Gothic BC

Admittedly, this is going in a wholly hypothetical direction, but then again, 2500 years ago when Plato proposed equal participation in the state by women it was wholly theoretical, too.

The city-states, like water, would find there own level. There was an axiom in ancient Greece that if you didn't like the constitution of your city you were free to move to another city or start your own. This, at the time, was a lot more meaningful than the way a similar saying is applied today. In ancient Greece the variation from one city state to the next was enourmous and a man could just pick up an move to another city.  In other words immigration would not be controlled at all.

In a world where there are nothing but city-states and free movement of people there would likely be much less movement and cultural shift. Governments are essentially forced by people voting with their feet to find local solutions that satisfy the citizens. It was under this sort of model that differentiated cultures evolved in the first place. A lot of immigration happens because centralized governments impose rules that don't jive with local cultures people flee to places that al least allow a modicum of freedom.

Conflict, if there were nothing but city-states, would be necessarily localized, but frankly, knowing the idea is unimplementable I've never spent too much time completely thinking it through. History has shown how and why it falls apart, and I suppose there would have to be some kind of policing body made up of member coalitions like the UN to prevent breakdown. What happened in the past is either independent states pooled millitary resources to effectively steal territory and resources from surrounding states. Other city-states were then forces to band together similarly in defence. For example, medaeival Italy exisited as a series of city-states, Genoa, Rome (and the Papal See), Florence, Venice, etc. and due to Italy's unique geography as penninsula protected by the Alps it was well into the 19th century before Italy had the need to protect itself as a nation-state.

Nation states formed in Europe as a reaction to Islamic expansion. When Byzantium fell to the Turks, the Austio-Hungarian Empire consolidated rather quickly to prevent expansion of the Ottoman Empire. Similarly Spain formed as a nation as a reaction to Muslim incursions on the Iberian peninsula. Subsequently the areas that are now France, Germany, and the United Kingdom found themselves needing to defend themselves against the threat of Spain and the Austio-Hungarian Empires which needed to aquire resources for their defence.

The same happened in North America after the Civil War. Prior to the Civil War the American states were much more autonomous than they are now, each with its own army. The issue of a federal ban on slavery was an affront to the sovereignty of the southern states and they attempted their succession from the union. The north and south found themselves banding together as super-states. Following the war, to prevent future internal conflicts the federal government of the U.S. established centralized contol of the army, effectively ending the sovereignty of the individual "state" and rendering them effectively as provinces in an empire. In reaction to this, the Canadian provinces, each at the time a seperately managed colony with no real central government outside of England and with the American invasion of 1812 still in living memory, rapidly organized themseves in a conferdation in a defensive move against the new super-power to the south.

Empire-building through conquest is a difference process, but with similar results.

The process continues with the creation of meta-states. At the moment there are a few difference meta-states that overlap depending on whether you are looking a military alignment or economic alignment. NAFTA and the EU represent economic meta-states. NATO would be a military meta-state.

This kind of consolidation of power is difficult to prevent and next to impossible to forcably dismantle once it is in place.

Anyway, this is hell of a tangent from election issues, other than how it affects my outlook. My motivation is the strength of local culture. In Canada that means a federal government with the balls to stand up the the U.S. on cultural issues (I would, for example *love* to see U.S. film distributors prohibited from treating Canada as part of the "domestic" distribution network, which results in Canadian-made films being shown only in marginal theatres that specialize in "foreign" films), maintains Canada's position as a "middle power" and "peacekeeper" (while Canada has a military budget equivalent to Israel's before U.S. aid is factored in, Canada is not in a position to effectively defend itself given the strength of the most likely invaders - the only thing that really keeps Canada secure is a reliance on the utter outrage that would ensue from all the friends Canada has made), and maintains Canadian soverienty by not buckling to American economic pressure. My main motivation is the integrity and natural develpment of regional culture, and while flawed as it may be, Canada's "multicultural" concept is more conducive to it than the American "melting pot" and the only defences we have against the homoginizing effects of American cultural imperialism.

are you suggesting something closer to the lines of State power in the US?

Something a little more extreme.  In my ideal, states like Luxembourg or Rhode Island would be large. It's entirely unrealistic, I admit, but the idea is that a state would be no larger than a single large city and the surrounding area. Cities would be free to form alliegences, but there would be no formal federal bodies.

More realistically (but not much more), something more in keeping with the original concept of of the United States under the Articles of Confederation or the current organization of the European Union, but with much smaller states, where there are severely limited federal powers, each state maintiains its own army, but a common currency and free movement between states, and other limited "federal" funcitons would be better.

Basically I'd like to see the end of super-powers and nation-states, and have as much power as possible reside locally on a level equivalent to what is now the municipal level of government. So, going back to Europe as the model, imagine the EU without the national level of government - no "France", "Germany" or "Italy", just Europe, then Paris, Berlin, Bonn, Rome, Venice, Nice, etc., with a European court and parliament there to handle disputes between cities, extradition, the management of the common currency, redistribution of wealth (i.e. social programmes such as medicare and old age pensions), coordination of the municipal militias in the event of an outside threat, etc.

What I would like to see happen: A return to Greek-style city-states...

Or philosopher kings: benevolent dictators.  Yeah!

What are you predictions for the 2004 Canadian election? What would you like to see happen?

Prediction: Conservative majority government with a Liberal opposition.

What I would like to see happen: A return to Greek-style city-states (which is about as likely to happen as an NDP minority government with a Conservative opposition).