Category: Government

I think of great cities. Rome, Florence, Paris, Cairo, Tokyo. Their individual atoms change over time, but the pattern — what we recognize as the city exists, evolving and growing throughout the centuries. Empires and nations rise and fall around them, but the cities remain.

Cities have always been where humanity moves forward. They are the centers of culture, commerce, and knowledge. While rural areas undoubteadly play an important part in civilization, the city is where the majority of our advancements as a species take place. The residents of rural and urban areas have always been different — in and of itself, that’s not a bad thing. However, as political lines drawn on maps neglect to consider such realities, issues will always tend to arise.

A Polarized Nation

The pattern is prevalent everywhere across the US. Cities tend to be liberal. The greater the population density, generally the more liberal a city will be.   Venture out from any city to the rural landscape, and the political view will shift towards the right. As people spread out more and more, the more conservative they will likely be.

This pattern isn’t unique to the US — it repeats itself everywhere from the UK to New Zealand, from Japan to Egypt, and is very likely consistent throughout history.   As access to higher education has increased, the differences have only become more stark as college-educated individuals flock to cities not only for careers, but also for the culture and the advantages that come from living in cities.

Getting Past Polarization

America faces many challenges, but we increasingly seem ill-equipped within our political framework to do much of anything about it. But maybe there is an opportunity in our polarization, since our polarized society is quite neatly divided between urban and rural. Perhaps this is how we move forward.

The counties that voted for Biden, many of which hold the nation’s largest cities, account for 71% of America’s total economic activity. Source

Many of my fellow liberal urbanites want to see humanity push aggressively forward. We want to see greater investments in health, the sciences, and technology. We want better, more individualized, and accessible education, not only for children, but through all phases of life. We want to confront the large challenges that we face, including homelessness, lack of equality, and climate change.

While I wish everyone held the same level of ambition that I have for humanity, I get that many on the conservative side don’t hold that same view. And that’s ok. Perhaps we should move forward without them — not out of spite or resentment, but because we want to see positive change and improvement in the world around us.

Cities Working Together

The vast majority of the US economy is driven by cities. We’re the economic powerhouses of the most powerful nation on earth. And yet our influence on national politics is dampened as a result of our political system.

I wonder what we could accomplish if all of the large cities of the US worked together and formed a coalition (or several) that drove larger changes throughout society. Could we work within the confines of our national legal agreements, but effectively become a new nation of cities, who tax our citizens a little more, pool our resources, take advantage of economies of scale, and invest in what we can’t seem to do as a larger nation.   We could pursue and fund advances in things like education, green energy, and healthcare. Liberals and progressives can seek the world we want to see, and conservatives in rural areas will no longer have to contribute to society. I would like to think there be less resentment on both ends of the political spectrum as a result.

What Could Cities Work Together On

I think there are many critical areas that the cities of the US (and world) could work together on that would not only benefit the inhabitants of our urban areas, but even those that reside outside of our cities.

Education

Education is probably the most important reason to work together. Better education has massive effect across society. A coalition of cities could:

• Provide research into education best practices and new models that could be more effective than current methods.
• Fund technological advances in teaching tools
• Create new methods of delivering educational content that could be utilized by schools everywhere, such as online or hybrid content on subject areas that fuel student curiosity but aren’t currently being provided.

Environment

The environmental crisis is one of, if not the largest issues of our time. We currently seem ill-equipped to handle the challenge currently, but perhaps with a motivated population we could make progress on this front. Amongst other things, we could:

• Grants for research into technology that will be necessary in the future, like desalination, improvements to renewable energy.
• Providing funds and incentives for greater adoption of renewable resources within cities.
• Working towards reducing costs and improving what’s possible with urban and vertical farming.

Science & Technology

If the citizens of cities wanted, we could help fund larger scientific enterprises, not only on subjects that directly impact cities, but also which help to fuel curiosity and imagination. Perhaps offering additional funds to NASA, providing research grants for general science studies, or funding research into innovative new technologies.

Government

Since the citizens of this newly established government are generally more accepting of government in general, it could be an opportunity to find innovative new ways working together for the common good. We could create better systems for determining representatives, providing transparency, and using technology to create a better system of government.

Other Issues

I suspect there are other issues that could benefit from a unified approach, including healthcare, homelessness, and home affordability.

Towards Something Better

There is an opportunity with our neatly sorted nation — like-minded people who want to see change are neighbors and co-workers, random acquaintances that we pass on the street. We live together in our cities, sharing similar views and ideologies. But our neighborhood of like-minded citizens extends well beyond the city we personally inhabit. Each and every city has citizens who share similar views to those of other cities. Perhaps we need to start seeing ourselves as citizens of the same nation — a nation composed of cities. A nation that has the ambition to tackle big challenges, the economic prowess to accomplish them, and a unified view to move the world in a positive direction.

Last night we took our eleven-year old child to listen to a ranger-led presentation while visiting
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Over the years we’ve attended numerous talks like this at various national parks and monuments throughout the western US. Along with thinking about how I would personally survive in harsh desert conditions (which is what the talk was about), I was also thinking about the current state of the nation.

At this very moment, the Republicans are annihilating funding for everything from NIH funds (which provides funding into things like cancer research) to providing aid (and likely political stability) to impoverished people around the globe. For all I know, ranger-led talks like the one I attended are next on the chopping block.

Now that we’re decimating programs that I personally think are important, I’ve been thinking more on why we should or shouldn’t be funding them. I’ve seen several studies and proclamations on the financial return on NIH funding, but other programs I feel are less quantifiable. And perhaps the conservatives have a point. Perhaps we shouldn’t be investing in programs where we can’t know if we’re actually getting a return on the investment. The ROI on the ranger-led talk that I attended is probably pretty difficult to compute. I could see talks like that inspiring children to become scientists, to teach them to be curious, and to care about the world around them. But how do you get a number for the economic return on such possible outcomes?

I’m assuming that to me, whatever the cost is, its probably minimal enough that in my opinion, its worth it. And I think that’s what is missing in the (non) discussion abut brazenly cutting government expenditures. How much is each individual person actually paying for these various programs, and is that expense worth it? The expense to each of us is very likely very minimal for most of these. If my total tax bill to fund USAID is ten cents per year, I’m definitely ok paying that amount to provide food and medical support to those around the world less fortunate than me. In fact, it makes me feel good to know that I’m supporting good acts in the world. Similarly, if I’m spending a few cents per year so that a ranger can inspire young kids, where there is even a slight chance of some positive outcomes, I’m personally completely fine paying that.

Perhaps there are many that aren’t ok paying a few cents per year, or perhaps the actual cost makes it so that it’s understandable for not supporting such programs. But the lack of actually knowing the cost, or thinking about it in a logical, well-reasoned way is just irresponsible.

Update:
I did look into the numbers more deeply. For the average taxpayer in 2023, $156 was paid to fund USAID, and $103 went to fund the National Park Service. Personally I’m happy to pay those amounts for these programs.

I dream of little neighborhood parks and nicely landscaped walking paths. More places to play with my child; throwing a football, frisbee, or shooting hoops. I’d love to see more trails winding through San Diego’s wild canyons, with random benches and quiet spots to relax. And maybe most importantly, I wish it were easier to be involved with my neighborhood and city.

There are many small, localized improvements that could enhance daily life, but they are often too specific to justify funding through the broader city budget. This highlights a potential gap in the current system—perhaps what’s missing is a level of government focused specifically on neighborhood-scale improvements: a kind of neighborhood government.

In some ways, it could work like a homeowners’ association. Residents could choose to tax themselves to fund things like new parks, landscaping, or community enhancements. But it could also go further than an HOA, giving people a way to shape policy and engage with city government from the ground up.

I do technically have a city representative. But their district is huge, and it’s hard to feel personally connected at that scale. If neighborhoods functioned as their own small governance regions, it would be easier to push for local improvements. At the same time, it would make it easier to advocate for larger changes at the city level, since I’d be more engaged and better represented.

And yes, I’m proposing more government, and more taxes. Certainly this isn’t for everyone, and honestly even in my liberal neighborhood, I would imagine it would be a tough sell. But there may be small, incremental ways to move in this direction. And since the changes would happen at a more local level, the return on those taxes (investments) could be more immediate, visible, and meaningful.

Creating a neighborhood-level government could bridge the gap between residents and city leadership—empowering communities to make meaningful local improvements while strengthening civic engagement across the city as a whole.

Originally Posted: 3/17/2017

My news feeds are inundated by news of Trump slashing government investment in numerous programs and organizations. Things like 5.8 billion from the National Institues of Health, and cuts to the EPA, education, the sciences and anything else that may actually help propel us forward as a civilization.

But this stuff is important. These things matter.

It’s Time to Start Doing It Ourselves

I’ve had a growing view that the main job of the conservative party is to pull us back as a society, to keep us from progressing as fast as we otherwise could. Perhaps it’s time to just stop letting them.

If they don’t want to fund the things that are truly important, perhaps we just need to start supporting and funding them ourselves. Those of us who do want more investment in education, science, health, and technology should self-impose taxes on ourselves for those things that matter.

I know…we live in a society, and everyone in society should help contribute to these things that affect us all — that to me at least is a big part of living within a society, but for many this concept eludes them. It’s a little like giving in to those who say that they shouldn’t fund public education because they don’t have children and don’t understand that an educated populace is good for everyone. It’s like saying to them, that’s ok, the responsible people in society will pay for this — you’ll get the benefit without any payment. It does suck, but the alternative, at least for now, is that this stuff just doesn’t get funded and we’ll suffer for it. More importantly, our children will suffer for it.

Having those who care about society pick up the tab for all of this also proves the conservatives right. They say that society can function without strong investment from the government, and by having those of us who care pick up the slack kind of proves the point for them.

Ok, the conservatives win. Whatever. I’m more tired of having them hold back progress.

Getting Started

We can easily self-tax by utilizing existing non profits. We can make up for cuts (or total elimination) of public broadcasting funds by donating directly to them. This is good, but I’m thinking of a larger effort, perhaps something like a “Society Investment Fund”.

Perhaps it can start out as some sort of an online dashboard to manage your investments in various non-profit organizations. I log in and see all of the organizations I’ve invested in and the latest news and progress updates from each of them.

Societal Investment Clubs

Within this system, perhaps there are groups that I can become a member of where we pool our money and decide how to invest it together. Maybe there are numerous groups with a prospectus of their societal investment package with whom they donate to and in what amounts. I can browse those that match my values, become a member, and get involved.

There could even be specialized investment types similar to kickstarter — like funding for new local parks or amenities. We can donate money and if all of the investment is raised, the project moves forward, if not, everyone gets their money back.

It could be a platform for far greater civic engagement, a place to suggest improvements, and a place to see how our society is being invested in, from the neighborhood level all the way up to the state or regional level (California, Oregon, and Washington should really all work together more).

A tool like this could be incredible. The challenge for something like this is engagement. Would people actually log into a system like this on a regular basis? Realistically speaking, probably not since there isn’t an immediate reward for staying on top of this stuff. Perhaps that is a challenge that could be overcome though.

Perhaps Not Ideal, But a Way Forward

I would like for our society to grow and prosper. Perhaps the issue with funding through the government has always been that there is little connection between the money that I send off every April when I do my taxes and how that money is actually spent. While not an ideal solution, perhaps self-taxing and a platform to aid in the process could be a nice way to see how my money benefits society. Perhaps this in itself could help people care more.

An area of concern I have regarding any given economic system pertains to its ability to foster technological progress. I believe capitalism excels in this regard, while I remain more than a little skeptical about the capacity of alternative systems, particularly those leaning toward the socialist end of the spectrum.

However, I wonder about a blended system, perhaps not so dissimilar to our current system. What if we reduced the protected amount of time that patents are in place, and then provided some functionality within our government to socialize those technological advances. It seems as though a system like this would make the benefits more available to society as a whole, and perhaps even push private companies to push technological advancement even more quickly, since their patents would run out sooner and they would need to continue to innovate.

As an example, I believe it’s fairly inevitable soon that we will have fully automated farms, where bots and algorithms handle everything from dictating what gets grown and when, to the planting, land management, and harvesting. There is of course great incentive for private enterprise to chase the technology to achieve this, but the savings that such a system would provide to the end customer are a bit nebulous. Will the cost savings be passed onto the consumer? (Probably not).

But what if we reduced the amount that patents are applicable for, and then created some way as a society to fund the development of that known technology, perhaps by voting on what we want to build and utilize as a public good. We would then tax accordingly to fund those things. Perhaps even some of those goods could be distributed to citizens for free (I could envision a certain amount of fruits and vegetables grown for the public good, freely available to anyone).

Of course, many would argue that even after patents run out, the free market would foster competition on that technology, and do just fine at reducing the cost on those goods produced. And perhaps they’re right. However, perhaps there are things that the market wouldn’t optimize, or that we would want to provide for free or below market value.