Issue 244 City States January 7, 2014

We had discussed the idea of changing the ideology of people in cities to counter their need for dependence on a government yesterday. However, there is one other alternative modeled on the ancient city States of ancient Greece. Here is the idea.

The idea: Cities currently have populations that rival the size of many small countries and as such need to be represented in any form of democratic government. However, the ideology of dependency is strong within these cities and may in fact be unstoppable. But there is a solution. At different points in history the idea has been thrown around to allow cities to become independent States (New York City had pushed for Independence at one point). As such we can push for such ideas again. City populations typically outnumber rural populations and thus often lean the elections toward a particular candidate with a certain ideology. To counter that ideology on a national scale, we let that city become an independent State. This confines the people who believe a certain way into one group while giving the rural communities surrounding the city a bigger voice in an election. Fairly easy to understand right?

Advantages: The advantages are as follows. First Rural communities gain a larger voice in government because they no longer have to deal with the overwhelming populations that exist in cities. In fact, if you look at electoral maps of New York and Florida for instance, you will see that the majority of the counties in those States voted for Mitt Romney in the last Presidential election. However, President Obama won those States due to the major cities that overwhelmingly voted for him as they contained the most electoral districts based on population size. So this will eliminate that problem.

In addition, cities have typically consumed sub-urban and rural communities that surround them as they continue to expand outwards. This means that people close to cities may become enveloped by them and be subject to their taxes and fees for mass transit. By making these cities States, it would forcefully limit the cities size preventing development beyond its boundary line. As such, communities surrounding cities can rest assured that they will not become engulfed by the city next door. Also, it forces cities to innovate with respect to their size and scope. Cities will have to build vertically both up and down to accommodate all the people who live in them. This may also force some groups of people out of the cities which force them into other communities exposing them to other ideas of how to live outside of cities. Therefore cities can either become factory cities for middle class workers, playgrounds for the rich, of bastions of hope for the poor depending on how the city States government intends to have the city develop further.

Is it feasible: Yes, but it will be very hard to do. In the United States, the States themselves must agree to allow parts of themselves independence followed by the federal government allowing them into the union. If neither of those things occurs then the plan falls short. Elections will also be much more interesting as the city State has its own voice and the rural and sub-urban having theirs. Politicians may fear that one side will gain too much of an advantage ideologically and politically to allow this to occur. So politicking is a problem to this ideas implementation.

Conclusion: This is simply an idea. I doubt that something like these will ever occur, let alone in my lifetime. However, the advantages are clear with respect to defining a city's limits and the rural communities’ limits which may in fact benefit both communities as politicians who have both within there influence no longer have to meet competing interests. Thanks again for reading one of my (hopefully) interesting ideas.