> There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.

I guess you could call this true, but only in the sense that there has never been any system of any kind that didn't end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.

The normal pattern historically is that the city's hinterlands are subject to the city's rule. You never see the hinterlands ruling the city.

> There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse.

Totally incorrect. Berlin and Hamburg are states right now.

According to the Wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion ), Shays' Rebellion was prompted by taxes being set at a level well beyond farmers' ability to pay. This is an incredibly common motive for revolt.

But it escapes me how torstenvl thinks it's related to cities constituting their own governmental units.

I just reviewed that Wikipedia page, and it seems accurate to my account. May I suggest you re-read it? It had nothing to do with the level of taxes, but with the insistence on following the urban mercantile paradigm, and, when farmers couldn't, forcibly taking their land from them.

"The economy during the American Revolutionary War was largely subsistence agriculture.... Some residents in these areas had few assets beyond their land, and they bartered.... In contrast, there was a market economy in the more economically developed coastal areas of Massachusetts Bay.... The state government was dominated by this merchant class.... European business partners ... insisted that they pay for goods with hard currency, despite the country-wide shortage of such currency. Merchants began to demand the same from... those operating in the market towns in the state's interior.... The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands... and some began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations."

> I just reviewed that Wikipedia page, and it seems accurate to my account. May I suggest you re-read it?

You didn't actually give an account. But the quote you pulled describes farmers being taxed at a level they are incapable of paying. It appears that you would like to use that to support the claim "it had nothing to do with the level of taxes", somehow. You'd need to explain how.

I did, and in explicit detail. You're misreading the text, which is about a qualitative issue, not a quantitative one. It has nothing to do with level of taxation but with enforcing an urban mercantile paradigm of taxation, one that was literally impossible to meet and for which failure to meet it resulted in execution by starvation.

Being taxed a certain amount of silver is just as much of an issue of levels as being taxed a certain amount of wheat. Assessed taxes were much more expensive than the farmers were able to pay. It doesn't matter what currency the taxes are assessed in. What matters is that the amount is too high.

Compare what the farmers said their problem was:

> A farmer identified as "Plough Jogger" summarized the situation at a meeting convened by aggrieved commoners:

>> I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates, and all rates ... been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables, and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth ... The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers.