An interesting idea, but you have to account for issues:
Small communities tend to do well.
People who believe in the policy they are implementing will work to make sure it secedes, while those who disbelieve will try to make it fail. Your subjects cannot be blind to the policy.
What you are doing is a form of Reductio ad absurdum. You have to assume that people have their best interest in mind. They will refrain from forming states that are too small to exist, and apart from that this is not even a remotely realistic scenario.
In fact, mistrust that people can decide things for themselves and that localism leads to the best outcome for them is the hallmark of centralism and bureaucrats. Things we don't need more of.
I can't agree that what I stated is a false dilemma. I am simply stating for sake of efficiency locality matters.
I am also arguing that they are their own people. And while not all of them agree to be governed in this manner, some large percent probably does. It is silly to medal in the affairs of such.
But they wouldn't be doing fine for long. Inevitably, policy would be structured that made those communities less able to fend for themselves. It always happens--structures of control always seek more control, and more people in fewer places means easier to control.
I'm afraid we're talking past each other--your arguments are about economics, mine concern the right to self-determination.
I've had a similar thought experiment before, where basically you let people of different political leanings go to their own countries with their like minded ilk. Two problems arise:
1. People tend to hold complex combinations of views which may not completely align with everyone else. How many partitions do you need in order to make this work?
2. Mobility remains an issue. People simply don't have the resources to get up and go to something they actually support and build it up.
I recently encountered the idea of breaking countries into smaller ones to alleviate polarisation, concentration of power, and military buildup.
I’ve heard of utopian scenarios where there’s lots of large communities that each live in line with their values. Perhaps it’s a similar line or thinking.
Anyway, to an uneducated mind this sounded interesting (not that any powerful nation would allow it).
Theoretically, if it were possible what would be the pros and cons? I’m guessing something like WW3 becomes less likely?
An alternate interpretation is that devolving political control to the smallest possible unit is an available option regardless of a land mass' total population size.
I honestly cannot imagine how you can have even a small town function without a government of some sort, leave alone a whole country.
To me, it's pretty obvious that when you have a large group of people trying to live geographically close together, someone has to set up the rules, and make sure those rules are followed. Otherwise, there will be conflicts, because people will have different opinions about how something should be done, and some people will try to enforce their worldview on others.
Whoever will have the power to resolve such conflicts is the government. That will be their job, and people will have to pay them to do this job.
I was thinking about something similar: What would happen if the countries were smaller (with a maximum of 1000 people per country)? it would be more appropriate to call them micro-countries, the 1000 people would work together so that their taxes go to improve only the quality of life of those 1000 people, the social and economic laws would be specific to that area, people would have the opportunity to be someone important in their community and not simple fish in the ocean like most workers are...
The logistics in many areas would be very simple... The current governments cannot solve all the problems of a country because the countries are gigantic and each area has its own problems... All this brainstorming could be turned into a more serious analysis if you had the help of experts in sociology, politics, philosophy, history and economics.
Interesting idea. But I believe, that countries as a whole a too big to be really manageable. I imagine a society living in smaller regions (but big enough for natural resources, et al.) and these regions are part of a bigger structure. Like cells in a body. OK, Germany or the US do have a similar way of organizing, but I would love for these "cells" to be more autonomous, so that like-minded people could "just" switch cells, so that ideologies or political principles would be voted for by feet.
Something along these lines. sitting @work, this rough sketch is everything I can offer. And I know, a lot of detail is missing.
If that has a solid majority where you live why does that not translate into different policies and institutions?
If it is a minority position, how to convince more people? Or where to find a place to create a new society without free-riding on the existing one, etc.?
Then break up these larger countries to smaller ones? Sounds like obvious solution. If larger countries are such massive failures. Should they exist? As clearly being smaller works better.
There is no reason to have such a small authorities. Anarchic societies managed to maintain armies strong enough to deter state actors. It comes with some small sacrifices, but it's still much better than otherwise.
In practice, your village can come to an agreement with other small villages and do military exercises together while still maintaining autonomy, and you can then maintain complex weapon systems and large armies.
I suspect the validity of this theory could be tested by imagining what would happen in a society of 10 people.
The size of national governments makes them seem capable of anything. But unless this theory includes a rule that it only applies in societies beyond a certain size (and I didn't see one), it has to work in a society of 10 too, and that scenario we can imagine fairly easily.
Personally I think small states + active democracy is the way. Ultimately, freedom of movement plus observation of different modes of governance will force states to change or be abandoned.
The government should apply a thin layer of rules to be followed, and otherwise let states do their own thing. In theory that's what we're already doing, but it's a matter of opinion.
Added to my wishlist. Any other works you'd recommend?
With respect to the seastead societies, which I've heard about, I think it's certainly plausible that they'll "work", given sufficient diversity of available governments, and hence, appropriately homogenous small-scale populations. But in a geopolitlcal landscape ruled by nation-states, I would be truly wary of breaking down powerful liberal democracies like the US into anything resembling these things. It's rather unclear to me how you could mobilize a sufficient defense against nationalist military forces.
I recall reading in my undergrad days about similar small, voluntarily formed communities. (One of them, for instance, eschewed all laws and use of coercion, relying on subtle and not so subtle forms of ostracization to keep people in line.) But it occurred to me that these communities were entirely dependent on having a larger, more powerful neighboring entity around to protect them, and I have to believe these seastead societies are subject to the same dependency.
I would like to see peaceful political secessionism happen, so that as we sort ourselves out ideologically we can also sort ourselves out physically and sovereign-ly.
Yes, I believe a government that is more local, and representing a community that has more in common, will be more reflective of the wishes of that community, and more responsive (and vulnerable!) to its criticism.
I find it somewhat insulting I even have to argue for this - this move of power further away is a change. It should be justified, instead of happening by default, while the former status quo of sovereign nations has to argue for its continued existence.
Small communities tend to do well.
People who believe in the policy they are implementing will work to make sure it secedes, while those who disbelieve will try to make it fail. Your subjects cannot be blind to the policy.
reply