City States

Is there any better form of human Governance?
Protip: there isn't.

godly

tips

Counter tips

>tfw no polis

>Baghdad
>city state

I... well... you might be right?

Monarchy where the monarch acts as a primus inter paris with his subjects that can observe, comment and reset the goverment

Settle down there, Machiavelli

>cities

But then again... what's to stop city states from allying and making a large nation anyways?

...

>Implying you can't have a Monarchist City State

>>having a big wall like that when niggas can just sail inside and hop out wid dey glocks out

You can, but it wont be the best system because its a city state.

Loss of sovereignty and autonomy to the needs of other Cities.

See Monaco

Allying =/= making a large state.

No need for large states since wars haven't been occurring for a while now.

As civilization progresses this is an inevitability anyways. Just look at the USA. The original intention was that each state was essentially it's own nation. Didn't take us long to forget that and fuck it all up.

Can we build a fucking wall around Detroit?

Ao you'd rather make it easier for the next invaders? Pro tip: that's how muslims conquered Iberia and the Balkans the first time.

An unfortunate one. As happened in Germany and Italy, States were coerced into federalism. Fine when things go well, but regional identities can persevere and ultimately undermine federal aspirations.

Smaller units are stronger.

According to him, no. I am inclined to agree. It's how they inter-mingle that complicates things.

Seriously though, you should read it.

I think the Founding Fathers had it right. A UNION of states, each free to set their own laws. The purpose of the federal government was pretty simple:

1) A national military
2) Representation for international affairs
3) Mediation of inter-state disputes

Why we've handed all this excessive power to the Feds is beyond me. I wasn't around when it happened, but it's clearly NOT working.

>Greek city states
>Italian renaissance city states

These were golden ages of the west. We should try that again some time, when the modern nation states have fallen.

Defensive pacts are legit.. usually. Would be like the medieval era but senseless brutality will be replaced with meme magic.

That kind of stops working when a savage threat from the east is comming

The Hanseatic league is an example of defensive and economic pacts between city states without full union.

We tried that dumb shit, fag. The Articles of Confederacy era was so shit and unproductive that they had to completely abolish it for the Constitution.

Nothing was agreed on, the shittier states were extra shitty, and petty divisions fueled all interaction.

Exactly like the EU cuckaroos today

Because it was never about those ideals in the first place, it was about destroying the consensus that monarchies rocked.

Founding fathers didn't want a standing army. They thought they would user their economic superiority to dictate terms on an international scale.

Everyone needs an army. Economic superiority means nothing if I can waltz in and steal it all from you.

Middle East and non white countries would benefit from city states. Even cities that are too big. Example would be creating a state just for nyc, etc.

Most white nations can function without the need for city states but having them as apart of nation would also benefit if the states had more power.

I believe my country would benefit for giving Sydney and Melbourne statehood.

Well it should have been. It's the only way I see the USA continuing. We're tearing ourselves apart right now.

What about them having full independence, or at least extreme autonomy?

I think the idea was that the populous would be more involved and that the militia/state guard/national guard would be raised and used as a temporary army akin to Rome raising legions. Then in times of war the president would run more akin to dictator.

nation states come to mind

Yeah, well in Roman times, you gave a dude a spear and then you had an army.

The Founders were under the impression that you could give someone a rifle and you had an army.

Try raising a national guard from nothing when you have a battalion of Type 99s rolling up.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Rome for example.

They shouldn't have full independence as they still benefit from being apart of the nation that built it and still provide benefit for the rest of the nation.

They should be able to change their tax laws and regulations to benefit the growth of the city. It only makes sense to governor a city differently to the rest of the nation since they are so densely populated and have different industries.

In the US states have more power compared to my country that's why i caveated it to include more power to states.

State power is dwindling away here, and has been for some time.

I agree, i think a standing army is important, the founding fathers just had different ideas. They couldn't of predicated the populous becoming complacent and indolent due to consumerism and materialism.

Generally obsolete.
In europe the city states federated into nations for good reason: mutual self defence, shared cultural values, trade etc.
The few city states surviving today - monaco, singapore, hk, uae, brunei basically exist becuase they have a gimmick

That thing literally screams "Nuke the absolute fucking shit out of me senpai!".

I'm aware and it's truly a shame.

Oh and vatican too

You don't think being a City state is to Singapore's advantage? You would rather be attached to Malaysia?

>literally tens of thousands of little countries trying to constantly fuck eachother in the ass

may sound cool on paper but in reality it's shit living

They benefit but also have negative impacts since they're not apart of a larger nation.

While countries like us could benefit from city states if we gave more power to individual states and a robust constitution to protect them, a federal government that worked for the people instead of for their own interests.

also I want to nuke that lil' city real bad

Please don't post if your only education about city-states is playing Civilization.

>ywn live a comfy life as a citizen of a greek city state

>nuking something this comfy

It is called conscription

Or being rich enough to hire skilled Heveltic Mercenaries.

Forcing people to join a military on demand does not a good military make.

Is the right side of the river the rich side?

>They benefit but also have negative impacts since they're not apart of a larger nation.
Presenting a vague claim with no support is no way to argue properly user

When your being invaded because lolnoarmy i think the people will probably want to fight.

Well there are advantages, im not saying that, but the only reason singapore exists is becuase it was kicked out by the malay federation, the original settlement was for singapore to be part of malaysia.
It just so happened malaysia was badly governed and singapore was well governed. In the 60s this was not obvious

I'd say you turned out pretty well after the fact. Key strategic location, major port hub, educated population, etc.

Uh yeah? National Socialism.

Yes thats the gimmick we have.
Like i said city states only exist today because of 1 special gimmick

They probably would, but they wouldn't be very good at it. It would work if your enemy fights like the USA currently does by engaging in "pc" wars. Guerrilla tactics until they just get fed up and leave.

But if their goal is your utter annihilation, methinks you'd have no chance.

Ok i thought you would be up to date on Singapore. Let me give you some reasons.

They have no more room to grow. They'll always be restricted in growth and sustainment. They can be held to ransom for food, power, etc. They had to negotiate with my country for more room to train.

They're industry focuses on city state industry like trade since they're a port city, finance, services. Agriculture is 0% of their economy.

Conscription, in it's many forms, has a pretty good track record. Unfortunately people tend to only view this concept through the lens of recent history. It all comes down to how good your training pipelines are at handling conscripted citizens.

If you had the entire state training similar to an active reserve unit it could work. Like i said i agree there should be a standing army but i could see how a nation could live without one or a very small one. Especially if the fed gov had nukes mate.

This is why a strong sense of national duty needs to be established. The Swiss do it well.

Nope. There really isn't.

Local government best government.

At one point each state had about the same level of power and standing as the supreme court

If they try to abandon their city-state status by becoming expansionists, they could fuck things up great time for the rest of the world tho
t.Italian from Venice
>pic related

There are a lot of benefits for having a small active army and having the entire population trained in a facet of the army. E.g. every trained in first aid and basic infantry tactics. Then have people trained in areas like supply and driving that have civilian qualifications. You could have people who work in logistics trained in army logistical areas. Young men who do trades could all be trained as infantry operators or artillery. Every week they could all get together and maintain their skills.

The jig is up David.
We would go back to militias which are groups of men that volunteer their time to stay practiced in the art of country defending.
Militias stay funded because it's in the best interests of local companies to pay for the protection.
If you remove the dumbass laws restricting the 2nd amendment that's when you'd truly see America rise to the worlds greatest army.

The us is a decent example of decentralised governance, since each state has quite strong powers of self governance. However the us is a big country so, compared to europe which is made of many smaller nations, can be compares to the us states, and of course we all know the eu is terrible at governance.
In todays politics the smallest stable political unit is a state with a few cities and farmland to support them. Which is why we have nation states

If you could make Venice great again, would you?

Until they get BTFO one by one by an invading country that decided to unite instead of staying divided.

Of course, but then again, they were at their greatest while they were in that weird phase where in internal policy they continuously fend off plots to bring monarchy or direct democracy while the foreign policy was either trying to become an empire while not being one or as becoming an empire while not trying to be one, depending on what you think were the elite's intentions
(they would simply go "oh, is that other city trying to block our commerce passing through it? well we have to take them I guess)
Not when they were all alone in the lagoon at the beginning of Venice's history

>wanting to be like Greek boy fuckers
>leaf

Why am I not surprised?

Probably not now, but in the future probably yes. Computers are already making major decisions in the transactions of running corporations and business entities, eventually every competitive industry will in large part be run by software and algorithms.

I imagine the same will be true of relatively small and decentralized city-states or bureaus, which will use software in order to efficiently manage their affairs and coordinate efforts between other cities and states since too much data in one centralized area of governance will probably not be feasibly computable.

*boroughs, not bureaus, although I guess the same applies either way

Most countries in the eu are bigger than the largest state in the US and each nation has a distinct culture and ethnicity. The US and EU can't really be compared.

>Most countries in the eu are bigger than the largest state in the US
discounting russia, nope
also culture isnt a big factor in european/american state governance

population wise for the most part yes, but California is somewhat close to Spain in terms of population and has a larger economy than all European countries other than Germany and the UK.

This isn't good option

City States would compete for gaining more resources and countryside territories for farms etc
This would lead to many conflicts, so real alternative would be many alliances
This could lead to fucking civil wars because of some minor shitholes

Yes very true and the next state Texas. But it's a large discrepancy. California benefits from proximity of other states and nations as well. It's probably one of the only states that could be compared to a nation.

Culture is a big difference compared to California and other states. Sure they're unique in their own way but nothing so drastic like the difference between Germany and Italy. Or Turkey and France.

The union of states is different to union of nations.