On the advice of both Nicholas Nassim Taleb and CS Lewis, I am not going to read anything current for a while. I will use the internet for checking this sidebar, my FF team, some emails - especially the cross-generational beer night at the church - and the weather. Nah, screw the weather. I'll take what comes.
I'm behind in New Testament reading, so there's that. Some Chesterton and some Lewis that have been sitting there next to my chair.
In the meantime, I will say again that city-states are probably a more stable arrangement than nation-states, and we should gradually move in that direction if we can. The Lindy Effect would say that because America has been around 240 years it will probably last another 240. I think that's true, but I also think it will change as much in the next 240 as it did in the first 240. Thirteen colonies, remember. Not many laws about anything and not much federal power. I still think the city-state model is possible within something that is called "America" and carries some of its democratic
England was something of a surrounding supportive territory of the city-state of London for quite some time. The powerful all maintained some connection to the city and many lived there part of each year. This, even though England was among the most clearly-defined nation-states.
However much we talk about reducing government, especially in Washington, it's just not going to happen, not under any president or congress, ever. DC provides nothing but consolidation. It will only be undermined by the growth of other consolidations of power: New York, Atlanta, Houston, Kansas City, San Francisco.
Something to think about, as it's not happening anytime soon but may be in the cards, especially if there is some sort of serious economic collapse from debt.