I can see cities being much more autonomous - IF they are willing to live with the consequences of their decisions. If, on the other hand, they demand that the state and federal government bail them out for their misguided bumbling, then no.

The problem is not the City or State or even Federal Government per se, but the responsiveness to and distance from the problems, which are all ultimately local. A "city" can range in size from tens of thousands to tens of millions. Just like in a business there is a huge difference in governing organizations of varying sizes.

I think what you really need is compartmentalization of units. You have to start with a base unit of governance that is one home. That one should have preeminent control and infringements on its rights and powers should be only where absolutely necessary. Next would come a geographical neighborhood level of say 100-500 homes. Then you would have a regional grouping of those neighborhoods, but on a much smaller scale of management, maybe between 6 and 12 or so. That would put every grouping into "communities" of between 2500 to 25000 people. That's a sizeable enough amount to be meaningful, but not an impossible amount to accommodate for town hall meetings, elections, etc.

In each case, as the levels go up they acquire less power rather than more, being granted power only where an aggregation of resources makes sense, such as for municipality services (power, water, etc.). Municipalities would then band together for mutual defense treaties, disaster relief and firefighting efforts, etc. I believe that this was the way the original Constitution was created: its aim was to assist the individual States in governance - not to take over. Sadly, it is the state of men that when some get a little power, it becomes an intoxicant and addiction and they seek only more.

No given form of a government under what the current understanding of what a government is, is the answer. Federal, state, or local, they all seek to curtail freedom to the degree the law allows and often beyond. If a properly formulated government that doesn't intrude on individual freedom any more than keeping the peace and protecting the citizens were to come into existence, then and only then, will you have the answer.

cities are not the answer to anything, it is the dumb a++ people who are referred to as legislators that are the problem. like all civil servants they believe they are smarter than the rest of the population. all of this smartness happens instantly once they are elected. they are like all other civil servants the problem.

The original Platonic Republic was a collection of loosely allied city-states. And in a strictly defined republic, government at each level would function by vote of the representatives of the level below. Those levels would be: individual householder -> village (or suburb -> city) -> county -> State -> federal.

It would & should begin with a center/core - the what at this center should have three components:
1. Moral code (Ayn Rand's Objectivism)
2. Motive power (the ego as she identifies it)
3. Motor unit (concretized expression of her philosophy)
Up until a few years ago all this was theory and never actualized in totality. Mostly because #3. was not there - which is why you've seen various attempts at Atlantis collapse or vaporize in scandal.
Start from here:
www.GaltsGulchPortal.blogspot.ca
and from there do your own Dagny/Hank homework
& maybe we'll see you in June.

JohnGalt Iamoura

Thanks! I agree 100%. One argument for federalism is that the states are 50 experiments. Let the cities be 100,000 experiments. These state laws preventing cities from passing certain laws are just as intrusive as would be federal laws. That they come from the states does not sanctify them.

Moreover, as the article admits, cities (not states) are the engines of the economy. And that is not an accident - and it is historically validated. People who migrate to cities abandon their folkways and find new cultural norms. "Stadtluft macht frei" they said in German - City air makes you free. (A serf who could live a year and a day in a city was legally freed from his manor.

As in the case of LGBT laws, cities have always been more "liberal"- expansive and innovative - than the countryside. In the Middle Ages, some cities even had women mayors. It was extra-legal (as was the rule of mayors in the first place, which led to Charlemagne, actually). While the manor was associated with a monastery, the cities were the sites of universities. Whereas the manor lord was a professional soldier, craftsmen have no time for that, so they used firearms.

If a city raises the minimum wage or makes discriminating illegal, the consequences will be felt sooner, rather than later. That said, though, Austin has special sales taxes above the state imposts. It seems not to have affected business here.

I think "sunset" provisions would be helpful as well on any new legislation.

I agree and that would solve most problems with good cities that fall to progressivism.

A city charter could stipulate such requirements be harder than simple majority.

I can mostly agree with you.

One thing that is not taken into account is on a 51 to 49 vote it is possible to destroy the value of a person or businesses property so cities need to be held in check too. But it is still a whole lot better than out of control federal & state governments that we have now.