This os Awesome!
February 16, 2014
The Birth of the American City-state
By Greg Penglis
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/the_birth_of_the_american_city-state.html#ixzz2tYNY1jsl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Mark Levin has proposed a series of "Liberty Amendments" to the Constitution through an Article 5 state convention. I have my own set of amendments which I hope to share here and add to the proposed Liberty Amendments. The first involves the resurrection of the city-state. This plan would take our largest cities, governed primarily by socialist Democrats, and separate them out as independent, self-governing, self-funding political units, with no connection to the states, but within the exclusive oversight of the federal government, just as the states are.
There is a huge separation in this country right now between the socialist big cities and the conservative countrysides. Many times, especially in California where I live, the socialist cities have enough people, and votes, to edge out the conservative countryside in every major state and federal election, despite the fact that the countryside constitutes a vastly larger area, and includes millions of people. Conservatives within that vast area are completely disenfranchised from true representation, even up to the president.
If you took San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles out of the state of California, and left the rest of the state alone to govern itself, the world of electoral politics, and every other issue, would completely change. Therefore I propose that cities over a certain size and metropolitan character be designated as city-states, that their legislators and officers be recalled from the state governments, that the city-states have no connection or ties with the surrounding states, that no person residing in a city-state may hold any government position in a state, and vice-versa, that crossing a city-state line is the equivalent of crossing a state line, and that the city-states become completely independent political, legal, and financial entities.
What is a city-state? the Webster definition is: "A state imade up of an independent city and the terirotyr directly controlled by it." City-states go back to ancient times, and exist today as Singapore, Vatican City, and Monaco. They usually ended up being absorbed by the surrounding countries when the city-states were unable to adequately defend themselves. That wouldn't be a problem with U.S. city-states which would still be under the same protection as the rest of the country.
Why do this? Right now, socialist cities with huge, concentrated, liberal populations are free to elect, and therefore control, the state legislatures, governorships, and other offices. Cities can plunder the tax money, resources, water, and anything else they want from the rest of the state. To redress this grievous imbalance of power, and bring about fair and equal representation to the conservative countrysides, the major cities have to be separated out from the states. This would be done by counties, by geography, by status as a highly urban area, by metropolitan area designation, by transportation systems, by infrastructure, and by logic as to what would be a proper city-state. City-states would not violate current county and state boundaries, unless a city-state naturally crosses state lines, like Kansas City.
The best example I know is my own San Francisco Bay area, which is a well known socialist bastion, sanctuary city, source of huge welfare benefits, alleged voter fraud, illegal aliens, progressives, and a sinkhole of other taxpayer's money. All Californians pay taxes to support San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. So let's isolate them and make this the prototype city-state. Geographically, the area is surrounded by hills and centered around San Francisco Bay. Politically, it is overwhelmingly liberal Democrat. There are 6 counties that if combined would comprise the perfect city-state. Those would be San Francisco (It's both a city and a county) Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties. The area has regional government and associations. They have regional public transportation, highways, airports, seaports, and rail lines. It has Silicon Valley, major universities, the Pacific Stock Exchange, and is a world-renowned tourist attraction. This area could easily support itself and govern itself. And then leave the rest of California alone.
The basic concept of the city-state is self-funding and self-governing, just like a state. They could pass confiscatory tax rates which people would either pay, or leave the city-state. The city-states could pass all the unconstitutional gun-ban laws they could get away with, while the states would be more free to honor the Second Amendment. The city-states could create their own laws and their own constitutions, and would be free to create virtual dictatorships with the approval of their constituents. The city-state could make the most elaborate and inefficient public transportation system possible, and pay the most outrageous wages and benefits to the union employees. But they would have to fully support the system with tax money only from within the city-state, not the rest of the state. City-states would set up their own courts, and run their own education, police, health, welfare, fire, and other departments.
The real benefit to the city-state system is that all the folks who are not in a city-state would regain their ideological representation. They would be free of the socialist cities and could elect a more conservative state legislature, governor, and other offices, and pass ballot initiatives more in line with their conservative values. The state executive departments, legislature and judiciary would not have any jurisdiction over the city-states, nor would state police have jurisdiction in city-states, and vice-versa. The states would prosper in federal elections. State congressional delegations would be free of their city-state former members. Congressional districts would change so they do not overlap states and city-states, so that they both elect their own representatives. Senators would be split with one senator being elected by the state, and one by the city-states within the state boundaries. The electoral college electors would be proportionally split into one group for the state, and one group for the city-states within. The state National Guard use in city-states would require agreements between the city-states and the states. The states would be free to explore their energy sources, use their natural resources, and have coastline jurisdiction where the land is not part of a city-state.
According to Listosaur.com there are 10 modern secessionist movements in the United States. The one thing they all have in common is a political minority that feels powerless because they cannot win elections or initiatives, since the majority population outvotes them every time. One way to solve all the separate secession movements is to unify them under the city-state reorganization of the country. In some of these cases liberal cities are dominated by a much larger conservative state majority, such as Miami, which would benefit by becoming a city-state and coming out from under Tallahassee. So how do we do this?
West Virginia, according to About.com U.S. Boundary History, was created when counties of Virginia did not vote for secession from the Union right before the Civil War, as the rest of Virginia did, and Congress voted to approve those counties becoming a separate state. Such a procedure could be followed again. In my state, all the counties not included in the San Francisco, Sacramento, or Los Angeles city-states, could vote to cast off the city-states and retain the name California. The city-states would retain their city names. The cities could vote themselves into city-state status if they meet the established criteria. The state legislatures could also designate their city-states, especially in states without ballot initiatives. But this could get really messy with all the potential legal challenges, as we are going into new ground here.
I came up with city-states as new political jurisdictions to add them to Mark Levin's proposal to amend the Constitution in an Article 5 state convention. A special commission from each state should designate the city-states within their state during this convention. Some states without huge metropolitan areas won't have any city states. City-states would only be the largest metropolitan areas like New York City, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Atlanta, and Philadelphia for example. The state convention could ratify a master plan for city-states throughout the country, applying consistent criteria to create city-states and then amend the Constitution to accommodate them. The city-states would have the same status as states in relation to the federal government, they would have exactly the same powers as states, and would have the same protections and congressional oversight in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause would have to be amended to include city-states. The big change would be amending Article 4 which concerns new states admitted to the union. The first paragraph of Article 4 could be amended to: "New states and city-states may be admitted by the Congress into this union. City-states shall be separate political entities, created by state legislatures or state ballot initiative, with all the powers and privileges of states." The rest of Article 4 should remain the same.
This change in political jurisdictions should address both the non-representation of counties outside the big cities, the drain on states by the big cities, and all the separate secessionist movements. I welcome comments and questions, and any good strategy for the implementation of city-states, within the United States, to make them a reality.
Greg Penglis is a flight instructor and author of The Complete Guide to Flight Instruction, and is starting a new, conservative, online news broadcast service called "Penglis Online News."
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/the_birth_of_the_american_city-state.html#ixzz2tYNgZtAx
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
No.
What?
Why?
Has Penglis been hitting the Miller Lite too?
If the cities were self-governing and kept their own revenue how would the rural populations get any kind of government services?
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 12:29:36 AM
If the cities were self-governing and kept their own revenue how would the rural populations get any kind of government services?
My guess is that the answer (they wouldn't) is viewed as a feature, not a bug.
But I can't know for sure without reading that big block of nonsense and that's not happening.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 12:29:36 AM
If the cities were self-governing and kept their own revenue how would the rural populations get any kind of government services?
They wouldn't. The rural voter sucks at the teat of government. It would also be difficult to organize a nation defense if you can't mix rural and urban money. Since the urban areas pay the bills and the bases tend to be out in the countryside. Presumably Siege would have to take a massive pay cut or more likely be layed off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2014, 12:43:08 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 12:29:36 AM
If the cities were self-governing and kept their own revenue how would the rural populations get any kind of government services?
My guess is that the answer (they wouldn't) is viewed as a feature, not a bug.
But I can't know for sure without reading that big block of nonsense and that's not happening.
On the plus side the airline industry would prosper without federal highways.
The author seems to think that cities still leech off of the countryside like it's the middle ages. The opposite has been true for quite a while. This would cause massive social and economic disruptions and ruin the country.
Is this guy under the impression that it is the the countryside that is funding the cities?
Why does this guy hate America?
I did read the whole thing, though I don't know why. I'm not really a trained psychiatrist, so I can't do anything with this information in any case. :(
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on February 17, 2014, 12:49:50 AM
The author seems to think that cities still leech off of the countryside like it's the middle ages. The opposite has been true for quite a while. This would cause massive social and economic disruptions and ruin the country.
Ruining the country is a feature, not a bug. Guys like this are so conservative that they think that leaving the caves and mastering fire was a bad idea.
We have these in China. Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing are designated cities that do not belong to any province. They are directly administered by the central government. Hong Kong and Macau are special admin zones. It is not a big deal, it just means that they are province level entities without being called provinces. So instead of New York City belonging to New York State, you'll have New York City as your 51st state. LA will be separated from California and become the 52nd state and so on.
No, I didn't bother to read the entire article, so sue me :P
Somehow I doubt the PRC is the model here.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on February 17, 2014, 12:49:50 AM
The author seems to think that cities still leech off of the countryside like it's the middle ages. The opposite has been true for quite a while. This would cause massive social and economic disruptions and ruin the country.
I don't think that was true even in the middle ages. Interestedly, there was a similar movement in the US in the 19th century though it went in reverse. Cities got tired of paying for all the yokels out in the county and became independent of the county. St. Louis is like that. It was all well and good and until after WWII when people moved out into the suburbs.
Reminds me of this post by Ian Leslie:
http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2012/11/why-the-gop-needs-to-move-to-the-city.html
QuoteA common theme of the post-match commentary on this election is that it revealed long-term trends in the US electorate which spell bad news for the Republican Party in its current form. I agree with this, but it's important to note that these trends are not just about ethnicity (oh and by the way, media organisations, white people are "ethnic" too).
The originator of the "long-term demographic trouble for the GOP" analysis is a political scientist called Ruy Texeira. In 2002 Texeira co-authored a much discussed book called The Emerging Democratic Majority, arguing that the growing diversity and urbanisation of America's population was benefiting one party more than the other. Two years later, George Bush won a second term and Texeira's theories became less fashionable. Now they are being looked at again. After all, Republicans have polled a minority of the popular vote in five out of the last six elections.
A caricature of this view, usually made by its critics, is that the Republicans will never win again. But of course they will. The Democrats have their own problems, and political parties adapt, albeit slowly. But that's the point: unless the GOP adapts to the new America, it will be at a growing disadvantage in every presidential election (in midterm elections they will tend to do better because the people that come out to vote tend to be older and whiter, for now).
It won't be a quick fix, because it requires a whole shift in attitude and outlook. As Texeira points out in this interview, winning the Hispanic vote isn't just about immigration:
QuoteI wrote a piece arguing that [GOP stances on immigration], in terms of projecting hostility toward that population, it clearly hurt them. But I also thought if you looked at Hispanics' other opinions — opinions on the economy and opinions on the role of government, on education — just look at a wide variety of views on who can handle the economy, they're very much aligned with the Democratic Party, and an activist view of government, and not with the hardcore, quasi-libertarian approach of the Republicans, which putting Paul Ryan on the ticket seemed to underscore.
As you can see, it's not just about ethnicity or demographics - or, at least, it's at the point where demographics dissolve into culture, attitudes and political instincts. In short, the outlook of American voters is changing. If you want a simple explanation why, this from Gail Collins and David Brooks (NYT columnists "in conversation"), is pretty good. Brooks first:
QuoteDavid: Ronald Reagan won with an electorate that was nearly 90 percent white. Now the electorate is around 72 percent white. And the white population is different — more educated, more centered in college towns, more socially diverse, more likely to live in single-person households.
That means they are less likely to subscribe to the cowboy ethos of the rugged individual. It doesn't mean they want to return to the New Deal, but it does mean that the old Republican narrative can no longer win a majority.
Gail: I've always thought the big political division was empty places versus crowded places. People who live in crowded places just naturally appreciate how useful government is. Empty-place people don't see the point. Maybe this is the death of the empty-place vision.
For all the talk about ethnicity, the more fundamental change is that more people are living in cities and relying on complex infrastructure and government services every day. If you're Hispanic you're even more likely to rely on these services at some point because you're more likely to be working your way into the middle class. Urban dwellers are also more likely to be surrounded by neighbours and colleagues who are racially different, openly gay or smoke pot, and over time, what psychologists call the mere-exposure effect means that these things become normalised for more people.
In Ohio, Obama won because he ran up huge margins in the cities, including Columbus. To win the presidency in 2016, the GOP must do more than nominate Marco Rubio and soften its immigration stance. It needs to catch up with the rest of the country and leave the small town behind.
Until i read this thread i had been unaware of the widespread and systematic flow of government revenue from the cities to the countryside. Frankly it was not an issue I had given any thought to. My eyes have been opened.
The city needs the country, the country needs the city. To say otherwise is idiocy.
I'm going to the country. I'm going to eat a lot of peaches.
And get diarrhea, since what peaches may be on the trees are nowhere near being ripe.
Quote from: Scipio on February 17, 2014, 05:14:54 AM
I'm going to the country. I'm going to eat a lot of peaches.
And get diarrhea, since what peaches may be on the trees are nowhere near being ripe.
But ... peaches come from a can, they were put their by a man in the factory downtown.
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2014, 05:16:51 AM
Quote from: Scipio on February 17, 2014, 05:14:54 AM
I'm going to the country. I'm going to eat a lot of peaches.
And get diarrhea, since what peaches may be on the trees are nowhere near being ripe.
But ... peaches come from a can, they were put their by a man in the factory downtown.
Who cares, if I had it my way, I'd eat peaches everyday.
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2014, 05:16:51 AM
Quote from: Scipio on February 17, 2014, 05:14:54 AM
I'm going to the country. I'm going to eat a lot of peaches.
And get diarrhea, since what peaches may be on the trees are nowhere near being ripe.
But ... peaches come from a can, they were put their by a man in the factory downtown.
Good peaches don't come in cans.
I may have to make a cobbler today.
Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2014, 12:24:45 AM
There is a huge separation in this country right now between the socialist big cities and the conservative countrysides. Many times, especially in California where I live, the socialist cities have enough people, and votes, to edge out the conservative countryside in every major state and federal election, despite the fact that the countryside constitutes a vastly larger area, and includes millions of people. Conservatives within that vast area are completely disenfranchised from true representation, even up to the president.
Oh sure now they complain about this. Back in 2000 they were telling me how the Electoral College was supposed to give more power to the countryside.
This is a pretty radical and destabilizing idea, which strikes me as the opposite of 'Conservative'.
When one holds views that are in the minority it is their god-given right to change the system so that they get their fundamentalist ideas into laws.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 12:29:36 AM
If the cities were self-governing and kept their own revenue how would the rural populations get any kind of government services?
I haven't read the article, but I suspect the anticipated outcome is to have businesses move to the suburbs.
If the GOP has such a problem with disenfranchised minorities, moving to a proportional voting system entirely is a much better idea. They could add some preferential voting rules while they're at it.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 17, 2014, 09:51:22 AM
If the GOP has such a problem with disenfranchised minorities, moving to a proportional voting system entirely is a much better idea. They could add some preferential voting rules while they're at it.
Those are really bad for any country. Countries that use them aren't exactly bastions of freedom, good government and justice.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 17, 2014, 09:50:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 12:29:36 AM
If the cities were self-governing and kept their own revenue how would the rural populations get any kind of government services?
I haven't read the article, but I suspect the anticipated outcome is to have businesses move to the suburbs.
:hmm:
S essentially what they're proposing is to create a prison for all the godless socialists, social liberals, centrists, and other gay/woman/muslim/darky/whatever else true blue conservatives hate enablers.
The cities are declared independent, the businesses retreat to a ring around them, walling them in and protecting the countryside from their influence.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 17, 2014, 09:50:46 AM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 12:29:36 AM
If the cities were self-governing and kept their own revenue how would the rural populations get any kind of government services?
I haven't read the article, but I suspect the anticipated outcome is to have businesses move to the suburbs.
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2014, 10:33:04 AM
:hmm:
S essentially what they're proposing is to create a prison for all the godless socialists, social liberals, centrists, and other gay/woman/muslim/darky/whatever else true blue conservatives hate enablers.
The cities are declared independent, the businesses retreat to a ring around them, walling them in and protecting the countryside from their influence.
Yes that is the plan. It is basically gerrymandering. That is the way of American Democracy: how can we draw the lines so we win?
Presumably without the votes from the cities, the state could pass laws banning gayness, blackness, womanness and educationness.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 10:34:55 AM
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
They can just keep expanding the City States doing this until they get 100% Democrats cities with 51% Republican dominated States, thus fulfilling the Gerrymandering playbook.
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2014, 10:36:41 AM
Presumably without the votes from the cities, the state could pass laws banning gayness, blackness, womanness and educationness.
I'd like to round up the uppity women. They need reeducation.
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2014, 10:33:04 AM
:hmm:
S essentially what they're proposing is to create a prison for all the godless socialists, social liberals, centrists, and other gay/woman/muslim/darky/whatever else true blue conservatives hate enablers.
The cities are declared independent, the businesses retreat to a ring around them, walling them in and protecting the countryside from their influence.
:lol:
Quote from: Monoriu on February 17, 2014, 05:47:40 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2014, 05:16:51 AM
Quote from: Scipio on February 17, 2014, 05:14:54 AM
I'm going to the country. I'm going to eat a lot of peaches.
And get diarrhea, since what peaches may be on the trees are nowhere near being ripe.
But ... peaches come from a can, they were put their by a man in the factory downtown.
Good peaches don't come in cans.
*sigh*
Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2014, 12:27:20 AM
Why?
It's just a lame attempt at super-gerrymandering large cities into separate states, with the blatant goal of making them represented by a minority in the Senate vs. the remaining "rural-only" states, and making their population less relevant. And the proposer doesn't even hide that their reasoning is solely based on "wah wah, we cannot win elections against people living in large cities, so we have to diminish their political influence somehow).
If they were really pro-Constitution as they claim, they would simply go about creating new states from these cities under the procedures that already exist in the very same constitution that protects their 2nd Amendment rights (of course, that means they have no prayer of that happening).
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 10:34:55 AM
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
Not really in Atlanta's case.
The metro area of Atlanta is over something like 15 counties and a bunch of "cities". The inner city core is the only place concentrated communities of poverty can effectively live--for instance, the major hospital serving the poor is there, and it is the only place with anything resembling reasonable public transportation.
The core part of the city is stuck with high taxes to cover the services, and as a result most of the major businesses in the metro area are now in the suburbs. The metro area has been rapidly growing, but in the core of the city significant amounts of office space is now unfilled (the largest skyscraper recently went bankrupt). Wealthier parts of the metro area want nothing to do with Atlanta, and have been separately incorporating and trying to secede for quite some time. The suburbs have made conscious decisions not to build public transportation that connects to the city (even if they don't have to pay for it) in order to keep poorer elements from being able to move into their areas.
I don't know if the results are good. Massive amounts of sprawl and traffic that is reaching absurd levels. However, economically the metro area has done well. There is a limit to how far it can go though. A lot of Georgia voters may not care, but if the hospitals serving the poor go under, it is going to be a public health crisis that hits everyone.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on February 17, 2014, 12:49:50 AM
The author seems to think that cities still leech off of the countryside like it's the middle ages. The opposite has been true for quite a while. This would cause massive social and economic disruptions and ruin the country.
Cities make their own food?
Quote from: citizen k on February 17, 2014, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on February 17, 2014, 12:49:50 AM
The author seems to think that cities still leech off of the countryside like it's the middle ages. The opposite has been true for quite a while. This would cause massive social and economic disruptions and ruin the country.
Cities make their own food?
Paying for products = leeching? :unsure:
Quote from: citizen k on February 17, 2014, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on February 17, 2014, 12:49:50 AM
The author seems to think that cities still leech off of the countryside like it's the middle ages. The opposite has been true for quite a while. This would cause massive social and economic disruptions and ruin the country.
Cities make their own food?
It's cheaper to import it then from overseas then to buy it from the countryside.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 17, 2014, 11:43:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 10:34:55 AM
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
Not really in Atlanta's case.
The metro area of Atlanta is over something like 15 counties and a bunch of "cities". The inner city core is the only place concentrated communities of poverty can effectively live--for instance, the major hospital serving the poor is there, and it is the only place with anything resembling reasonable public transportation.
The core part of the city is stuck with high taxes to cover the services, and as a result most of the major businesses in the metro area are now in the suburbs. The metro area has been rapidly growing, but in the core of the city significant amounts of office space is now unfilled (the largest skyscraper recently went bankrupt). Wealthier parts of the metro area want nothing to do with Atlanta, and have been separately incorporating and trying to secede for quite some time. The suburbs have made conscious decisions not to build public transportation that connects to the city (even if they don't have to pay for it) in order to keep poorer elements from being able to move into their areas.
I don't know if the results are good. Massive amounts of sprawl and traffic that is reaching absurd levels. However, economically the metro area has done well. There is a limit to how far it can go though. A lot of Georgia voters may not care, but if the hospitals serving the poor go under, it is going to be a public health crisis that hits everyone.
I'm not surprised that white southerners don't want to have anything to do with blacks.
Why should you be, when white Midwesterners don't either, by the same logic.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2014, 01:26:51 AM
Somehow I doubt the PRC is the model here.
I'm not so sure. It seems like the hard-core conservatives in the US are pretty comfortable with an autocratic elite ruling the country and providing a business environment where business regulations and governance don't apply to those with the right political connections.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2014, 10:37:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 10:34:55 AM
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
They can just keep expanding the City States doing this until they get 100% Democrats cities with 51% Republican dominated States, thus fulfilling the Gerrymandering playbook.
yes, but the Senate would then be 100 Republican Senators from the states, and 200 Democratic Senators from the city-states.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2014, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2014, 10:37:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 10:34:55 AM
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
They can just keep expanding the City States doing this until they get 100% Democrats cities with 51% Republican dominated States, thus fulfilling the Gerrymandering playbook.
yes, but the Senate would then be 100 Republican Senators from the states, and 200 Democratic Senators from the city-states.
The model that he provided was 50/50, because the state's senators were split. 1 for the state, and one for all the city-states within the state combined.
Also he's being a bit loose with "city-state" as he's taking the bay area as a whole as one city-state.
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2014, 03:04:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2014, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2014, 10:37:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 10:34:55 AM
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
They can just keep expanding the City States doing this until they get 100% Democrats cities with 51% Republican dominated States, thus fulfilling the Gerrymandering playbook.
yes, but the Senate would then be 100 Republican Senators from the states, and 200 Democratic Senators from the city-states.
The model that he provided was 50/50, because the state's senators were split. 1 for the state, and one for all the city-states within the state combined.
So, his idea that cities should be treated as separate states, except in cases where that gives the liberals more representation. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2014, 03:26:13 PM
So, his idea that cities should be treated as separate states, except in cases where that gives the liberals more representation. :hmm:
Well his point is that Conservatives who are minorities in electoral districts are not winning elections and thus need a radical change to the Constitution to give them more representation.
I thought his point was largely about taxation and spending. I might not have read the whole thing however.
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2014, 10:20:44 AM
Those are really bad for any country. Countries that use them aren't exactly bastions of freedom, good government and justice.
The arguably most successful Western country of the last decade has preferential voting.
It's a very muddled and confused idea. At one point the author claims the city states would be free to create dictatorships where they take away the 2nd amendment so apparently the constitution doesn't actually exist in this scenario.
Quote from: Zanza on February 17, 2014, 04:09:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2014, 10:20:44 AM
Those are really bad for any country. Countries that use them aren't exactly bastions of freedom, good government and justice.
The arguably most successful Western country of the last decade has preferential voting.
:huh: We don't have anything of the sort.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 03:08:19 PM
Also he's being a bit loose with "city-state" as he's taking the bay area as a whole as one city-state.
I don't see how that follows. It's not like it would be totally bizarre to define the whole bay area metro as one city.
So can we all agree that this is a stupid idea?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 05:24:28 PM
So can we all agree that this is a stupid idea?
Depends what you mean. A number of countries around their world established their national capitals as separate "city states," and most seem pleased with the choice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 05:24:28 PM
So can we all agree that this is a stupid idea?
Depends what you mean. A number of countries around their world established their national capitals as separate "city states," and most seem pleased with the choice.
My guess is he's meaning this in the context of US politics.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2014, 05:35:16 PM
My guess is he's meaning this in the context of US politics.
Well, it certainly carried the House of Representatives.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2014, 05:35:16 PM
My guess is he's meaning this in the context of US politics.
The District of Columbia is a separate entity.
If Raz's question is whether the rural parts of states would lose out financially if their revenue and spending were separated from cities, then I don't know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 05:39:01 PM
If Raz's question is whether the rural parts of states would lose out financially if their revenue and spending were separated from cities, then I don't know.
I'm sure the benefits of walling off Dazzling Urbanites, Liberal Hipsters, Jews, Blatantly Gay Homosexuals, Immigrants that Sing "America The Beautiful" in Different Languages and other assorted non-
Mayberry R.F.D. types outweighs the costs to The Real America(tm).
God, that sounds wonderful.
That's because it sounds like Sweatervestville, Ohio. You intolerant asshole.
:wub:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 05:39:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2014, 05:35:16 PM
My guess is he's meaning this in the context of US politics.
The District of Columbia is a separate entity.
If Raz's question is whether the rural parts of states would lose out financially if their revenue and spending were separated from cities, then I don't know.
I mean the idea of splitting senate seats between rural and urban areas, urban areas setting up dictatorships, pass unconstitutional laws (presumably the countryside could also set pass unconstitutional laws and set up dictatorships as well) all so conservatives would have a political advantage because they are apparently disenfranchised.
The article doesn't really touch on the idea of states losing out financially, that's something everyone here assumes. Crop land doesn't produce a lot of tax dollars, and sparsely populated rural areas cost much more to provide basic services to. After all, a road that services 100,000 people in Montana is going to be much more expensive then a road that services 100,000 people in Newark, New Jersey.
QuoteCities can plunder the tax money, resources, water, and anything else they want from the rest of the state. To redress this grievous imbalance of power, and bring about fair and equal representation to the conservative countrysides, the major cities have to be separated out from the states.
This is where I'm getting the financial transfers thing from.
I think it would make more sense just to have one centrally-run dictatorship.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2014, 07:51:30 PM
I think it would make more sense just to have one centrally-run dictatorship.
That's not very Libertarian Socialist of you
Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2014, 04:19:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2014, 03:08:19 PM
Also he's being a bit loose with "city-state" as he's taking the bay area as a whole as one city-state.
I don't see how that follows. It's not like it would be totally bizarre to define the whole bay area metro as one city.
I suppose if you have a very loose definition of what a city is. ;)
Quote from: Maximus on February 17, 2014, 07:53:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2014, 07:51:30 PM
I think it would make more sense just to have one centrally-run dictatorship.
That's not very Libertarian Socialist of you
Ha ha. FU.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2014, 05:48:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 05:39:01 PM
If Raz's question is whether the rural parts of states would lose out financially if their revenue and spending were separated from cities, then I don't know.
I'm sure the benefits of walling off Dazzling Urbanites, Liberal Hipsters, Jews, Blatantly Gay Homosexuals, Immigrants that Sing "America The Beautiful" in Different Languages and other assorted non-Mayberry R.F.D. types outweighs the costs to The Real America(tm).
I dunno. The road burden on the hick states is going to pretty huge.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 17, 2014, 11:43:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 10:34:55 AM
That really just causes a city to move, eventually causing the same "problem" as before, to many liberals in the state.
Not really in Atlanta's case.
The metro area of Atlanta is over something like 15 counties and a bunch of "cities". The inner city core is the only place concentrated communities of poverty can effectively live--for instance, the major hospital serving the poor is there, and it is the only place with anything resembling reasonable public transportation.
The core part of the city is stuck with high taxes to cover the services, and as a result most of the major businesses in the metro area are now in the suburbs. The metro area has been rapidly growing, but in the core of the city significant amounts of office space is now unfilled (the largest skyscraper recently went bankrupt). Wealthier parts of the metro area want nothing to do with Atlanta, and have been separately incorporating and trying to secede for quite some time. The suburbs have made conscious decisions not to build public transportation that connects to the city (even if they don't have to pay for it) in order to keep poorer elements from being able to move into their areas.
I don't know if the results are good. Massive amounts of sprawl and traffic that is reaching absurd levels. However, economically the metro area has done well. There is a limit to how far it can go though. A lot of Georgia voters may not care, but if the hospitals serving the poor go under, it is going to be a public health crisis that hits everyone.
This is why American style lax Urban planning regulations are bad. You see similar donutting (albeit for different reasons) in japan and it really wrecks the livability of some obstentially decent sized cities
Busineses shouldn't be able to just up and move to a greenfield site.
They should be ________?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 07:44:20 PM
QuoteCities can plunder the tax money, resources, water, and anything else they want from the rest of the state. To redress this grievous imbalance of power, and bring about fair and equal representation to the conservative countrysides, the major cities have to be separated out from the states.
This is where I'm getting the financial transfers thing from.
Quote
The basic concept of the city-state is self-funding and self-governing, just like a state. They could pass confiscatory tax rates which people would either pay, or leave the city-state. The city-states could pass all the unconstitutional gun-ban laws they could get away with, while the states would be more free to honor the Second Amendment. The city-states could create their own laws and their own constitutions, and would be free to create virtual dictatorships with the approval of their constituents. The city-state could make the most elaborate and inefficient public transportation system possible, and pay the most outrageous wages and benefits to the union employees. But they would have to fully support the system with tax money only from within the city-state, not the rest of the state. City-states would set up their own courts, and run their own education, police, health, welfare, fire, and other departments.The basic concept of the city-state is self-funding and self-governing, just like a state. They could pass confiscatory tax rates which people would either pay, or leave the city-state. The city-states could pass all the unconstitutional gun-ban laws they could get away with, while the states would be more free to honor the Second Amendment. The city-states could create their own laws and their own constitutions, and would be free to create virtual dictatorships with the approval of their constituents. The city-state could make the most elaborate and inefficient public transportation system possible, and pay the most outrageous wages and benefits to the union employees. But they would have to fully support the system with tax money only from within the city-state, not the rest of the state. City-states would set up their own courts, and run their own education, police, health, welfare, fire, and other departments.
This where I get the bizarre dictatorship thing. What about the water transfers and the "resource" transfers? I was under the impression that US waterways are under Federal jurisdiction, not state. I'm not aware of any "resource transfer". Is this a problem out the boondocks, city slickers coming in and taking all their iron ore?
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2014, 08:27:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2014, 05:48:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 05:39:01 PM
If Raz's question is whether the rural parts of states would lose out financially if their revenue and spending were separated from cities, then I don't know.
I'm sure the benefits of walling off Dazzling Urbanites, Liberal Hipsters, Jews, Blatantly Gay Homosexuals, Immigrants that Sing "America The Beautiful" in Different Languages and other assorted non-Mayberry R.F.D. types outweighs the costs to The Real America(tm).
I dunno. The road burden on the hick states is going to pretty huge.
And pretty much every other type of infrastructure. Take schools for example. In a urban or suburban area a class might have 30 kids in a class room, in a rural area you might only get 15 kids in a class room because the students are all spread out. Since it's not feasible to bus kids 60 miles every day to school, you'll have to build more schools and hire more teachers to teach the same number of kids. In this simplified scenario educating a rural student costs twice as much as his urban counterpart and you'll be doing it on less money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
Depends what you mean. A number of countries around their world established their national capitals as separate "city states," and most seem pleased with the choice.
Yeah they didn't do this centuries after they were established for no other reason but to manipulate voting.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 11:49:11 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2014, 08:27:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2014, 05:48:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2014, 05:39:01 PM
If Raz's question is whether the rural parts of states would lose out financially if their revenue and spending were separated from cities, then I don't know.
I'm sure the benefits of walling off Dazzling Urbanites, Liberal Hipsters, Jews, Blatantly Gay Homosexuals, Immigrants that Sing "America The Beautiful" in Different Languages and other assorted non-Mayberry R.F.D. types outweighs the costs to The Real America(tm).
I dunno. The road burden on the hick states is going to pretty huge.
And pretty much every other type of infrastructure. Take schools for example. In a urban or suburban area a class might have 30 kids in a class room, in a rural area you might only get 15 kids in a class room because the students are all spread out. Since it's not feasible to bus kids 60 miles every day to school, you'll have to build more schools and hire more teachers to teach the same number of kids. In this simplified scenario educating a rural student costs twice as much as his urban counterpart and you'll be doing it on less money.
They can just use their churches for schools.
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2014, 08:53:02 PM
This is why American style lax Urban planning regulations are bad. You see similar donutting (albeit for different reasons) in japan and it really wrecks the livability of some obstentially decent sized cities
Busineses shouldn't be able to just up and move to a greenfield site.
The only leases should be lifetime leases.
Not everything should be master-planned. There is a trade-off there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 12:46:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2014, 08:53:02 PM
This is why American style lax Urban planning regulations are bad. You see similar donutting (albeit for different reasons) in japan and it really wrecks the livability of some obstentially decent sized cities
Busineses shouldn't be able to just up and move to a greenfield site.
The only leases should be lifetime leases.
And the fee abolished!
Wait, maybe we're talking about two different things.
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2014, 08:53:02 PM
This is why American style lax Urban planning regulations are bad. You see similar donutting (albeit for different reasons) in japan and it really wrecks the livability of some obstentially decent sized cities
Busineses shouldn't be able to just up and move to a greenfield site.
On the other hand our people have someplace to live unlike British Urban planning regulations.
Oh snap!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 09:11:03 AM
Oh snap!
Say what you want about urban sprawl, I would prefer that to paying millions for a thousand square foot apartment.
I thought you crushed Squeeze's bones. :mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 11:41:17 PM
This where I get the bizarre dictatorship thing. What about the water transfers and the "resource" transfers? I was under the impression that US waterways are under Federal jurisdiction, not state. I'm not aware of any "resource transfer". Is this a problem out the boondocks, city slickers coming in and taking all their iron ore?
Isn't Southern California (I'm thinking Los Angeles here) famous for diverting water away from rural counties that actually need it? Disappearing rivers and lakes and all that?
Given D.C's example I'm almost surprised that he proposed splitting the senate entitlement between the cities and the State. Guess he didn't have the guts to advocate that they lose Senate representation entirely.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2014, 09:33:06 AM
Isn't Southern California (I'm thinking Los Angeles here) famous for diverting water away from rural counties that actually need it? Disappearing rivers and lakes and all that?
The Southwest is famous for having water issues period. This sort of stuff happens between Texas and Mexico all the time and we do not even have any huge cities in that area.
QuoteGiven D.C's example I'm almost surprised that he proposed splitting the senate entitlement between the cities and the State. Guess he didn't have the guts to advocate that they lose Senate representation entirely.
And Congressional representation if he really wanted to go full DC :P
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2014, 09:33:06 AM
Isn't Southern California (I'm thinking Los Angeles here) famous for diverting water away from rural counties that actually need it? Disappearing rivers and lakes and all that?
It's more like southern California steals northern California's water.
It's not really a rural/urban thing: agricultural water usage is famously subsidized in California.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2014, 09:33:06 AM
Given D.C's example I'm almost surprised that he proposed splitting the senate entitlement between the cities and the State. Guess he didn't have the guts to advocate that they lose Senate representation entirely.
He doesn't need to. The rad states for the most part won't have any city-states, so the Republicans will keep their pairs there, while virtually every blue state would go from 0 Republicans to 1. That author is no tinpot dictator, he understands that you don't need to run up the score to 99 to win.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2014, 11:41:17 PM
This where I get the bizarre dictatorship thing. What about the water transfers and the "resource" transfers? I was under the impression that US waterways are under Federal jurisdiction, not state. I'm not aware of any "resource transfer". Is this a problem out the boondocks, city slickers coming in and taking all their iron ore?
Water administration is a mess. Look up "riparian rights" and you'll find a whole mess of squabbles, injunctions, aborted ventures, and finger-pointing. Historically, the Delaware River and the Colorado River are particularly contentious- Delaware and NJ routinely fight over which state can do how much on the water, and Colorado has hauled the feds to court at least twice over perceived preemption of its right to administrate its own waters.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 09:05:24 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 17, 2014, 08:53:02 PM
This is why American style lax Urban planning regulations are bad. You see similar donutting (albeit for different reasons) in japan and it really wrecks the livability of some obstentially decent sized cities
Busineses shouldn't be able to just up and move to a greenfield site.
On the other hand our people have someplace to live unlike British Urban planning regulations.
I never said the British system was best.
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2014, 10:19:10 AM
I never said the British system was best.
What is the best system I wonder?
Engineering humor? :yeahright:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 11:37:13 AM
Engineering humor? :yeahright:
No, Ron was the best I could come up with as a substitute for purple. :(
I was including Georgia as well.
Besides, north Florida is pretty red.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 18, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
I was including Georgia as well.
Ah, that's definitely a rad state. :cool:
Quote from: Savonarola on February 18, 2014, 11:44:54 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 11:37:13 AM
Engineering humor? :yeahright:
No, Ron was the best I could come up with as a substitute for purple. :(
Set it and forget it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 09:38:15 AM
And Congressional representation if he really wanted to go full DC :P
What, not even a delegate and the Electoral College votes?
[But yes, I had mixed up the Electoral College votes with seats in the House of Representatives. :Embarrass:]
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2014, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2014, 01:26:51 AM
Somehow I doubt the PRC is the model here.
I'm not so sure. It seems like the hard-core conservatives in the US are pretty comfortable with an autocratic elite ruling the country and providing a business environment where business regulations and governance don't apply to those with the right political connections.
Depends what you mean by conservative.
But either way, Siege's guy appears to be motivated by the desire to reduce the political influence and power of the cities, whereas in the PRC the cities are powerful and the countryside villages weak and subject to elite predation.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2014, 05:49:37 PM
God, that sounds wonderful.
Sorry, no Frenchified Normandy chateau owners allowed. :contract:
Thailand has a pretty sharp city/rural political split too.
Personally, I do think the answer is decentralization so that laws can be made to match the local conditions, but making new states via some sort of ideological ghettoization isn't the same thing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 18, 2014, 04:05:59 PM
Personally, I do think the answer is decentralization so that laws can be made to match the local conditions, but making new states via some sort of ideological ghettoization isn't the same thing.
Don't we already have this? I guess we could have County Legislatures as well. That would be getting a little ridiculous.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 04:46:41 PM
Don't we already have this? I guess we could have County Legislatures as well. That would be getting a little ridiculous.
We do, and I think our way is fundamentally sound for the most part. There are a couple states that have very large cities that basically wag the dog though.
Siege is doing better at his trolls than average this past week or so. this is the second thread in which he has posted some absurd position held by an on-line nitwit, and then basically walked away to watch the board squabbling as members agreed with one another.
Well-done, Siege! i always said that your "I'm just a big dummy" shtick was just a shtick.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2014, 05:07:44 PM
Siege is doing better at his trolls than average this past week or so. this is the second thread in which he has posted some absurd position held by an on-line nitwit, and then basically walked away to watch the board squabbling as members agreed with one another.
Well-done, Siege! i always said that your "I'm just a big dummy" shtick was just a shtick.
It's nice if Siege's trolling can move on to something the board is actually vaguely interested in responding to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 18, 2014, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 17, 2014, 05:49:37 PM
God, that sounds wonderful.
Sorry, no Frenchified Normandy chateau owners allowed. :contract:
By 'Frenchified', do you mean that he's gone native in France, or that he has syphilis?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 17, 2014, 07:51:30 PM
I think it would make more sense just to have one centrally-run dictatorship.
I'm fine with it as long as I am the dictator.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2014, 05:07:44 PM
Siege is doing better at his trolls than average this past week or so. this is the second thread in which he has posted some absurd position held by an on-line nitwit, and then basically walked away to watch the board squabbling as members agreed with one another.
Well-done, Siege! i always said that your "I'm just a big dummy" shtick was just a shtick.
What? I didn't walk away from this.
I think city-states are a valid idea.
It just comes down to adding more States to the Union by dividing existing States.
And I am indeed a big dummy.
Everybody knows that.
My intelligence level is below average, as proven by my posting record and inability to hijack Timmay's and Monkeybutt's threads.
Monkeybutt no longer exists, but anyone can hijack Tim's threads. I'm sure you've done it before.
Does Boner ever start threads?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 08:08:06 PM
Does Boner ever start threads?
The Ohio one. We hijacked it good.
I started running out of ohio material. :blush:
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2014, 08:01:55 PM
My intelligence level is below average, as proven by my posting record and inability to hijack Timmay's and Monkeybutt's threads.
I don't know. That post you made a few days ago about a jewish plot against the white man by introducing the concept of diversity was brilliant (albeit insane).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2014, 09:43:14 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 18, 2014, 09:33:06 AM
Isn't Southern California (I'm thinking Los Angeles here) famous for diverting water away from rural counties that actually need it? Disappearing rivers and lakes and all that?
It's more like southern California steals northern California's water.
It's not really a rural/urban thing: agricultural water usage is famously subsidized in California.
Hell, it was the plot for
Chinatown.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2014, 10:29:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 18, 2014, 10:19:10 AM
I never said the British system was best.
What is the best system I wonder?
Germany maybe.
The Netherlands are a contender but they overdo it a bit (albeit not by choice) and their trains aren't as good.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2014, 05:07:44 PM
Siege is doing better at his trolls than average this past week or so. this is the second thread in which he has posted some absurd position held by an on-line nitwit, and then basically walked away to watch the board squabbling as members agreed with one another.
Well-done, Siege! i always said that your "I'm just a big dummy" shtick was just a shtick.
I agree, the threads generating the gif responses have been wonderful