
Return of the city-state - miraj
https://aeon.co/essays/the-end-of-a-world-of-nation-states-may-be-upon-us
======
hitekker
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.

~~~
todd8
^ There's a reason the majority of our armed forces hail from the south and
midwest and not from the north and west.

I didn't follow you, what reason are you thinking?

~~~
barrkel
City people are similar by outlook, a kinship at an abstract level of
education, profession and trade.

Country people are connected directly to the land, and usually live near their
relatives.

Which group of people is more nomadic? Which is more likely to fight for their
land?

~~~
baldfat
I tend to see rural as more individualist. This map of the Nations of American
is spot on.
[http://emerald.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/images/fea...](http://emerald.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/images/features/upinarms-
map-large.jpg)

America has many nations and the lack of dedicated voters and the large
difference between rural and city voters continues to expand. Just look at NYC
compared to New York State during the Presidential Election. People see things
as "US" vs "THEM" and that gives way to the City State right here in America.

~~~
viridian
As someone intimately familiar with the politics and culture of Ohio, boy
howdy does this chart fuck up really badly on the edges. For instance,
Guernsey and Noble counties not considering themselves Appalachian is absurd.
A case could maybe be made for the ones like Muskingum despite all the stuff
named after the mountains in Zanesville, since it does import a bit of culture
from Columbus, but some of these are just egregious. Franklin and Delaware
counties both being labelled as Appalachian despite encompassing the greater
Columbus metropolitan area as a whole is pretty laughable, as Columbus is the
most Midwestern city in Ohio.

I don't know if you can call this spot on if similar mistakes are made all
over the borderlands of this map.

~~~
baldfat
Generalizations all are lost at specifics. Like looking at a landscape
painting and then looking with a microscope. The painting is a landscape and
it captures the emotions and feeling. The microscope is looking for something
totally different.

Well Borderlands are just that border lands. I lived on the Mexican border and
you go 15 miles North or South and it was a completely different culture.

------
vforgione
> 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...](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart-kai-
and-molly/16-chicago-mayor-emanuel)

Edit: after re-reading what I wrote, damn those options are cynical and
depressing.

~~~
chrischen
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
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
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
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
> 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.

------
hyperion2010
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-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-for-
america.html)

------
eponeponepon
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
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
> 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
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
it is not even that important to define territory. venice for example cared
about the naval routes rather than territory.

------
ribfeast
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
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
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
The statement was in the context of a world of city states implied by the
article.

------
basicplus2
<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-
wh...](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/goldman-sachs-power-white-
house-231998)

[http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-
goldman...](http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman-
sachs-employees-in-the-white-house/)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-
feat...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-
features/what-price-the-new-democracy-goldman-sachs-conquers-
europe-6264091.html)

------
forkLding
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.

------
phd514
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.

------
norea-armozel
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.

------
atemerev
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
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
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.

------
Pica_soO
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?

------
okreallywtf
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.

