Let's say that sovereign power was divided at a city level...

[The Script]

Let's say sovereign power was divided up at a city level. Every city became its own country and there was no higher power than said city. The laws were determined by whatever means and if you didn't like them an countless selection of cities could be chosen from.

Wouldn't this be ideal? Wouldn't this enable improvement by enabling true competition-by-choice on a political level?

Now, some are going to say it would scary to go from city-to-city because of highly diverse sets of laws. Well, if it becomes too much an inconvenience, don't you think the natural desire will be to ease such a scenario? As individuals, we adapt to social norms and I am sure the electing populaces will meet in the middle on issues as well -- but still be different enough to retain their sovereign power.

Cities could merge, secede and so forth but c'est la vie. To limit such things is only a hinderance to the competitive process. To claim that one would eventually control them all is just as inane as saying somebody will eventually rule the entire Bitcoin network. Each of these states would eventually gather enough force to hold their own.

I am essentially advocating an entirely decentralized network of sovereign powers.

Do you think it would work? How would we achieve this?

This is essentially the idea behind Seasteading:  http://seasteading.org/ 

[TheGer]

The County Sheriff is the LAW in his County.  Above ANYONE else.  State, Federal, whatever.  If Sheriffs had the knowledge or the balls to realize and act on this then we would have a situation like what you describe, where Cities, Counties, and even States would say Fuck You!  to being abused by those outside.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

[Mageant]

Do you think it would work? How would we achieve this?

I think it would probably work, but I think it is wrong to try and *make* it work for everybody. Once the power of the statists collapse everybody should be free to do as they please as long as they do no harm, and everybody should grant everyone else that freedom.

People will organize themselves in whatever form they want. This may be in the form of sovereign cities, villages, communities or even sovereign individuals. If you want to have a sovereign community then get together with friends to make one, that's fine, but don't tell other people they need to do so too. There probably will be a great diversity of many types of communities and organizations since humans are also quite diverse.

Just give each other freedom, that's they key (and no more lies, please).

[hello_good_sir]

The County Sheriff is the LAW in his County.  Above ANYONE else.  State, Federal, whatever.  If Sheriffs had the knowledge or the balls to realize and act on this then we would have a situation like what you describe, where Cities, Counties, and even States would say Fuck You!  to being abused by those outside.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

Why do people say this nonsense?  There is absolutely no truth to it, and thank heavens because then we'd clearly live in a police state.  Sheriffs are not mentioned at all in the Constitution (not all counties have them, the one I grew up in didn't), nor are counties (not all states have counties).  The Constitution clearly states that the States are the basic unit of sovereignty except for in specific areas which are left to the federal government (such as the ability to declare war) or to the people (right to bear arms).  Administrative subdivisions of the states (such as counties) have no sovereignty whatsoever (unless it derives from the Constitution of that state).

[indio007]

Sheriffs aren't mentioned in the Constitution because they are  common law office. The individual states don't create the office either they simply recognize the common law office and sometimes prescribe conditions that sheriffs must follow in order to be recognized. I could give a shit what the states or Constitution say. They can claim sovereignty all they want . I can prove otherwise. Most people accept the state's claim of sovereignty as a foregone conclusion. It called tacit consent and silent acquiescence.
I can prove that the common law (which is really the custom of men since time immemorial) holds that a body politic (which the state is) can't be sovereign. period.

see Calvins Case aka Case of the Postnati by Lord Coke.

here's the relevant quote

A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide,94 in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.

[hello_good_sir]

You are changing the basis for your argument.  Now you are making your claim based on common law, whereas with this statement "The Constitution is a wonderful thing." you clearly implied that you were arguing from a Constitutional perspective.  Implying that this sheriff stuff is in the Constitution is blatantly dishonest.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about common law.  Well one thing, I'd just like to point out that many (most?) Americans live in places where there is no such thing as a sheriff.  They have police instead.  As far as I can tell there is no difference between police and sheriffs but I admit my ignorance.

[indio007]

Police are in effect municipal security guards. Policy enforcers as it were. Your quite right, it does depend on where you live because some states went from federal territory to statehood while other states went from chartered colonies to statehood. Not all states imported common law per se or didn't form the common law offices.

 I live in Massachusetts . Sheriffs here only evict people , seize and auction property and maintain the county jails. The have no power to arrest for say driving without a license. In Florida, the sheriffs are damn near State Police and  do a little of everything. It really depends on what the individual community has decided to do to protect themselves.

The simple difference is sheriffs act under judicial authority and police work under an executive authority. Either way they both assume that authority by some fashion of consent. It usually is because of some sort of guardian - ward relationship that they leverage.

People underestimate how the relation of the parties effects the law which governs their disputes. "Sovereignty" is one of those relations.