We need new countries !(peterkris.svbtle.com)
peterkris.svbtle.com
We need new countries !
http://peterkris.svbtle.com/we-need-new-countries
25 comments
FEMA teaching its employees that the founding fathers were the "first terrorist organization in the United States":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio&feature=youtu.be...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio&feature=youtu.be...
Please, use the right words.
America is not a country, it is a continent.
America != United States We know that an "United Stater" is also an American, but there are Americans who are not "United Staters".
America != United States We know that an "United Stater" is also an American, but there are Americans who are not "United Staters".
Actually our name is not United States either, we are The United States of America. "United States," "the States," and yes even "America" are commonly used and understood nicknames.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states#Etymology
People of the United States are most commonly referred to and understood as "Americans." If you say "I'm an American," virtually no one would think that you meant that you were vaguely from one of the two American continents, North or South. They would know that you meant you're a citizen of the United States; you know, America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_United_States_citize...
EDIT: Your downvote was not from me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states#Etymology
People of the United States are most commonly referred to and understood as "Americans." If you say "I'm an American," virtually no one would think that you meant that you were vaguely from one of the two American continents, North or South. They would know that you meant you're a citizen of the United States; you know, America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_United_States_citize...
EDIT: Your downvote was not from me.
> I have a hypothesis, that the most life-capable beings are those, who are able to cope with risk and fear, cross the line of comfort zone, and explore new unknown areas. In this manner, America inherited the best ones in the world, and I think this is one of the reasons why America is the wealthiest country, according to several measurements.
Uh, this is the first time I have heard that Americans are somehow genetically or racially superior thanks to their national founding myth. Certainly sounds like a similar theory to a certain other, now hugely discredited political outlook I won't mention.
It seems to lack explanatory power - why are there so many other countries composed of the descendents of migrants that are not as wealthy? Why are there countries composed mostly of lumpen aboriginals and left-behinds that are even wealthier per-capita?
Uh, this is the first time I have heard that Americans are somehow genetically or racially superior thanks to their national founding myth. Certainly sounds like a similar theory to a certain other, now hugely discredited political outlook I won't mention.
It seems to lack explanatory power - why are there so many other countries composed of the descendents of migrants that are not as wealthy? Why are there countries composed mostly of lumpen aboriginals and left-behinds that are even wealthier per-capita?
It's nothing to do with genetics. It's that people who would board a wooden ship to head to head off into the unknown were predisposed towards taking calculated risks. Some of that will have been passed down to their kids, not genetically but how they were raised and educated. It was simply a much bigger gamble to head across the Atlantic than it was to cross the English Channel.
You still see this today, altho' to a less extent because the risks are much less. Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home.
You still see this today, altho' to a less extent because the risks are much less. Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home.
> It's nothing to do with genetics. It's that people who would board a wooden ship to head to head off into the unknown were predisposed towards taking calculated risk
As JetSetWilly pointed out, this lack explanatory power. For instance, it does not explain why the USA is a global power whereas Agentina, Brazil and Mexico are far from it. So while this may be necessary, it cannot be sufficient.
As JetSetWilly pointed out, this lack explanatory power. For instance, it does not explain why the USA is a global power whereas Agentina, Brazil and Mexico are far from it. So while this may be necessary, it cannot be sufficient.
The differences between the successes of north and south America has been explored by economists. One significant factor was the lack of property rights of south Americans. Basically traditional serfdom was exported to south America, whereas the people in the north were able to buy and own their land allowing them to become independently wealthy. Those in the south had to pass nearly all their wealth to the landlords.
There are also other factors like the dominant protestant work ethic in the north (i.e. that working hard is the best way to get close to God, as opposed to focusing on observing dogmatic traditions).
There was also a more established rule of law in the north and there are other differences. So although the potential for similar outcomes was there at the start when the Americas was being founded, they set off on wildly different trajectories.
Edit: I'd recommend reading Civilization by Niall Ferguson.
There are also other factors like the dominant protestant work ethic in the north (i.e. that working hard is the best way to get close to God, as opposed to focusing on observing dogmatic traditions).
There was also a more established rule of law in the north and there are other differences. So although the potential for similar outcomes was there at the start when the Americas was being founded, they set off on wildly different trajectories.
Edit: I'd recommend reading Civilization by Niall Ferguson.
It also doesn't explain why countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden are so successful. I'm sure you could pick something common to the history of all three and make a completely speculative story about why certain Europeans are the most successful people in the world...
... And people have, check out Jared Diamond.
Sure. I was merely discounting the genetic explanation.
> Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home.
Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking.
Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking.
> Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking.
Maybe likely - but not required. It sounds nice, but until you have a source for this, I'm not likely to believe it.
If anything, especially with these types of endeavors, where there's not just money, but life to be lost - I'd presume that the wealthy would have more to lose than someone with nothing.
In other words, with a wealthy person taking risks has a much higher opportunity cost than someone with nothing to lose.
As an aside, you can move abroad to asia & live for a fraction of the cost that you'd require in the states. International travel & work isn't just the domain of the wealthy anymore.
Maybe likely - but not required. It sounds nice, but until you have a source for this, I'm not likely to believe it.
If anything, especially with these types of endeavors, where there's not just money, but life to be lost - I'd presume that the wealthy would have more to lose than someone with nothing.
In other words, with a wealthy person taking risks has a much higher opportunity cost than someone with nothing to lose.
As an aside, you can move abroad to asia & live for a fraction of the cost that you'd require in the states. International travel & work isn't just the domain of the wealthy anymore.
You correctly note that I said likely, not required.
So, we're not in disagreement.
I agree with you about the risk to life having some effect, but this obviously doesn't apply to people alive today.
Anyone can move to Asia and have a better quality of life, perhaps, but it sure as hell helps if:
* you can afford regular plane tickets home to family/possibly at short notice,
* you have support back in your home country until you get settled,
* you are wealthy or privileged enough to have access to whatever visa in whichever country you prefer. (e.g. sufficient education and experience to meet the requirements of a skilled work visa)
With respect, if you think intercontinental travel & work isn't primarily the domain of the wealthy, we may have different definitions of wealthy.
Anyone can move to Asia and have a better quality of life, perhaps, but it sure as hell helps if:
* you can afford regular plane tickets home to family/possibly at short notice,
* you have support back in your home country until you get settled,
* you are wealthy or privileged enough to have access to whatever visa in whichever country you prefer. (e.g. sufficient education and experience to meet the requirements of a skilled work visa)
With respect, if you think intercontinental travel & work isn't primarily the domain of the wealthy, we may have different definitions of wealthy.
What about within the EU?
This is a problem for some and an opportunity for others. Many of the people capable of kickstarting the economies of Greece and Spain have left for England or Germany...
This is a problem for some and an opportunity for others. Many of the people capable of kickstarting the economies of Greece and Spain have left for England or Germany...
I don't think he was trying to get at race or genetics, but rather attitude. I wouldn't say it 'inherited', but the 'culture' was one of people willing to get rid of their old stable lives for one of 'unlimited' opportunity, freedom, risk and adventure.
Whether or not that attitude is actually still pervasive or whether it's a nice story we tell ourselves is debatable, but it was true of the europeans that founded the country.
Whether or not that attitude is actually still pervasive or whether it's a nice story we tell ourselves is debatable, but it was true of the europeans that founded the country.
I wouldn't say it 'inherited', but the 'culture' was one of people willing to get rid of their old stable lives for one of 'unlimited' opportunity, freedom, risk and adventure.
I actually see much of the early immigration as the reverse: people who wanted to maintain their old stable lives, but for various reasons were finding it difficult to do so in Europe, due to religious or political differences. So, they left to found a new society elsewhere, where they could keep and enforce their traditional community norms. The Puritans were not looking for frontier living or risky fortune, but rather for the opportunity to maintain a very communalist, strict, religious community in keeping with their faith. Early Puritan communities were not some kind of individualist libertarian society, but more like religious communes, with strict rules on what you could do on which days of the week and in what manner. The Hasidim might be the closest modern-day analog: they moved to places like Brooklyn not out of a desire for adventure, but because it was somewhere they could maintain their traditional way of life, which was becoming impossible to do in Eastern Europe. Within the U.S., the "Mormon exodus" westwards from Illinois to Utah had a similar motivation.
I actually see much of the early immigration as the reverse: people who wanted to maintain their old stable lives, but for various reasons were finding it difficult to do so in Europe, due to religious or political differences. So, they left to found a new society elsewhere, where they could keep and enforce their traditional community norms. The Puritans were not looking for frontier living or risky fortune, but rather for the opportunity to maintain a very communalist, strict, religious community in keeping with their faith. Early Puritan communities were not some kind of individualist libertarian society, but more like religious communes, with strict rules on what you could do on which days of the week and in what manner. The Hasidim might be the closest modern-day analog: they moved to places like Brooklyn not out of a desire for adventure, but because it was somewhere they could maintain their traditional way of life, which was becoming impossible to do in Eastern Europe. Within the U.S., the "Mormon exodus" westwards from Illinois to Utah had a similar motivation.
I'm from Europe and have absolutely no problem with this statement. I myself think that argument is valid.
Although later immigrants had to take far less risk, and would argue they are the majority now.
Please do not start a race-war, this was a solid reasoning, anyone could have moved to America back then.
Please do not start a race-war, this was a solid reasoning, anyone could have moved to America back then.
Not really. You had to have been of the wealthy third estate (free gentry or an ex-service man).
Even an established guild member - above a journeyman and by consequence a free-citizen with voting and mobility rights - would have been disqualified since leaving the city for new residents would have meant leaving the guild and losing the (limited) freedom of mobility they need to board a ship. So they had to leave on good legal terms, still owning some land, which meant a large surplus of money.
Now, can you think of a reason beyond religious persecution for someone of such a privileged class and circumstances to just decide to risk sea-travel for himself and his entire family and just pack up and leave?
Even an established guild member - above a journeyman and by consequence a free-citizen with voting and mobility rights - would have been disqualified since leaving the city for new residents would have meant leaving the guild and losing the (limited) freedom of mobility they need to board a ship. So they had to leave on good legal terms, still owning some land, which meant a large surplus of money.
Now, can you think of a reason beyond religious persecution for someone of such a privileged class and circumstances to just decide to risk sea-travel for himself and his entire family and just pack up and leave?
I think you misunderstood him. He was referring to the fact that America used to be the "promise land", because of the freedom it used to have, and why so many people wanted to flee there, and create their own opportunities thanks to that freedom. It has nothing to do with genetics.
Come on, how can such low quality stuff get on hacker news? The claim that American immigrants have been the best people of the world is a joke. The author also can't even set punctuation correctly.
It also reads like a libertarian pipe-dream.
It also reads like a libertarian pipe-dream.
He got so many things wrong, it's hard to even start criticizing him. Well, I won't. I had the same ideas when I was 16. Then I started reading books.
Also: Why in Xolotl's name is this on Hacker News?!?
Also: Why in Xolotl's name is this on Hacker News?!?
[deleted]
Even disregard of how it could ever happens, if the scenario happens, at best, we will realize that people don't like to pay tax, nor doing what they don't want. And then we will "innovate" "law", and some other annoying professions to interpret such innovation, and some other to do boring book keeping to make sure that people aren't trying to do funny things, and then the circle comes full around.
At worst, we're gonna starve because JS framework is not edible.
At worst, we're gonna starve because JS framework is not edible.
> America inherited the best ones in the world, and I think this is one of the reasons why America is the wealthiest country, according to several measurements.
If you want to explain the current state of the USA with history you have to mention the indian genocide, slavery, every American war and the absence of any kind economical compensation or balancing of the wealth distribution.
American history is shaped not by freedom but self-righteousness.
If you want to explain the current state of the USA with history you have to mention the indian genocide, slavery, every American war and the absence of any kind economical compensation or balancing of the wealth distribution.
American history is shaped not by freedom but self-righteousness.
On the contrary, we need fewer countries, fewer borders and more decentralization.
Recently I was wishing for 'fat' borders, instead of thin lines. Under some kind of U.N law. To avoid or at least reduce friction between people.
> fewer countries
> more decentralization
Pick one. More countries means more decentralization.
> more decentralization
Pick one. More countries means more decentralization.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I've seen quite a few posts like this that make it sound like running a country can be bought for the price of land. I'm curious (as I really don't know), how many new countries have been created that didn't happen because of war, bloodshed or some other violent conflict?
It seems like this is almost a requirement any time a new country is created as people & especially governments are very likely to sell you land, but not sell you control.
It seems like this is almost a requirement any time a new country is created as people & especially governments are very likely to sell you land, but not sell you control.
I imagine these kind of articles/blogs being written by people somewhat removed from the fact we live in a physical world.
Land/property is only in one's possession for as long as an opportunist is deterred from seizing it from you. The author should take a good look at eastern Europe to see how "new countries" are a bad idea.
The whole thing is largely irrelevant for another reason though: the continuing emergence of the market state. Corporations increasingly do not give a single hoot about borders, and they're gaining more and more power by the minute; mercenaries already exist en masse in the U.S. and are taken for granted in even less stable countries.
Land/property is only in one's possession for as long as an opportunist is deterred from seizing it from you. The author should take a good look at eastern Europe to see how "new countries" are a bad idea.
The whole thing is largely irrelevant for another reason though: the continuing emergence of the market state. Corporations increasingly do not give a single hoot about borders, and they're gaining more and more power by the minute; mercenaries already exist en masse in the U.S. and are taken for granted in even less stable countries.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were liberated from outright annexation to the Soviet Union, though that was not recognized by the US and other countries. The Czech Republic and Slovakia parted amicably. Do you think a Republic of Texas would cause a war?
The article reads to me like an escapist way of saying that there is a disconnect between the current political agendas and the interests of the younger generations, and that we have to engage ourselves politically in order to close that gap.
We need to fix existing countries, in particular the one that is making its influence reach every other. While that in particular is not fixed, running elsewhere is just delaying the inevitable (and making it even more inevitable).
by the time i hovered your fancy kudos button and realized i had just given an "unretractable" kudo by accident I had lost all interest in what you have to say about countries...
wonderful minimalism...
It's always good to see novel, never-been-suggested-before ideas about governance, worked out in detail by people who understand the obstacles and pitfalls involved.
Wake me when that happens.
Wake me when that happens.
Silicon Valley as an independent country? That's a great idea! I'd pay to see twentysomethings build a nation on cat 5 cables and bright rectangles. Now, where did I put my popcorn pan...
I had thoughts about the topic once, and my Mom had a pretty solid counter-argument. That country would have too many haters and would be too easy to attack. Innovation better stays decentralized.
I wrote a similar essay a few months ago. http://tricorder.org/eric/newny.html
Trade one bureaucracy for another that has even less accountability? No, thanks.
We need new countries as much as spaces between sentences and question marks.
No, we don't need any of these, this will means blood.
He might have some of the reasons wrong, but more countries would be better. Big nations are unmanageable and too easy to corrupt on an institutional scale. Americans don't seem to see this, except maybe seeing California as a state that's too big to manage. Setting Silicon Valley free as a separate nation might be, as another commenter here wrote "a libertarian pipe dream," But several smaller groups of united states would be more politically coherent, and, by the same mechanisms as the EU, retain free trade.
Smaller Americas would be less likely to go to war, implement TBTF bank policies, or engage in other follies. Congressional districts would become too small to gerrymander. Buying five Congresses would cost five times as much.
Smaller Americas would be less likely to go to war, implement TBTF bank policies, or engage in other follies. Congressional districts would become too small to gerrymander. Buying five Congresses would cost five times as much.
I too would love to see supersized countries like the United states, Russia, and China split up into several parts that compete and cooperate with one another. Sort of like how EU works, but learning from EU's mistakes as well.
It's a cool thought experiment: Let the Confederate States of America declare independence again and ban abortion, homosexuality and interracial marriage within their borders. As long as the borders remain as thin as they are in Europe, I'm sure people will eventually vote with their feet (or their wallets) and give us much more solid evidence of what really works and what doesn't. Meanwhile, Vermont can go ahead and implement single-payer health care, and Alaska can start experimenting with a more substantial basic income. Political experiments are much easier to carry out in small countries.
Unfortunately, power has a tendency to keep growing and never willingly limit itself. So I don't see this realistically happening any time soon, except in the aftermath of some sort of disaster you'd expect to see in a Roland Emmerich movie.
It's a cool thought experiment: Let the Confederate States of America declare independence again and ban abortion, homosexuality and interracial marriage within their borders. As long as the borders remain as thin as they are in Europe, I'm sure people will eventually vote with their feet (or their wallets) and give us much more solid evidence of what really works and what doesn't. Meanwhile, Vermont can go ahead and implement single-payer health care, and Alaska can start experimenting with a more substantial basic income. Political experiments are much easier to carry out in small countries.
Unfortunately, power has a tendency to keep growing and never willingly limit itself. So I don't see this realistically happening any time soon, except in the aftermath of some sort of disaster you'd expect to see in a Roland Emmerich movie.
Even the South isn't the Old South any more. A majority of voters in Louisiana support cannabis legalization. There are a lot of dire predictions about devolution of political power in the US, but I doubt most places will even need to "learn a lesson" about the costs of regressive laws.
[deleted]
[deleted]
America was founded by political dissidents, religious nut bags, criminals, and paranoid sociopaths who couldn't cut it in civilized Europe.
Today, America is controlled by billionaires that profit from and exploit that same paranoia and fear. Yes, America is a nation that is nearly entirely crippled by fear. Originally, we were afraid of spirits, and later we were afraid of werewolves, and then witches. Now, we're afraid of terrorists, gays, education, and essentially anyone who is different than us.