The beginning of the dis-united states?

What think you of this? — Banno

Very efficient use of words. You must be a mathematician.

I guess this pattern which I'll inform you about is omniprevalent. I started a thread on why new life doesn't come into existence and a common answer is available ecological niches are all occupied. Same with geopolitics I guess. The old die, the new replace the vacuum thus created and they die and the process repeats.

"The Dark Ages Were Actually Good. What Can That Teach Us?"
The Atlantic, October 2019 Issue

"...the Roman empire made modern development possible by going away and never coming back."
Walter Scheidel, Escape From Rome

Minimisation leads to historical revisionism.
Rome never went away; some aspects fell dormant, then started growing again.

Modern collapse may entail:
Trade Disruption
Food Shortages
Hyperinflation
Devaluation
Civil Unrest
Militarisation

So, let the good times roll.

The beginning of the dis-united states?

What think you of this? — Banno

I did once think that human life is always leading toward greater unity among people, so I thought a global government was inevitable.

I think I was seeing what I wanted to see, though. The fall of Rome was the second large scale loss of the infrastructure of civilization (the Bronze Age collapse was the first that we know of). Life in Europe did become progressively more fragmented and dominated by violent warlords. The first call for the Crusades contained an explicit appeal to European Christians to stop destroying Europe and take their blood lust somewhere else. So as much as we might want to revise our gloomy picture of the Dark Ages, the people who lived at the time tell us how bad it was.

What think you of this? — Banno

First, this is an interesting conversation, but the title sucks. It gives no indication about what the subject is. I've read through the thread and I don't know what it means. If you fixed it, you'd probably get more involvement.

As for Rome vs. USA - Seems to me things have changed since then. Was it 400 AD? The world is different. It's even different from when the British had their empire. The British Empire sort of faded away but the UK is still a significant voice internationally and economically. Since World War 2 and especially the end of the Soviet Union, the world has become less colonial, both formally and in terms of economic influence. Countries formerly considered third world have become more independent and more significant economically. Some have become much more significant - e.g. Brazil and India.

It seems likely to me that the US's influence will continue to reduce as other countries get relatively stronger and richer. I think that's a good thing for everyone, including the US. I see us slipping back into a more equitable group of nations. I'm sure we'll still be one of the big boys for a while.

I don't think there is much validity in comparisons between the Roman Empire and the United States. The Roman Empire's history has no particular parallels with the United States. For one, the RE was a self-starter; the US was the product of English colonialism which occurred 2300 years later than Rome's beginning. For two, the Romans were in business for a millennium at least. Our period of evolution is is less than a quarter of theirs.

Besides, the "end of the Roman Empire" was not an apocalyptic event. It was a very gradual withering away, during which localities picked up the slack. Certainly the shrinking central government was noticed, but it wasn't like Rome fell into the ocean one day.

How many Romans noticed the demise of the empire a day, a month, a year -- or 15 minutes -- after it ended?

The barbarians had been sifting into Roman territory for some time; they weren't interested in destroying Rome, they were interested in what the Romans had on offer, and they had a lot.

Life gradually changed across the old Empire, certainly. Moving around became riskier. Trade with the Far East was stifled by various difficulties. The Church, a decidedly mixed bag, took over some functions, and some functions just disappeared. Power devolved outward and downward. The Eastern Empire was never a mirror image of the western empire.

But none of that fits our history. Will the United States reach a point where outsiders will say, "They collapsed." Of course -- that is true for all the regimes of the world. We won't know until some time afterward. The same is true for Australia, but the fall will be shorter.

First, this is an interesting conversation, but the title sucks. It gives no indication about what the subject is. I've read through the thread and I don't know what it means. If you fixed it, you'd probably get more involvement. — T Clark

Yeah. A typo I was not for some reason able to edit until this morning. But a half-dozen replies is good.

But new life does come into existence.

I did once think that human life is always leading toward greater unity among people, so I thought a global government was inevitable. — frank

Hm. Seems to me that this is not in contrast to greater cooperation between local areas. One can picture a form of unity - cooperation - between city-states without the need for a central organisation; a far more organic form of organisation.

Contrast the fall of Rome with the consistency of China, and the innovative social structures of Europe to ongoing solid imperial rule.

I don't read the article as dependent on a synchronistic between the history of Rome and of the USA.

What is being compared is the development of local autonomy in both as they decline. This seems to me a valid comparison, despite other differences in their history.

The salient bit is the reduction of central control and the increase of local autonomy.

What of that?

I don't read the article as dependent on a synchronistic between the history of Rome and of the USA.

What is being compared is the development of local autonomy in both as they decline. This seems to me a valid comparison, despite other differences in their history. — Banno

My reading of the article was not as suggested by many of the posters, that the US is in a tail spin. I read it as emphasizing the incompetence of the federal government and the increased reliance on local government. This insight is consistent with conservative ideology, which never believed in a large federal presence and would welcome a return to a weakened fed and stronger local rule.

States' rights advocates have a valid point in terms of creating better solutions to problems through local rule, but most unfortunately too many states rights' folks are screaming racists.

The point being that reliance on local rule is a good thing, not a sign of the apocalypse, unless, of course, you're a European style socialist who can't imagine not having government involved in every aspect of your life.

One can picture a form of unity - cooperation - between city-states without the need for a central organisation; a far more organic form of organisation. — Banno

Central organization does arise organically, usually as a response to the requirements of warfare.

Yeah, like with ants.

Small is beautiful.

@banno

Far-flung empires that exist to exploit the territories for the benefit of the central state (Rome, and then the Italian Peninsula) wouldn't seem to have a lot of incentive to develop home rule. The governors sent out to the territories didn't have an interest in home rule either -- after all, their primary function was to extract value.

Where local rule developed, it developed because the projection of power from Rome flagged, and eventually failed. Britannia, Lusitania, Galacia, or Mauritania Caesariensis, et al didn't just fold up because Rome's Imperial Deal was dead. Many people lived in all of these places, life went on as it does, and local management of collective business (government) emerged.

Again, in the late 18th century, local government didn't develop as it did in Rome because powers and responsibilities were specifically assigned to the states and the federal government. Most of what makes a difference in people's everyday lives (health, education, welfare, safety, streets, roads, airports, and so forth are and have been under local management.

Local government is one of the reasons why there are such strong differences in various parts of the country. The NE and Midwest have generally given a strong role for local and national government. States in the SE have felt obliged to limit government at any level to a much greater extent. California is large enough that its local policies on air pollution can force national auto makers to meet their standards.

@banno: So what are the arrangements for local government in Australia? How is power to carry on local stuff apportioned? When (if) was power apportioned -- when Australia ceased being a colony and set up its constitution?

It's an interesting question because it points out this isn't exclusively a US thing. In the UK, Scotland was given certain home rule powers, for example. I'd suspect we could find many examples of central governments yielding power to localities. I think we'd all like to see the local revolt prevail in Hong Kong.

Rather a desultory article, I felt. Doesn’t do anything to come to terms with the possible imminent collapse of the Western social order. I have these depressing thoughts, doing the weekly shop in our incredibly well-stocked and luxuriously appointed supermarkets, that the earth cannot afford to keep supporting us like this. There are vast waves of people being born, new mouths to be fed, in enormous numbers, far greater than anything the earth has borne previously. And there is going to be a really huge resources crunch, I'm convinced, during the 2020's, manifesting as actual large-scale famine, vast populations without adequate food and water. We're all going to feel it, nobody is going to be insulated from it, unless you're one of the ultra-rich that has your own energy and food sources and sovereign territory.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is doing everything it can to roll back, undermine and thwart Government attempts to ameliorate or address environmental issues (for instance, today, suing the automakers and the State of California for daring to enter into an emissions-control agreement, which is beyond disgraceful.)

No, I think we're f***ed in the not-very-long term. Many intelligent people I know adamantly refuse to acknowledge that human-induced climate change and looming resource shortages are real. They're not going to see it until it knocks on their door and puts them on the street, by which time it will be too late. The current administration of the USA, and Australia, for that matter, are almost totally indifferent to large scale environmental economics, and when the crisis comes, they won't be ready.

I agree with you, I think we're going to have a very wretched time of it. Perhaps the economic system will freeze up again and not be thawed out. Almost certainly, heat waves, famine, drought, (and ironically heavy rains and floods), will destabilize many societies. Governments may not be able to hold their nations together amid the eco-disasters, or the Econ-disasters.

All this is quite different than the demise of the Roman or other empires. The climate isn't a government service of even the most determined nanny sate. If seasonable weather fails, then we starve sooner or later.

I think your topic is very relevant. To try to draw an exact parallel between the Roman Empire and the US is irrelevant. I think Banno is referring to general factors that plagued the Roman Empire and are plaguing the United States today. When I translated a Latin paragraph about a senator lamenting Rome’s woes, I remembered a Congressional member making similar complaints. What makes any country decline is overtaxation among citizens who eventually will harbor increasing resentment that eventually spills over into unrest. That factor is on Banno’s list. Another factor on Banno’s list includes militarism. Rome involved itself in countless military conflicts. Sounds familiar? These conflicts costs money. Guess who pays? The overburdened taxpayer. When Rome went into battle, naturally trade suffered. What about our tariffs and the effect on our trade today? In addition, food shortages happened in Rome because its leadership had a corrupt official mismanage food distribution. As we are all aware, decisions made by our government often fall on corrupt officials. Of course this can affect our food supply if government officials don’t manage decisions related to the food industry and our farmers. Think about crop shortages. Whether related to the weather or trade issues, farmers suffer when their crops fail or trade issues affect their ability to sell what they have worked hard to grow for consumption. Decisions made by our government haven’t always effectively address this issue. Another factor on Banno’s list also affected both Rome and still influences our economy. When our currency is devalued, it affects our economy. These factors are intertwined with one another and change the course of any country’s future. Other empires experienced the affects of these factors. We are no different. How the United States will transform as a result will eventually unfold. Who knows? According to Alvin Toffler’s prediction in his book, The Third Wave, states may break up and form their own separate countries. As such, the future remains to be seen and should be, at the very least, interesting.

Cheers.

What if the federal government becomes increasingly irrelevant as the real work is done by regions? That's an interesting prospect.

There has to be a balance between state and the federal government. If the federal government becomes irrelevant, then states may want to secede from the union, which could cause a civil war. The last Civil War in the United States devastated the country. It would be a far better solution to work out a balance between the state and federal government rather than tearing the country apart again.

Two of our states are smaller than Texas; the others, substantially larger. They are based on colonial settlements. Regional government is funded by states, which are overwhelmingly controlled by the original colony, which is now the state capital. Federation was conceived as an umbrella to unite the colonies' international presence and military strength. National agreements take precedence over state legislation.

SO the arrangement is quite different from the USA. Local government has little real power.

then states may want to secede from the union, — Stella Jones

Or just do their own thing. As, California.

But new life does come into existence — Banno

I'll take your word for it. :smile: