32 ms·

Return of the city-state

98 points by miraj 9y ago

vforgione 9y ago
> National governments debate and mostly dither. Cities act, cities do. This is very similar to a sentiment that was shared by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel[0]. He made a case for running for mayor of a, albeit third largest city in the country, Midwestern city after being Chief of Staff in the Obama administration based on his feelings that meaningful change can no longer being effected on a federal level -- that cities are the correct place to start pulling levers and pushing buttons. Are things that screwed up at the federal level, or is it just because we have largely become complacent at best and apathetic at worst? Or is it that politicians see an easier track to entrenched power on a local level? [0]: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart-kai-and-molly/16-chicago-mayor-emanuel https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart... Edit: after re-reading what I wrote, damn those options are cynical and depressing.
- chrischen 9y ago
  The US federal gov’t overrereptesents the interests of the rural. Each state is given two senators regardless of population. Despite cities being the economic heart of the US and doing much better than rural areas, al of of policy making is driven by the economically backwards states.
  - mc32 9y ago
    The same can be said of the Japanese system --but even moreso. Their rural areas have an exaggerated influence in national politics. Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages (geography, demographics, int'l politics, etc) and playing to the countryside. If we look toward Mexico, we can say the cities have an oversized influence in the politics and the frustration form the countryside can boil over into internal conflict.
    - uiri 9y ago
      I feel like the Nikkei index would disagree with you insofar as a stock market index is an indicator of economic prosperity. That said, the US system was designed to protect less populous (rural) states from being bullied by the more populous (urban) states. It is hard to say that the system is not working as intended.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Their problems will be ours in 30 years' time. All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation --given their demographics, I say they are doing a pretty good job. I don't think there are many economies which faced with Japan's demographics (together with their lack of natural resources, arable land, etc) would do as well as they are doing in their circumstances. Now, work culture, that's a different topic. They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity, etc.
        TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation We like to complain so much about automation, but I think the main driver of our current economic woes is outsourcing. When Americans have to compete against people in countries that have $1/hr minimum wage, there's no way our lower class can compete. Not everyone has the skills or aptitude to make it to the middle or upper classes. Should they see a declining quality of life just so corporations can see larger profits? > They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity Japan has a low amount of economic inequality and a high quality of life, so I see little reason why it should change. In most countries, it's still considered a fact that men and women are different. I think it may be your Western values determining what you think should change in a culture completely different from our own.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages Japan is far from doing well. It's in recession now, its demographics profile is going down the toilet, they have a massive public debt that they can never hope to repay, and a social security system that's constantly in the red. It's not going to end well no matter how optimistic you are.
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
    Yes, cities are the heart of America, but the country produces the blood. Urbanization is only possible through hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources. We owe every technological advance, every great work of art, every soldier who defends us, to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Not being a rural guy myself, I feel like I owe them.
    - forgotmysn 9y ago
      maybe 100 years ago, but not today. before the great depression, ~30% of the population worked on a farm. today, that number is closer to 3%. and most of them work on industrial farms where they can have a career. im not saying that we shouldnt be grateful, but i think folksy nostalgia of family farms and shit blind us from the realities.
      - damnfine 9y ago
        Wow dude, go outside more often. Sure there are less farmers, but they are no less important. That is ignoring the natural resources, and your disagreeable prejudices.
        forgotmysn 9y ago
        im a self-described fat-ass, i eat constantly. im not ungrateful to people who work in the agricultural industries, but im no more grateful to them than i am to those who work in energy, water or telecomms. they are all necessities, and farmers aren't that special.
    - pas 9y ago
      > hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources Can you expand on that a bit? > ... to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Why? How? What? Because food is relatively cheap? (Because supply is high?)
      - OtterCoder 9y ago
  - petre 9y ago
    City dwellers are all getting their food from the rural, economically backwords areas, that's why. And that is precisely why floating cities are a pipe dream: no land for agriculture. They'd have to resort to fishing, clam farms and eating seaweed.
    - devmunchies 9y ago
      This is the most convincing argument in the comments.
    - chrischen 9y ago
      We get them from farmland, not rural people. Even if your reasoning is true it's not justification for a person living outside of the city or densely populated areas to have less of a vote in government. Everyone should have an equal vote, no?
  - SuoDuanDao 9y ago
    It's unfortunate that urban and rural populations both see the other as parasites and themselves as the more important actors. Just as urban populations resent redistribution towards the countryside, rural populations resent what they see as city folk meddling in affairs they don't understand. This is actually a great argument for the rise of the city state - without a shared governance structure that has to balance interests of such different voting blocks, city states could set any rules they wanted within their borders and deal with the rural population strictly through the markets.
- mc32 9y ago
  City politics can arguably be too provincial. I feel individual cities in the SF Bay area are too provincial and a more unified regional area governing body would serve the pop better as it pertains planning and development of infrastructure (transport, housing, jobs, zoning, etc.) When SF thinks development they think "Peninsula should develop" Or, "what will make SF transit/housing better "rather than "what will make bay area transit/housing better". From an administrative PoV some cities might benefit from being re-organized as prefectural-level cities or even direct-controlled municipalities (though, given W D.C. governance, I'm not sure it would fly in the US) And Rahm has not improved things in Chicago as far as I can tell. What non "optics-minded" improvements has he made there?
  - pamqzl 9y ago
    The bizarre US insistence that places like San Francisco and Oakland are somehow separate cities baffles me. Look at it from space, there's clearly only one damn city in the SF Bay Area, and it goes from San Francisco down to somewhere south of San Jose and back up to Richmond. That's a big city, but not one of the biggest.
    - jdale27 9y ago
      Well, they are separate cities, since they have geographical boundaries and distinct city governments... But yes, if the San Francisco Bay Area were merged into a single megacity with a unified, powerful municipal government, some of its persistent and increasingly painful issues (imbalance between commercial and residential real estate development, broken public transit system, etc.) might have a better chance of being solved.
      - pamqzl 9y ago
        Only in a legal sense are they different cities. I mean you could legally declare that my legs and upper torso are different people, but it would be silly. I realise there's history and San Francisco wasn't always joined to San Jose by unbroken urbanity, but arbitrary legal structures should keep up with geography.
    - 9y ago
- vacri 9y ago
  Do mayors in the US actually control the whole city? Here in Melbourne, the Lord Mayor of Melbourne is actually just a local government position (despite the grand-sounding name), only managing issues in the CBD area (36 sq km of greater melbourne's 9990 sq km). Whole-city issues are managed by state-level politicians. I ask because I can't see our Lord Mayor actually being able to influence city-wide policy; I assume US city mayors have more grunt.
  - mch82 9y ago
    It depends on the city and the rules in the state where the city is located. Larger cities are pretty independent with taxation, police, fire, education, sanitation, and health services. Smaller cities can be overseen by regional governments. The smallest unincorporated cities buy services from larger neighbors. Lots of variation! Cities in the US don't get militaries (but, technically, the federal military isn't allowed to carry out military operations inside cities).
  - flukus 9y ago
    That's not universal in Australia. Brisbane encompasses all of the surrounding suburbs up to the satellite cities like Ipswich and Gold Coast, Frankston and Geelong would be the Melbourne equivalent of these I think but it's hard to say, I think Brisbane is much larger (in Area) than Melbourne. In the 00's Queensland pushed through council amalgamations state wide. I believe NSW has tried to do the same and the result was a mixed bag. From what I understand looking around the world, the age of a city seems to define it's boundaries. Cities that were populous prior to the car are much smaller.
  - subwayclub 9y ago
    The US is usually broadly categorized as "strong mayor" (very consolidated power) and "weak mayor" (board of supervisors form a coalition) depending on the municipality. Where this distinction gets muddled is when a metro area is sprawling enough to have many governments. For example, City of Los Angeles has a mayor, but it only represents some of the major neighborhoods of the metro area, while Los Angeles County, which spans multiple cities, has a board of supervisors providing oversight on a more regional scale. In contrast, San Francisco is a combined city and county with both mayor and board of supervisors: but the Bay Area has 9 counties(more if you count certain outlying cities) with a multitude of city governments, and there is no equivalent to the LA county board unifying representation at the "millions to one" scale - those issues are duked out between different county agencies or pushed up to the state level. Accordingly, Bay Area cities have some more individual freedoms but are much less inclined to cooperate on regional issues and will frequently export problems onto each other.
- guelo 9y ago
  The stated objective of the Republican congress during their 6 Obama years was obstruction. For the 2 years before that Obama was able to get the stimulus and Obamacare. Before that Bush was able to get huge legislation around medicare and taxes as well as his wars. Clinton before him was also able to get through a bunch of legislation. Trump is pretty incompetent and is wasting his window to get big things done but he'll probably get something through. My point is that the last 6 years of total gridlock is a historical aberration. On the other hand, conservatives have wanted the destruction of the federal government for a long time, maybe they've won and we're entering a new era.
  - viridian 9y ago
    The Dems seem to have take up that role now, so I think you may be right on Obama's presidency opening up a new era of sorts wherein the minority party just tells the majority party to pound sand.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Cities act, cities do. Then why do cities have such a hard time implementing suitable public transportation? Even the NYC subway system is a mess these days.
  - IIAOPSW 9y ago
    The NYC subway purse strings are controlled by the state. You kind of just proved the point.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      So they can get things done, but not without help from nation states?
      - IIAOPSW 9y ago
        exact opposite. NYC subway is in disarray partly because it is controlled by the state and the state political interests are not the same as the cities. The city effectively funds the state as NYC pays more in taxes than it takes out. Not true for upstate.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      NYC has a majority power over the state purse strings and Albany has the majority of what's left. If you want a mountain of money for the subway all you need to do is earmark it at the bottom of a repeal of NY-SAFE (or whatever you call that gun law that the rest of the state hates).
      - IIAOPSW 9y ago
        I'm ok with this. I'm also lazy. If you write a letter to our state assembly I'll co-sign it.
hitekker 9y ago
There are many things wrong with this article. Foremost is its portrayal of power. Power, which he implicitly defines as the force backing a nation's border, is not premised solely upon the sweat of our technological brows, the way we disrupt and revolutionize economies in pursuit of sky-high GDP. Power also flows from the barrel of a gun. The most populous city-state in the world, Hong Kong, has been swallowed by the People's Republic of China. Why? Because China's planned women's army by itself exceeds the population of the United States. Because Deng Xiaoping told the British their troops would cross the bridge with or without a handover. Contrary to the tone of this article, China is vigorously contesting territory in its sphere of influence. Go look at the sand they're pouring into the south China sea: does that look like dithering? And even if China, Russia, India, etc. decline within fifty years, that doesn't mean city-states will fill the vaccuum. It means the remaining players, the ones that have kept their cities and their country together, will have the power. And they will eat these new nimble players alive. There's a reason the majority of our armed forces hail from the south and midwest and not from the north and west. [1] Finally, to address the unsaid assumption behind this article: the decline of nations, if it happens, will not be a tea party. The last time a worldwide economic crisis engulfed our planet and threatened the very concept of a nation state, we had the bloodiest war in human history. [1] As a bit of trivia, when the U.S. government commissioned a study concerning the long-term consequences of full-blown nuclear war, they predicted Latin American gunboats would be pillaging our coasts within 3-4 months. Fun.
- bsder 9y ago
  > There's a reason the majority of our armed forces hail from the South and not from the coasts. Careful. You are likely confusing two different statistics. There is: A) Recruits by state which reflects (roughly) the state from which they hail B) Residency of current military personnel which reflects (roughly) where the military bases are. While your statement might be true per capita (although http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for_percap-navy-air-force-per-capita http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air... makes even that seem a bit doubtful), the sheer difference in population size of California, Texas, and New York probably swamps that. Also be sure not to get civilian employees mixed up in the statistics.
basicplus2 9y ago
<And climate change, internet governance and international crime all seemed beyond the nation-state’s abilities.> This has more to do with powerful lobby groups and corporations controlling politicians. Politicians should be doing the peoples bidding but they are more about furthering their own, not to mention banks like Goldman Sachs inserting people in positions of power. eg http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/goldman-sachs-power-white-house-231998 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/goldman-sachs-power-wh... http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman-sachs-employees-in-the-white-house/ http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-feat...
forkLding 9y ago
I see the future or perhaps the far future less as large groups of nation states but rather as a decentralized world power/government (UN with actual power) with centralized city-states simply due to increased globalization (even if some are rejecting it as currently right now, its not like people can reverse globalization) meaning less importance of national powers, increased diversity/multi-ethnic populations/cultures gathering around large urban cities such as seen in Singapore and increased importance of global hubs being cities where the cities bring talent together instead of the countries themselves such as New York for Finance, Silicon Valley, etc. and also the massive powers of transnational corporate companies who hold sway due to their abilities to employ people, influence economies and make technological and societal change. Moreover, its not like you can really stop cities from gaining power, urbanization used to be and still is a symbol of development for most countries so its not like nation-states are against the idea of large cities. Nation-states aren't actively trying to decrease the size of cities and push people out of it simply because they would become too powerful. As well, nation-states will seek to only make certain cities powerful to be strategic instead of trying to make every city or location in the nation powerful which in turn brings to power powerful city-states. Its also stated that military occupation is a powerful deterrent for city-states taking over nation-states. I argue that simply starting a war decreases the importance of a city-state and you reach the stage where you scare away the talent and economical activity that gave meaning to the importance of a city-state simply by starting a war. There is not much economical and development going on when you are fighting or even threatening a war which would mean that you can not really take over a city-state without destroying it or basically have to pour money in to just resuscitate it, like in Syria or places in Middle East that are constantly threatened.
eponeponepon 9y ago
City-states will not get us off the planet in any significant way; nation-states are struggling to as it is. As far as I'm concerned, any step away from world government is retrograde. I no longer believe I'll see it in my lifetime though.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  I'd say the opposite is true. World government may become a dictatorship (you can see the process in Turkey, Poland and the US) and the only viable individual action against a dictatorship is voting with your feet. If you don't have somewhere to go to, you're f'ed. As the article mentions - it's not a coincidence that the most innovative and prosperous states in the past were city states (Athens, Florence, Venice, Genoa, the German states later on, ...) because they had to be nice to their citizens, otherwise they'd just move that 30 km away. In a way, many small states resemble a rich supply of "states" where you can live in. Having a world government is asking for a power monopoly and you know how these tend to behave.
  - return0 9y ago
    > were city states They were not however geographically confined to their city-state, but controlled militarily a number of outposts , making them mini-empires in places where there were yet no borders.
    - dmichulke 9y ago
      I think the minimum distance from any point within the territory to a border is more important for this dynamic to hold than the maximum distance between two points in the territory.
      - return0 9y ago
        it is not even that important to define territory. venice for example cared about the naval routes rather than territory.
- 9y ago
hyperion2010 9y ago
I made this exact argument to a friend a few days ago when I was visiting Portland. Following an observation about the fact that the mostly rural far right would have to pry the city out of the cold dead hands of its inhabitants, I was struck by the fact that cities are poised to become massively more powerful as globalization accelerates. Any major port city (assuming it isn't under water) is going to look to its nearest inland neighbors and its other major trade partners, deem the federal government to be full of shit, and build the infrastructure needed to move goods between the two -- because they will have the capital to invest to do it. More importantly they have the data and the political flexibility to negotiate with other 'city states'. If you are going to live in the middle of nowhere, it is going to start costing much more, and I can imagine a future where if you aren't a tax paying citizen of cities that have banded together to fund infrastructure development, you will be paying a steep fee to make use of it. The solution to the US's infrastructure woes is in the hands of cities, and I suspect that if they choose to act, the country is going to look very different in 30 or 40 years. Add to this the fact that the federal govt is no longer tampering with normal settlement patterns by subsidizing suburban living, and the rich and powerful are going to congregate in cities. Sure they may own a second house in the middle of nowhere, but the vast majority of their productivity will be created while in the city. I also suspect that cities that do not invest in social infrastructure (e.g. housing, and zoning regs) will ultimately fall behind, network effects aside. An anecdote I heard was that Portland rents have been rising at nearly 20% per year, and many people simply cannot find a place to stay, and wind up on the street (SV exporting their finest social features?). But Portland is building housing all over the place so I think it has a chance. Cities that cannot figure out how to maximize their productivity by providing good social infrastructure will become the new backwaters. Another great article on this is [0]. 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-...
Pica_soO 9y ago
Try to see, a city as a brain, with the people beeing neurons, containing potential ideas. For a city the most interesting thing to happen, is new connections between the people, in two forms. Personal Connection (very important to realize allready existing new ideas) and contact of a person with new things/ideas. A city could further the interpersonal conntact, by creating partys, festivals or a sort of (non-relationship) speed-dating. But how can a city further the contact of persons with new ideas? What if the person in need of new ideas, heavily resists having contact with them?
ribfeast 9y ago
This does seem to be where the US government is heading: Conservatives are doing everything they can to destroy federal power so they can create communities around traditional values (or just exploit deregulation to socialize the costs of getting rich), which leaves local governments to step into the void. When you take the idea much further, there are a lot of troubling implications: Who has power in the areas between the cities? What rights do urbanites have outside their city and who upholds those rights? How do we avoid rural areas devolving into economic wastelands or being exploited by monied interests in the cities? What criminal code could we agree on on a large scale and who enforces it? How can a rural community control access to abortion (for example), when such a service is a short drive away? Would the difference in wealth and opportunity just create a permanent rural underclass without redistributive social policies to offset it? How would a city state respond to something like wage slavery on its doorstep? Who pays for and protects federal lands, parks, and the commons? Who feeds the city? How do cities defend themselves?
- jamesmp98 9y ago
  That last part is my question. What prevents a group from taking up arms and attacking a city in it's own interest? IN the case of the U.S., certainly not the U.S. Military (no such thing exists.
  - damnfine 9y ago
    Wtf. The US military does indeed exist, even to quash internal rebellion. The national guard is the branch that would deal with such a threat. The number of armed citizens alone might suprise you as well. So all in all, I am not sure what you mean. Anyone could 'attack a city in their own interest', but there are quite a few organized parties very invested in resisting that with their lives.
    - jamesmp98 9y ago
      The statement was in the context of a world of city states implied by the article.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
atemerev 9y ago
If you want to declare something to be independent from a nation-state and its laws, you need one of the following conditions to be true: 1) you are small enough or insignificant enough that nation states are not interesting in showing you your place, 2) you are powerful enough so nation states will not mess with you, as the cost will be too much for them. Point 1 is always temporary. Point 2 is more interesting — for now, there are no private powers that could stand the military assault of nation states, especially larger ones. But such power does exist, and we are periodically reminded about it in recent news reports.
- stevedonovan 9y ago
  Classical Greek civilization was the high point of the 'city-state', but the poleis could only survive if there was no strong nation-state messing around with them. They rallied together to prevent Persia moving Westwards, but simply could not get their act together to stop an old-fashioned imperial kingdom, Macedonia. And once the Romans expanded, they had no hope of regaining autonomy.
return0 9y ago
City states or coalitions of city-states? I doubt a single city could defend itself against nuclear powers. The case of Liberland raises another possibility: virtual nations based on affiliation rather than physical location.
phd514 9y ago
The recent NYT article "The Urban Revival Is Over" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15168420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15168420) seems to contradict at least some of the ideas in this article.
okreallywtf 9y ago
I've come to similar conclusions but not for the exact same reasons. In my state (and it seems, most others), the cities are progressive and forward-thinking (renewable energy, climate change is not a hoax, equality, education is good, universities are generally good etc) and the rural areas are essentially the opposite, and the divide is growing under Trump. Anything progressives are for the rural areas are against almost by default. The main thing holding cities from progressing further is that the state is so gerrymandered (or has been, they redrew the maps but will likely be similarly bad just in different ways) that the rural (conservatives) control the state government almost entirely. As a result, cities abilities to govern themselves has been reduced. I'm not happy with the way things are going but its also difficult to see them changing. Those in progressive areas vote for more education funding, more access to higher education, better access to healthcare - all things that benefit rural areas as much or more than populated areas (cities generally having better paid, better educated and therefore more healthy people). Where I grew up (in an extremely rural area), diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc are extremely common and access to quality healthcare is lower. What needs to happen is some kind of reconciliation or at least a recognition that we have essentially matching values despite what those who would like to keep us divided might say. The fact that wearing my NPR shirt is seen as basically the same thing in conservative areas as an Infowars shirt would be seen in liberal areas makes me question how likely any of that is.
norea-armozel 9y ago
There's a key flaw in the idea of resurgent city states and that is the fact that to coordinate production you have to secure the infrastructure which is between the cities. Imagine all the complex relationships that goes into making an iPhone. Mines, oil wells, farms, factories, and so forth are all over the planet and not in just one place. Cities thrive because of those complex relationships being relatively secure. And without that security they falter.

98 points by miraj 9y ago

> National governments debate and mostly dither. Cities act, cities do. This is very similar to a sentiment that was shared by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel[0]. He made a case for running for mayor of a, albeit third largest city in the country, Midwestern city after being Chief of Staff in the Obama administration based on his feelings that meaningful change can no longer being effected on a federal level -- that cities are the correct place to start pulling levers and pushing buttons. Are things that screwed up at the federal level, or is it just because we have largely become complacent at best and apathetic at worst? Or is it that politicians see an easier track to entrenched power on a local level? [0]: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart-kai-and-molly/16-chicago-mayor-emanuel https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart... Edit: after re-reading what I wrote, damn those options are cynical and depressing.

chrischen 9y ago
The US federal gov’t overrereptesents the interests of the rural. Each state is given two senators regardless of population. Despite cities being the economic heart of the US and doing much better than rural areas, al of of policy making is driven by the economically backwards states.
- mc32 9y ago
  The same can be said of the Japanese system --but even moreso. Their rural areas have an exaggerated influence in national politics. Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages (geography, demographics, int'l politics, etc) and playing to the countryside. If we look toward Mexico, we can say the cities have an oversized influence in the politics and the frustration form the countryside can boil over into internal conflict.
  - uiri 9y ago
    I feel like the Nikkei index would disagree with you insofar as a stock market index is an indicator of economic prosperity. That said, the US system was designed to protect less populous (rural) states from being bullied by the more populous (urban) states. It is hard to say that the system is not working as intended.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Their problems will be ours in 30 years' time. All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation --given their demographics, I say they are doing a pretty good job. I don't think there are many economies which faced with Japan's demographics (together with their lack of natural resources, arable land, etc) would do as well as they are doing in their circumstances. Now, work culture, that's a different topic. They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity, etc.
      - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
        > All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation We like to complain so much about automation, but I think the main driver of our current economic woes is outsourcing. When Americans have to compete against people in countries that have $1/hr minimum wage, there's no way our lower class can compete. Not everyone has the skills or aptitude to make it to the middle or upper classes. Should they see a declining quality of life just so corporations can see larger profits? > They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity Japan has a low amount of economic inequality and a high quality of life, so I see little reason why it should change. In most countries, it's still considered a fact that men and women are different. I think it may be your Western values determining what you think should change in a culture completely different from our own.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages Japan is far from doing well. It's in recession now, its demographics profile is going down the toilet, they have a massive public debt that they can never hope to repay, and a social security system that's constantly in the red. It's not going to end well no matter how optimistic you are.
- OtterCoder 9y ago
  Yes, cities are the heart of America, but the country produces the blood. Urbanization is only possible through hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources. We owe every technological advance, every great work of art, every soldier who defends us, to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Not being a rural guy myself, I feel like I owe them.
  - forgotmysn 9y ago
    maybe 100 years ago, but not today. before the great depression, ~30% of the population worked on a farm. today, that number is closer to 3%. and most of them work on industrial farms where they can have a career. im not saying that we shouldnt be grateful, but i think folksy nostalgia of family farms and shit blind us from the realities.
    - damnfine 9y ago
      Wow dude, go outside more often. Sure there are less farmers, but they are no less important. That is ignoring the natural resources, and your disagreeable prejudices.
      - forgotmysn 9y ago
        im a self-described fat-ass, i eat constantly. im not ungrateful to people who work in the agricultural industries, but im no more grateful to them than i am to those who work in energy, water or telecomms. they are all necessities, and farmers aren't that special.
  - pas 9y ago
    > hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources Can you expand on that a bit? > ... to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Why? How? What? Because food is relatively cheap? (Because supply is high?)
    - OtterCoder 9y ago
- petre 9y ago
  City dwellers are all getting their food from the rural, economically backwords areas, that's why. And that is precisely why floating cities are a pipe dream: no land for agriculture. They'd have to resort to fishing, clam farms and eating seaweed.
  - devmunchies 9y ago
    This is the most convincing argument in the comments.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    We get them from farmland, not rural people. Even if your reasoning is true it's not justification for a person living outside of the city or densely populated areas to have less of a vote in government. Everyone should have an equal vote, no?
- SuoDuanDao 9y ago
  It's unfortunate that urban and rural populations both see the other as parasites and themselves as the more important actors. Just as urban populations resent redistribution towards the countryside, rural populations resent what they see as city folk meddling in affairs they don't understand. This is actually a great argument for the rise of the city state - without a shared governance structure that has to balance interests of such different voting blocks, city states could set any rules they wanted within their borders and deal with the rural population strictly through the markets.
mc32 9y ago
City politics can arguably be too provincial. I feel individual cities in the SF Bay area are too provincial and a more unified regional area governing body would serve the pop better as it pertains planning and development of infrastructure (transport, housing, jobs, zoning, etc.) When SF thinks development they think "Peninsula should develop" Or, "what will make SF transit/housing better "rather than "what will make bay area transit/housing better". From an administrative PoV some cities might benefit from being re-organized as prefectural-level cities or even direct-controlled municipalities (though, given W D.C. governance, I'm not sure it would fly in the US) And Rahm has not improved things in Chicago as far as I can tell. What non "optics-minded" improvements has he made there?
- pamqzl 9y ago
  The bizarre US insistence that places like San Francisco and Oakland are somehow separate cities baffles me. Look at it from space, there's clearly only one damn city in the SF Bay Area, and it goes from San Francisco down to somewhere south of San Jose and back up to Richmond. That's a big city, but not one of the biggest.
  - jdale27 9y ago
    Well, they are separate cities, since they have geographical boundaries and distinct city governments... But yes, if the San Francisco Bay Area were merged into a single megacity with a unified, powerful municipal government, some of its persistent and increasingly painful issues (imbalance between commercial and residential real estate development, broken public transit system, etc.) might have a better chance of being solved.
    - pamqzl 9y ago
      Only in a legal sense are they different cities. I mean you could legally declare that my legs and upper torso are different people, but it would be silly. I realise there's history and San Francisco wasn't always joined to San Jose by unbroken urbanity, but arbitrary legal structures should keep up with geography.
  - 9y ago
vacri 9y ago
Do mayors in the US actually control the whole city? Here in Melbourne, the Lord Mayor of Melbourne is actually just a local government position (despite the grand-sounding name), only managing issues in the CBD area (36 sq km of greater melbourne's 9990 sq km). Whole-city issues are managed by state-level politicians. I ask because I can't see our Lord Mayor actually being able to influence city-wide policy; I assume US city mayors have more grunt.
- mch82 9y ago
  It depends on the city and the rules in the state where the city is located. Larger cities are pretty independent with taxation, police, fire, education, sanitation, and health services. Smaller cities can be overseen by regional governments. The smallest unincorporated cities buy services from larger neighbors. Lots of variation! Cities in the US don't get militaries (but, technically, the federal military isn't allowed to carry out military operations inside cities).
- flukus 9y ago
  That's not universal in Australia. Brisbane encompasses all of the surrounding suburbs up to the satellite cities like Ipswich and Gold Coast, Frankston and Geelong would be the Melbourne equivalent of these I think but it's hard to say, I think Brisbane is much larger (in Area) than Melbourne. In the 00's Queensland pushed through council amalgamations state wide. I believe NSW has tried to do the same and the result was a mixed bag. From what I understand looking around the world, the age of a city seems to define it's boundaries. Cities that were populous prior to the car are much smaller.
- subwayclub 9y ago
  The US is usually broadly categorized as "strong mayor" (very consolidated power) and "weak mayor" (board of supervisors form a coalition) depending on the municipality. Where this distinction gets muddled is when a metro area is sprawling enough to have many governments. For example, City of Los Angeles has a mayor, but it only represents some of the major neighborhoods of the metro area, while Los Angeles County, which spans multiple cities, has a board of supervisors providing oversight on a more regional scale. In contrast, San Francisco is a combined city and county with both mayor and board of supervisors: but the Bay Area has 9 counties(more if you count certain outlying cities) with a multitude of city governments, and there is no equivalent to the LA county board unifying representation at the "millions to one" scale - those issues are duked out between different county agencies or pushed up to the state level. Accordingly, Bay Area cities have some more individual freedoms but are much less inclined to cooperate on regional issues and will frequently export problems onto each other.
guelo 9y ago
The stated objective of the Republican congress during their 6 Obama years was obstruction. For the 2 years before that Obama was able to get the stimulus and Obamacare. Before that Bush was able to get huge legislation around medicare and taxes as well as his wars. Clinton before him was also able to get through a bunch of legislation. Trump is pretty incompetent and is wasting his window to get big things done but he'll probably get something through. My point is that the last 6 years of total gridlock is a historical aberration. On the other hand, conservatives have wanted the destruction of the federal government for a long time, maybe they've won and we're entering a new era.
- viridian 9y ago
  The Dems seem to have take up that role now, so I think you may be right on Obama's presidency opening up a new era of sorts wherein the minority party just tells the majority party to pound sand.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Cities act, cities do. Then why do cities have such a hard time implementing suitable public transportation? Even the NYC subway system is a mess these days.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  The NYC subway purse strings are controlled by the state. You kind of just proved the point.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    So they can get things done, but not without help from nation states?
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      exact opposite. NYC subway is in disarray partly because it is controlled by the state and the state political interests are not the same as the cities. The city effectively funds the state as NYC pays more in taxes than it takes out. Not true for upstate.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    NYC has a majority power over the state purse strings and Albany has the majority of what's left. If you want a mountain of money for the subway all you need to do is earmark it at the bottom of a repeal of NY-SAFE (or whatever you call that gun law that the rest of the state hates).
    - IIAOPSW 9y ago
      I'm ok with this. I'm also lazy. If you write a letter to our state assembly I'll co-sign it.

hitekker 9y ago

There are many things wrong with this article. Foremost is its portrayal of power. Power, which he implicitly defines as the force backing a nation's border, is not premised solely upon the sweat of our technological brows, the way we disrupt and revolutionize economies in pursuit of sky-high GDP. Power also flows from the barrel of a gun. The most populous city-state in the world, Hong Kong, has been swallowed by the People's Republic of China. Why? Because China's planned women's army by itself exceeds the population of the United States. Because Deng Xiaoping told the British their troops would cross the bridge with or without a handover. Contrary to the tone of this article, China is vigorously contesting territory in its sphere of influence. Go look at the sand they're pouring into the south China sea: does that look like dithering? And even if China, Russia, India, etc. decline within fifty years, that doesn't mean city-states will fill the vaccuum. It means the remaining players, the ones that have kept their cities and their country together, will have the power. And they will eat these new nimble players alive. There's a reason the majority of our armed forces hail from the south and midwest and not from the north and west. [1] Finally, to address the unsaid assumption behind this article: the decline of nations, if it happens, will not be a tea party. The last time a worldwide economic crisis engulfed our planet and threatened the very concept of a nation state, we had the bloodiest war in human history. [1] As a bit of trivia, when the U.S. government commissioned a study concerning the long-term consequences of full-blown nuclear war, they predicted Latin American gunboats would be pillaging our coasts within 3-4 months. Fun.

bsder 9y ago
> There's a reason the majority of our armed forces hail from the South and not from the coasts. Careful. You are likely confusing two different statistics. There is: A) Recruits by state which reflects (roughly) the state from which they hail B) Residency of current military personnel which reflects (roughly) where the military bases are. While your statement might be true per capita (although http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for_percap-navy-air-force-per-capita http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air... makes even that seem a bit doubtful), the sheer difference in population size of California, Texas, and New York probably swamps that. Also be sure not to get civilian employees mixed up in the statistics.

basicplus2 9y ago

<And climate change, internet governance and international crime all seemed beyond the nation-state’s abilities.> This has more to do with powerful lobby groups and corporations controlling politicians. Politicians should be doing the peoples bidding but they are more about furthering their own, not to mention banks like Goldman Sachs inserting people in positions of power. eg http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/goldman-sachs-power-white-house-231998 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/goldman-sachs-power-wh... http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman-sachs-employees-in-the-white-house/ http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-europe-6264091.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-feat...

forkLding 9y ago

I see the future or perhaps the far future less as large groups of nation states but rather as a decentralized world power/government (UN with actual power) with centralized city-states simply due to increased globalization (even if some are rejecting it as currently right now, its not like people can reverse globalization) meaning less importance of national powers, increased diversity/multi-ethnic populations/cultures gathering around large urban cities such as seen in Singapore and increased importance of global hubs being cities where the cities bring talent together instead of the countries themselves such as New York for Finance, Silicon Valley, etc. and also the massive powers of transnational corporate companies who hold sway due to their abilities to employ people, influence economies and make technological and societal change. Moreover, its not like you can really stop cities from gaining power, urbanization used to be and still is a symbol of development for most countries so its not like nation-states are against the idea of large cities. Nation-states aren't actively trying to decrease the size of cities and push people out of it simply because they would become too powerful. As well, nation-states will seek to only make certain cities powerful to be strategic instead of trying to make every city or location in the nation powerful which in turn brings to power powerful city-states. Its also stated that military occupation is a powerful deterrent for city-states taking over nation-states. I argue that simply starting a war decreases the importance of a city-state and you reach the stage where you scare away the talent and economical activity that gave meaning to the importance of a city-state simply by starting a war. There is not much economical and development going on when you are fighting or even threatening a war which would mean that you can not really take over a city-state without destroying it or basically have to pour money in to just resuscitate it, like in Syria or places in Middle East that are constantly threatened.

eponeponepon 9y ago

City-states will not get us off the planet in any significant way; nation-states are struggling to as it is. As far as I'm concerned, any step away from world government is retrograde. I no longer believe I'll see it in my lifetime though.

dmichulke 9y ago
I'd say the opposite is true. World government may become a dictatorship (you can see the process in Turkey, Poland and the US) and the only viable individual action against a dictatorship is voting with your feet. If you don't have somewhere to go to, you're f'ed. As the article mentions - it's not a coincidence that the most innovative and prosperous states in the past were city states (Athens, Florence, Venice, Genoa, the German states later on, ...) because they had to be nice to their citizens, otherwise they'd just move that 30 km away. In a way, many small states resemble a rich supply of "states" where you can live in. Having a world government is asking for a power monopoly and you know how these tend to behave.
- return0 9y ago
  > were city states They were not however geographically confined to their city-state, but controlled militarily a number of outposts , making them mini-empires in places where there were yet no borders.
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    I think the minimum distance from any point within the territory to a border is more important for this dynamic to hold than the maximum distance between two points in the territory.
    - return0 9y ago
      it is not even that important to define territory. venice for example cared about the naval routes rather than territory.
9y ago

hyperion2010 9y ago

I made this exact argument to a friend a few days ago when I was visiting Portland. Following an observation about the fact that the mostly rural far right would have to pry the city out of the cold dead hands of its inhabitants, I was struck by the fact that cities are poised to become massively more powerful as globalization accelerates. Any major port city (assuming it isn't under water) is going to look to its nearest inland neighbors and its other major trade partners, deem the federal government to be full of shit, and build the infrastructure needed to move goods between the two -- because they will have the capital to invest to do it. More importantly they have the data and the political flexibility to negotiate with other 'city states'. If you are going to live in the middle of nowhere, it is going to start costing much more, and I can imagine a future where if you aren't a tax paying citizen of cities that have banded together to fund infrastructure development, you will be paying a steep fee to make use of it. The solution to the US's infrastructure woes is in the hands of cities, and I suspect that if they choose to act, the country is going to look very different in 30 or 40 years. Add to this the fact that the federal govt is no longer tampering with normal settlement patterns by subsidizing suburban living, and the rich and powerful are going to congregate in cities. Sure they may own a second house in the middle of nowhere, but the vast majority of their productivity will be created while in the city. I also suspect that cities that do not invest in social infrastructure (e.g. housing, and zoning regs) will ultimately fall behind, network effects aside. An anecdote I heard was that Portland rents have been rising at nearly 20% per year, and many people simply cannot find a place to stay, and wind up on the street (SV exporting their finest social features?). But Portland is building housing all over the place so I think it has a chance. Cities that cannot figure out how to maximize their productivity by providing good social infrastructure will become the new backwaters. Another great article on this is [0]. 0. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-america.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-...

Pica_soO 9y ago

Try to see, a city as a brain, with the people beeing neurons, containing potential ideas. For a city the most interesting thing to happen, is new connections between the people, in two forms. Personal Connection (very important to realize allready existing new ideas) and contact of a person with new things/ideas. A city could further the interpersonal conntact, by creating partys, festivals or a sort of (non-relationship) speed-dating. But how can a city further the contact of persons with new ideas? What if the person in need of new ideas, heavily resists having contact with them?

ribfeast 9y ago

This does seem to be where the US government is heading: Conservatives are doing everything they can to destroy federal power so they can create communities around traditional values (or just exploit deregulation to socialize the costs of getting rich), which leaves local governments to step into the void. When you take the idea much further, there are a lot of troubling implications: Who has power in the areas between the cities? What rights do urbanites have outside their city and who upholds those rights? How do we avoid rural areas devolving into economic wastelands or being exploited by monied interests in the cities? What criminal code could we agree on on a large scale and who enforces it? How can a rural community control access to abortion (for example), when such a service is a short drive away? Would the difference in wealth and opportunity just create a permanent rural underclass without redistributive social policies to offset it? How would a city state respond to something like wage slavery on its doorstep? Who pays for and protects federal lands, parks, and the commons? Who feeds the city? How do cities defend themselves?

jamesmp98 9y ago
That last part is my question. What prevents a group from taking up arms and attacking a city in it's own interest? IN the case of the U.S., certainly not the U.S. Military (no such thing exists.
- damnfine 9y ago
  Wtf. The US military does indeed exist, even to quash internal rebellion. The national guard is the branch that would deal with such a threat. The number of armed citizens alone might suprise you as well. So all in all, I am not sure what you mean. Anyone could 'attack a city in their own interest', but there are quite a few organized parties very invested in resisting that with their lives.
  - jamesmp98 9y ago
    The statement was in the context of a world of city states implied by the article.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

atemerev 9y ago

If you want to declare something to be independent from a nation-state and its laws, you need one of the following conditions to be true: 1) you are small enough or insignificant enough that nation states are not interesting in showing you your place, 2) you are powerful enough so nation states will not mess with you, as the cost will be too much for them. Point 1 is always temporary. Point 2 is more interesting — for now, there are no private powers that could stand the military assault of nation states, especially larger ones. But such power does exist, and we are periodically reminded about it in recent news reports.

stevedonovan 9y ago
Classical Greek civilization was the high point of the 'city-state', but the poleis could only survive if there was no strong nation-state messing around with them. They rallied together to prevent Persia moving Westwards, but simply could not get their act together to stop an old-fashioned imperial kingdom, Macedonia. And once the Romans expanded, they had no hope of regaining autonomy.

return0 9y ago

City states or coalitions of city-states? I doubt a single city could defend itself against nuclear powers. The case of Liberland raises another possibility: virtual nations based on affiliation rather than physical location.

phd514 9y ago

The recent NYT article "The Urban Revival Is Over" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15168420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15168420) seems to contradict at least some of the ideas in this article.

okreallywtf 9y ago

I've come to similar conclusions but not for the exact same reasons. In my state (and it seems, most others), the cities are progressive and forward-thinking (renewable energy, climate change is not a hoax, equality, education is good, universities are generally good etc) and the rural areas are essentially the opposite, and the divide is growing under Trump. Anything progressives are for the rural areas are against almost by default. The main thing holding cities from progressing further is that the state is so gerrymandered (or has been, they redrew the maps but will likely be similarly bad just in different ways) that the rural (conservatives) control the state government almost entirely. As a result, cities abilities to govern themselves has been reduced. I'm not happy with the way things are going but its also difficult to see them changing. Those in progressive areas vote for more education funding, more access to higher education, better access to healthcare - all things that benefit rural areas as much or more than populated areas (cities generally having better paid, better educated and therefore more healthy people). Where I grew up (in an extremely rural area), diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc are extremely common and access to quality healthcare is lower. What needs to happen is some kind of reconciliation or at least a recognition that we have essentially matching values despite what those who would like to keep us divided might say. The fact that wearing my NPR shirt is seen as basically the same thing in conservative areas as an Infowars shirt would be seen in liberal areas makes me question how likely any of that is.

norea-armozel 9y ago

There's a key flaw in the idea of resurgent city states and that is the fact that to coordinate production you have to secure the infrastructure which is between the cities. Imagine all the complex relationships that goes into making an iPhone. Mines, oil wells, farms, factories, and so forth are all over the planet and not in just one place. Cities thrive because of those complex relationships being relatively secure. And without that security they falter.