Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need new countries !

peterkris.svbtle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: We need new countries !

#31

Post by Zigurd »

joelrunyon wrote: post #11

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, b…

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?

Re: We need new countries !

#32

Post by hrkristian »

joelrunyon wrote: post #11

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, b…

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.

Re: We need new countries !

#33

Post by ryanSrich »

glaberficken wrote: post #3

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...

IIRC hovering over them again used to take the Kudo away. It looks like that feature has since been eliminated.

Re: We need new countries !

#34

Post by looser »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #13

Full disclosure - I'm American and have lived here since birth, as is my entire family as far back as it matters. 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 f…

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".

Re: We need new countries !

#35

Post by jkscm »

> 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.

Re: We need new countries !

#36

Post by ronaldx »

joelrunyon wrote: post #16
ronaldx wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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 not…

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.

Re: We need new countries !

#39

Post by gaius »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #12
gaius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Sure. I was merely discounting the genetic explanation.

Re: We need new countries !

#40

Post by jsmcgd »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #12
gaius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

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.

Post reply on HN