Patrick, I appreciate the clarity of your concerns—because these are the exact scenarios that must be accounted for if cities are going to assert real autonomy. If Radical Federalism for Cities were simply about bold declarations of independence, you’d be absolutely right: it would collapse the moment external pressure was applied.
Patrick, I appreciate the clarity of your concerns—because these are the exact scenarios that must be accounted for if cities are going to assert real autonomy. If Radical Federalism for Cities were simply about bold declarations of independence, you’d be absolutely right: it would collapse the moment external pressure was applied.
Before we get into it, I want to clarify what this is about: We have always advocated the states as the strongest shield against federal overreach. But the beautiful thing about federalism is that it is recursive—robustness to capture, reslience in the face of centralization and the progress of time, legal and financial methods which distribute power—these all have their variants at the city level. Some US cities have more population than the entire US did in 1776. But Trump’s executive order on Sanctuary Cities (the so-called “Anarchist Cities” EO discussed here https://substack.com/@victorhale841182/note/c-95636309) and the Eric Adams scandal both reveal that the Trump regime recognizes the vital role which cities can play in resisting the current lawlessness and collapse. This is not a guide for a literal violent urban revolt—this is a manifesto of what cities can and must be.
Lets be clear—this is not about reckless defiance. This is about making cities ungovernable to external forces—not through war, but through preparation.
1. Military Crackdowns Require Legitimacy—and That’s Where Cities Have Power
The National Guard—or even federal forces—can be deployed, but not without cost. The more clearly a city can frame its defiance as a stand for democracy and local self-rule, the harder it becomes to justify an armed response.
• Federal crackdowns are politically costly when met with nonviolent resistance.
• If states and cities coordinate their responses, they make mass enforcement logistically impossible.
• The goal is to deny legitimacy to coercion, making it as politically costly as possible.
2. A City’s Greatest Weapon Isn’t Military Power—It’s Economic Leverage
You’re right that cities rely on imports—but you’re overlooking the other side of the equation: cities produce the overwhelming majority of a state’s GDP.
• If a city stops functioning, the state collapses financially. The leverage isn’t just in what a city needs—it’s in what it provides.
• If a city refuses to send state and federal tax revenue up the chain, that’s leverage.
• If a city shuts down key infrastructure—ports, transit hubs, commerce centers—that’s leverage.
A smart city preparing for self-governance isn’t just stockpiling food. It’s preparing to negotiate from a position of strength.
3. Siege Economics Go Both Ways—And Cities Can Prepare
You’re absolutely right that an isolated city is vulnerable. That’s why isolation must never be the strategy.
• Urban-rural alliances must be built in advance to ensure food, fuel, and essential supplies remain available.
• Independent financial infrastructure—municipal banks, alternative payment networks—can reduce dependence on state-controlled monetary systems.
• Digital and logistical sovereignty—mesh networks, local supply chain redundancy—ensures cities don’t collapse under federal economic pressure.
4. Radical Federalism is Not a War—It’s a Shift in Power
This is not about cities declaring war on state and federal governments. It’s about making them ungovernable unless their autonomy is respected.
• When enough cities coordinate, the cost of repression outweighs the benefits.
• When states refuse to enforce federal coercion, the federal government loses its ability to act.
• When cities and rural communities work together, supply chains and economic independence become viable.
The Bottom Line
Radical Federalism for Cities doesn’t mean urban revolution or open conflict. It means making centralized power untenable—not by force, but by making alternative structures stronger, more resilient, and ultimately unavoidable.
A city that prepares now won’t need to go to war. It will be too valuable to crush and too self-sufficient to control.
I appreciate the response. I think our disagreement on the subject is probably pretty vast, but I haven't the wherewithal to discuss more now (8 month old demanding attention, you know). I'll keep reading though. Best of luck.
Patrick, I appreciate the clarity of your concerns—because these are the exact scenarios that must be accounted for if cities are going to assert real autonomy. If Radical Federalism for Cities were simply about bold declarations of independence, you’d be absolutely right: it would collapse the moment external pressure was applied.
Before we get into it, I want to clarify what this is about: We have always advocated the states as the strongest shield against federal overreach. But the beautiful thing about federalism is that it is recursive—robustness to capture, reslience in the face of centralization and the progress of time, legal and financial methods which distribute power—these all have their variants at the city level. Some US cities have more population than the entire US did in 1776. But Trump’s executive order on Sanctuary Cities (the so-called “Anarchist Cities” EO discussed here https://substack.com/@victorhale841182/note/c-95636309) and the Eric Adams scandal both reveal that the Trump regime recognizes the vital role which cities can play in resisting the current lawlessness and collapse. This is not a guide for a literal violent urban revolt—this is a manifesto of what cities can and must be.
Lets be clear—this is not about reckless defiance. This is about making cities ungovernable to external forces—not through war, but through preparation.
1. Military Crackdowns Require Legitimacy—and That’s Where Cities Have Power
The National Guard—or even federal forces—can be deployed, but not without cost. The more clearly a city can frame its defiance as a stand for democracy and local self-rule, the harder it becomes to justify an armed response.
• Federal crackdowns are politically costly when met with nonviolent resistance.
• If states and cities coordinate their responses, they make mass enforcement logistically impossible.
• The goal is to deny legitimacy to coercion, making it as politically costly as possible.
2. A City’s Greatest Weapon Isn’t Military Power—It’s Economic Leverage
You’re right that cities rely on imports—but you’re overlooking the other side of the equation: cities produce the overwhelming majority of a state’s GDP.
• If a city stops functioning, the state collapses financially. The leverage isn’t just in what a city needs—it’s in what it provides.
• If a city refuses to send state and federal tax revenue up the chain, that’s leverage.
• If a city shuts down key infrastructure—ports, transit hubs, commerce centers—that’s leverage.
A smart city preparing for self-governance isn’t just stockpiling food. It’s preparing to negotiate from a position of strength.
3. Siege Economics Go Both Ways—And Cities Can Prepare
You’re absolutely right that an isolated city is vulnerable. That’s why isolation must never be the strategy.
• Urban-rural alliances must be built in advance to ensure food, fuel, and essential supplies remain available.
• Independent financial infrastructure—municipal banks, alternative payment networks—can reduce dependence on state-controlled monetary systems.
• Digital and logistical sovereignty—mesh networks, local supply chain redundancy—ensures cities don’t collapse under federal economic pressure.
4. Radical Federalism is Not a War—It’s a Shift in Power
This is not about cities declaring war on state and federal governments. It’s about making them ungovernable unless their autonomy is respected.
• When enough cities coordinate, the cost of repression outweighs the benefits.
• When states refuse to enforce federal coercion, the federal government loses its ability to act.
• When cities and rural communities work together, supply chains and economic independence become viable.
The Bottom Line
Radical Federalism for Cities doesn’t mean urban revolution or open conflict. It means making centralized power untenable—not by force, but by making alternative structures stronger, more resilient, and ultimately unavoidable.
A city that prepares now won’t need to go to war. It will be too valuable to crush and too self-sufficient to control.
—VH
I appreciate the response. I think our disagreement on the subject is probably pretty vast, but I haven't the wherewithal to discuss more now (8 month old demanding attention, you know). I'll keep reading though. Best of luck.