be the dissolution of nationalism. national pride always needs that leap of imagination for you to realise that the land you stand on has ideals and character, and with some people taking that leap then justifies evil deeds. with a city state, there's no such leap as it's fairly evident that you're part of something bigger so it'd probably reduce war quite considerably.

**laughs** quaint, but ultimately futile. Look into the city-states of ancient Italy, the autonomous cities of France, or even the tribe and village based societies of any nation you care to look into. Their histories are not those of peace. They are those of near-constant war. Nationalism is just the latest way of describing peoples' abilities to go to war for just about anything. Little would be gained by shrinking our borders to our city limits, just banding together for world conflict could be seen as a small improvement really...
I disagree, Niccolo. War just isn't profitable between industrialised nations. War between Glasgow and Edinburgh is unthinkable, it would ruin everyone. Such cities would be more likely to form alliances against outsiders. Note that back then large nations went to war as well as the small cities. The only consideration is whether they'd go to war more than under a different system.

I disagree, Niccolo. War just isn't profitable between industrialised nations. War between Glasgow and Edinburgh is unthinkable, it would ruin everyone. Such cities would be more likely to form alliances against outsiders. Note that back then large nations went to war as well as the small cities. The only consideration is whether they'd go to war more than under a different system.

I've heard that before. It was touted before WW2 started, "War is not profitable anymore, just look at how much the arms race costs! We'll eventually abandon it entirely!"

Industrialized nations can make war profitable rather easily:
1) Loot what you've taken over
2) Create informal restrictions on warfare (ie rules of war) to decrease damage done to industry
3) Create industry and economies based partially or entirely on warfare (mortitians, manufacturers, machinists)

My question to you is this; if these cities declare alliances with one another against outside hostile forcess...would that not be similar to a loose confederation of states banding together for mutual protection?

Such loose alliances would ultimately lead to increased ties between cities, which in turn would lead to increased homogeniety in the two peoples, who then try to form a larger governing body to manage all those increased flows of goods and people between the two cities, until they united out of convenience into a...nation state? It just might happen!

I disagree, Niccolo. War just isn't profitable between industrialised nations. War between Glasgow and Edinburgh is unthinkable, it would ruin everyone. Such cities would be more likely to form alliances against outsiders. Note that back then large nations went to war as well as the small cities. The only consideration is whether they'd go to war more than under a different system.

I've heard that before. It was touted before WW2 started, "War is not profitable anymore, just look at how much the arms race costs! We'll eventually abandon it entirely!"

Industrialized nations can make war profitable rather easily:
1) Loot what you've taken over
2) Create informal restrictions on warfare (ie rules of war) to decrease damage done to industry
3) Create industry and economies based partially or entirely on warfare (mortitians, manufacturers, machinists)

My question to you is this; if these cities declare alliances with one another against outside hostile forcess...would that not be similar to a loose confederation of states banding together for mutual protection?

Such loose alliances would ultimately lead to increased ties between cities, which in turn would lead to increased homogeniety in the two peoples, who then try to form a larger governing body to manage all those increased flows of goods and people between the two cities, until they united out of convenience into a...nation state? It just might happen!
At the risk of drawing more fire I should point out I'm an anarcho-capitalist, not a statist. But I think city states would be better than nation states.

WW2 certainly wasn't profitable! It was a hangover from imperialism. Just look how unthinkable war in western Europe is today. If war between city states broke out at least we'd be spared the horrors of large scale inter state war. The military industrial complex is a drain on the economy, not a boost to it. You might as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in again. It creates jobs but not wealth.

A loose confederation is preferable to a single alliance. Do you think Nato will become a single nation state anytime soon? It might happen but it might not.

Competition works between states as well as in the economy. With lots of states you'll find cities increasing liberty and lowering taxes in order to attract the more talented people. Decentralised power is how liberalism arose as a movement.

Back to good old feudalism? Well, I might want to run my patch of the world one day.

At the risk of drawing more fire I should point out I'm an anarcho-capitalist, not a statist. But I think city states would be better than nation states.

WW2 certainly wasn't profitable! It was a hangover from imperialism. Just look how unthinkable war in western Europe is today. If war between city states broke out at least we'd be spared the horrors of large scale inter state war. The military industrial complex is a drain on the economy, not a boost to it. You might as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in again. It creates jobs but not wealth.

A loose confederation is preferable to a single alliance. Do you think Nato will become a single nation state anytime soon? It might happen but it might not.

Competition works between states as well as in the economy. With lots of states you'll find cities increasing liberty and lowering taxes in order to attract the more talented people. Decentralised power is how liberalism arose as a movement.

Forgive my ignorance on this, but just what is a statist? I'm not sure I've even heard of that political ideology before.

On that subject, I hasten to mention that ideology is a good thing, but it needs to be grounded in a practical basis. City-states do not have a historical precedence for mutual cooperation in the absence of hostile outside forces. Those that do unite also tend to become more expansionistic as they look for places to increase their trade.

WW2 wasn't profitable to mankind, but it was profitable to those who took advantage of the war for personal gain. Look at how some industries and business groups got their big start in the war, if you want for an example; try Boeing. Induviduals can make a fortune in war just by having the right goods at the right time and selling dearly; this personal gain is what makes war profitable for some.

While that kind of personal gain from war is unpopular; it nevertheless exists and people have been known to start wars for personal gain in the past. Moreover, small "brushfire" wars take great human toll but have little effect on industry; an increase in small states would lead to many, smaller wars. There would be less time in between wars to have peace because the industries that support war would not be interrupted.

Nato might not, but what happened in the Warsaw pact they united for a time right? What about the Romans and Greeks in ancient times? It was precisely the industrial revolution that centralized power throughout France as well.

Actually, if you look more closely at the historical record, you'll find that liberalism arose from the increasing power of centralized authority within the government. The call to liberalism was from those who stood to lose when a unwieldly beuracracy dictated economic standards to the experienced merchants of the time. Liberalism as a whole was a protest movement against increased political involvement in the growing economic world.

City States would not really work. Take the US for example, which city owns the nuclear weapons? Who gets the tanks? Microsoft would own several city states. Power grid problems would be bad with every city having their own grid pollution would go up. Standards, manufacturing. Each city state having their own pollution standards? What fun.

City States would not really work. Take the US for example, which city owns the nuclear weapons? Who gets the tanks? Microsoft would own several city states. Power grid problems would be bad with every city having their own grid pollution would go up. Standards, manufacturing. Each city state having their own pollution standards? What fun.

the real question is who would want the nukes, they would just be grossly impractical in a city state, who would you threaten them against? i guess the tanks would be sold by whichever city state had them to whichever city state wants them.
power grid problems wouldn't be much of an issue really, as there wouldn't be so much interconnections.
each city would have its own standards yes, but you'd just have to trust them to be sensical, although ultimately, it would simplify things.

City States would not really work. Take the US for example, which city owns the nuclear weapons? Who gets the tanks? Microsoft would own several city states. Power grid problems would be bad with every city having their own grid pollution would go up. Standards, manufacturing. Each city state having their own pollution standards? What fun.

the real question is who would want the nukes, they would just be grossly impractical in a city state, who would you threaten them against? i guess the tanks would be sold by whichever city state had them to whichever city state wants them.
power grid problems wouldn't be much of an issue really, as there wouldn't be so much interconnections.
each city would have its own standards yes, but you'd just have to trust them to be sensical, although ultimately, it would simplify things.

So you would trust my city state with nukes? With pollution control? Hmmm?

The state should be abolished. Instead of city states, we should have communes.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

This is moronic on so many levels, I can't even begin to describe it..