Hacker News Reader

Comment by morgante | Hacker News Reader

Yup. I actually think the world is ripe for the return of city-states. The advantages of nation-states have fallen in importance, while their disadvantages have become increasingly clear.

Just look at the success of Singapore to see how effective a modern city-state can be. London, New York, San Francisco, etc. would all be better off as independent self-governing city-states.

View on HN

Isn't that a fairly concise description of the Republican platform? They usually want to limit the size of the federal government, moving power to the individual states. States are larger than cities, but it's the same idea.

I'm actually a little confused why liberals want to push everything up to the federal level. They have total control over many states like New York and California, and it seems like they could accomplish their goals more efficiently if they weren't sharing senate seats with Alabama on key issues.

You get less federal funding for programs if the federal taxes are cut, but given California's salaries and population you're probably paying more than your fair share anyways.

That might be the traditional Republican platform, but sadly the Republican party is looking anything but traditional these days.

Also, I think the whole "states rights" thing is bullshit. Republicans only favor states rights when those rights run in favor of their positions. Otherwise you wouldn't have things like the Defense of Marriage Act—why should Republicans in Georgia get to decide who Californians can marry?

The other big problem is that certain policies are inherently handled at the federal level. Disregarding foreign policy, immigration and trade are both hot-button issues this cycle and the policies which the heartland voted for are likely to be destructive for coastal cities.

There are definitely some people who've appealed way too strongly to evangelicals in the past. 12 years ago I'd be solid Democrat for their stances on important social issues. And the traditional Republicans don't go nearly as far as they should. I think that tax revenue is a good proxy for comparing relative power. In this sense, Madison gave us a concrete measurement for his vision of how big of a role the federal government should play:

It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

A glance at Wikipedia shows the IRS collects 7.7 times as much income tax revenue as the sum of all state income tax revenue. So to a first approximation, a Madison federal government would be 308 times smaller than our current one. That's crazy-talk to any traditional Republican, no matter how much they pretend to talk about states' rights and limited government.

Ron Paul, his son Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz have all expressed thoughts along these lines, and they seem to be gaining support compared to the evangelicals. Assuming Trump wins again in 2020, we'll see if the trend continues for truly limited federal government in 2024.

I'd happily vote for a Ron Paul Republican (I wouldn't vote for Cruz; he's far too close to religious people for my liking), but I think the party is moving far away from that. Donald Trump just won on a platform of more government intervention in the economy, not less. Not to mention that he apparently has zero respect for important foundational ideas like religious liberty and freedom of the press.

Of the choices on the ballot, Johnson was a lot closer to being a traditional Republican than Trump.

I think Johnson was closer to me in policy, according to those online political polls. Though, even if you disagree with Trump on nearly every issue and think he has terrible character, you're still forced to vote for Trump if you ever want a non-Democrat to have a chance at the federal level again. This video from Stefan Molyneux sums it up for me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_FOCF3vIQ

Though I think Trump is not just the lesser of two evils, but a great candidate for President. I'm not sure I could convince you of that in a HN comment, though.

Obama was wrong. Democracy wasn't on the ballot. Federalism was.

What will happen to the interiors when they realize their tax subsidies won't exist anymore?

What will happen to the cities when the realize they need food and other items from the interiors?

If this actually happened, people in the interior wouldn't be able to afford the food they were selling.

I guess it will become a sort of inefficient, hyper-federalist system.

Seems like having the interior pay its own way by selling food and other resources would be quite a lot more efficient. It would also allow people to govern themselves how they see fit. It's a more humane solution IMO.

Why inefficient? Easing the burden of centralised government on all interstate trade should be more efficient, I would think

How would they feed themselves?

Trade. The same way that the many countries with net agricultural imports feed themselves.

Seems like a very expensive way to do it.

Look at most of the big cities. All are flanked by swathes of agricultural land. San Francisco, New York, Chicago, London, Paris ...

Yes you can trade - but it's no substitute for having your own food source right there.

EDIT HN not allowing me to respond below but yes Tokyo is an outlier - and food as you point out is very expensive.

Sure, and most of those imports would come from the surrounding farmland. It would likely be somewhat more expensive than the current system, but primarily because urban taxes would not be providing agricultural subsidies.

Tokyo already does this and food there is not substantially expensive than it is in other alpha cities.

Also there are plenty of big cities not surrounded by farmland. Hong Kong and Singapore, for example.

Locally-grown food is generally more expensive in these areas because smaller local farms do not enjoy the same advantage of economy of scale that global distributors do.

citation needed

interesting you missed Tokyo there. Japan imports 100% of food consumed regularly except for rice, which is expensive compared to overseas (about $5/kg). Other locally grown meats fruits etc are generally premium items.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com