[deleted]
We need new countries !
51–54 of 54 posts
Re: We need new countries !
#52As correctly pointed out, the initial hypothesis fails a quick reality check. This hypothesis can be tossed into the play box of countless others that do not actually explain wealth (e.g. Hypothesis of Cultural Superiority, or the Hypothesis that distance from the equator is correlative). A better explanation comes from a nation's legal system (Common law vs Civil law), contract laws, and property rights. Again, the initial hypothesis offers a poor explaintion of which countries adopted which systems.
Another issue that stuck me odd: Does anyone actually believe companies such as Apple would create a country that encourages competition and entrepreneurship in leu of say - a country that protects the interests of the company itself. Arguably, Apple has not been the most reliable in this category (Take the recent issue with Bitcoin Apps).
A new country probably should not be purchased by an existing force if individual rights are of a concern. Also, I question whether this article actually provided a reason for this need. There are a few implicit statements about tech and excessive bureaucracy, but is this honestly a bases for unification of a people? Seems to be a poorly defined cause appealing to the emotions of the eager technocrat.
I share concern with an earlier commenter as to how this landed on the front page of Hacker News.
Re: We need new countries !
#53> 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 geneti…
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.
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?
Re: We need new countries !
#54He 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 state…
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 b…
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.