NationStates Jolt Archive

*I'm going to bed after I post this so I'll respond when I get up*

A few NSG posters and I were talking (I forgot who they are on here) the other day about what would happen if the United States dissolved the Federal Government as well as the State Governments, and instead became a land filled with Community-State. Basically you have a group of people who live in a town like setting with clear borders and that town is it's own independent Community-State. This means that every Community-States could trade with each other, have their own style of government, economy, etc. and yes because they are independent they can also wage war on each other. So the question I propose to NSG are the following.

1. Would you want to live in such a system?
2. If yes, what kind of community would you want to live in?

For me, I actually would love this idea because then everyone can get the type of community that they want, get the government, economy, society that they want and be happy.

As for the type of community, I would like to live in a Libertarian style community.

I'm all for federalism, but the national government does serve some purpose. And having the basics of government remain consistent from state to state makes things easier, in terms of commerce and individual activities.

Nightmarish logistics and book-keeping, but do-able given enough resources and technology.

I'm prone a more nationalistic apporach.

This "Community-State" idea is interesting, but it would be better applied to pseudo-communism than libertarianism. I don't think it's as simple as saying that everyone could plausibly have the government that they wanted, because that simply would not materialise on the ground. For this system to work, the entire United States would really need to be fairly rural, to have a similar climate, and to have an equal population distribution. Otherwise, it wouldn't work at all, because you would have enormous cities and vast empty areas to deal with. It would really just be a return to tribalism.

Fabulous idea. Russia could then safely declare war on Community State of Alaska and get back what it sold for peanuts.
And religious whackos could found their own Community States to screw their large families legally. There's no law to stop them anymore.
Oh, wait, the offended neighbours could declare war on them to stop the abuse. And convert them to communism. Or veganism. Or just kill them all on general principles and get their land.
Go for it, I'm buying popcorn :)
EDIT: Sorry, but I'm leaving town and I'll be unable to respond. But you get the idea of what I think.

Unless you have free trade and open borders, it would just be a lot of small countries. And that doesn't necessarily work out too well.

"The Italian Federation considers the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist programme, the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption which corresponds to the principle of solidarity."

Italian autonomism ftw

*I'm going to bed after I post this so I'll respond when I get up*

A few NSG posters and I were talking (I forgot who they are on here) the other day about what would happen if the United States dissolved the Federal Government as well as the State Governments, and instead became a land filled with Community-State. Basically you have a group of people who live in a town like setting with clear borders and that town is it's own independent Community-State. This means that every Community-States could trade with each other, have their own style of government, economy, etc. and yes because they are independent they can also wage war on each other. So the question I propose to NSG are the following.

1. Would you want to live in such a system?
2. If yes, what kind of community would you want to live in?

No, and it wouldn't matter.

90% of the "communities" people establish would fail or fall apart or would be emptied by people leaving and going somewhere better or would be conquered by the stronger communities. Eventually you'd get bands of allied communities forming states, which would eventually ally into nations, and you'd be back where you started.

/snipSounds good, except for the state part.

This "Community-State" idea is interesting, but it would be better applied to pseudo-communism than libertarianism.

Not necessarily, as an effective, cooperating network of Community-States would be fully capable of embracing nearly any economic system, most likely with the development of specializations in different communities.

"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist collectivist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence."

Great, lol, the Hispanic Republic of Miami, President La Habana Cuba, lol.
The Republic of Miami is a former NS Nation.

1. Only if I get to be king of one.
2. See 1 ^


Other than that, and only that, NO.

For me, I actually would love this idea because then everyone can get the type of community that they want, get the government, economy, society that they want and be happy.


Actually, most examples we have of dissolved central government followed by the dividing up of an entire nation into subdivisions, each claiming state-like powers including the ability to make war as described, tend end in much unhappiness. An actual attempt to do so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) in U.S. history certainly resulted in such.

Tribal warfare and other violence is a very likely result. See also Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, pretty much all of the African continent south of the Sahara (European colonialism went and divided up indigenous political arrangements into lots of smaller arbitrary divisions which eventually become independent states...)

The main issue is how to divide things up in a non-arbitrary manner while still allowing each community-state access to the natural and other economic resources it had before division. Right now we have a large nation-state composed of many people with many complex relationships with each other of all sorts. Dividing things up into "community" sized states is going to break these relationship. People are going to lose access to natural resources or other economic advantages that they once had because they now fall on the wrong side of a border. Social hierarchies and relationships in general are going to be mixed up. And the fighting over who gets to be which grand poobah of what will be interesting.

At the very least, people are going to realize that having to deal with a zillion other governments in order to accomplish anything is stupid and redundant and they will quickly move to reverse the community-state arrangement. Early U.S. history shows that people couldn't even handle 13 independent countries in a confederation, which is why the U.S. has the centralized federation it does today.

Recentralization is basically an inevitability. People will want what they lost back, and people will quickly grow sick of getting 10,000 different passports or converting between 10,000 different currencies just to travel from coast to coast. In fact, the European Union is basically a contemporary example of this very process, along side the historical example of the 13 American Colonies.

And, of course, some people will not want to recentralize, while some do, but only this particular way, not like those people over there say, but only on the second Tuesday of the fourth month of years evenly divisible by 4. Or two if you live over there.

This is where the guns and fighting and unhappiness start. It could be done peacefully, of course. The members of the European Union deal with each other peacefully, and the 50 American States deal with each other peacefully. It only took a series of destructive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) and costly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I) wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) before they figured out how to do so, too.

not sure its such a great idea. for a start, each town could have their own money. their own weights & measures. laws are one thing, but economic essentials are quite another. who builds roads between these city-states? who maintains them? it could be done privately with toll-roads, of course, but frankly the consumer would lose out big time. any possible economy of scale the government has (and it has) would be lost. where does the military come in?

no, i'd say central government is here to stay for a reason.


as an employee of a national trade association in the UK, i've had first hand experience when central power is dissolved. we try to run a national programme, setting national standards for our members and promoting our sector to the public. this was made really fucking difficult when recently a lot of central government money and decision-making was siphoned off to regional development bodies. trying to put together a national programme when each region has its own rules, ways of interperetaion, its own pot of money and way of getting it... its sodding impossible. especially as many of the RDAs put out work to their friends in the region rather than a national organisation (us) doing the same job better and on a bigger scale.

it may be anecdotal, but its an example of what happens when power is needlessly devolved. or something like that


edit: i agree with this guy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12927058&postcount=14)

For me, I actually would love this idea because then everyone can get the type of community that they want, get the government, economy, society that they want and be happy.


I don't think you're being realistic, why would the 'good' communities let everyone in who wanted to join them? why would there be an open border policy? And I think most people would prefer to live with their friends and family than go to another town because they like their government better.

But if it would work and vastly different societies emerged (because you seem to assume there will be a libertarian community? why wouldn't it all stay the same, but smaller?) I think I'd travel to some of the left libertarian ones and try to find out if the reality is as good as the theory.

City-states? Hells yeah! I could go one campaigns to conquer neighboring city-states and expand my small empire.