h a l f b a k e r yTempus fudge-it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Countries are currently defined by wars fought centuries ago (or by colonial overlords) but several countries still haven't finished squabbling over the sovereignty of their lands.
I suggest an agency (perhaps with with ties to the UN) that negotiates with countries to buy land to create new countries.
This land could be taken from the edge of 1 country or from a combination of countries. The land needn't be disputed, it just seems that would be of the most benefit.
The land is then available to a corporation or group of investors who wish to purchase it. They form the government and set whatever laws they wish. The country would start with no citizens, with the government setting the rules for who can come.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Isn't this how Alaska was invented? |
|
| |
It was purchased, as was Louisiana (and other bits), (California and Hawaii?), but it is not an autonomous country run by a corporation ... yet. |
|
| |
But if the original territory is disputed, then how do you decide whom to pay when purchasing it? |
|
| |
[pertinax] That's where the negotiating comes in. The agency would have to make a deal to pay each party an amount that they were happy with. If they don't want to sell it they can go on fighting over it, it's up to them. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] It wouldn't work with Israel/Palestine the area in dispute is too large. Kashmir is a more likely candidate, but even there the natives can't agree on who they want to be part of and certainly wouldn't want to be kicked out. |
|
| |
I'm starting to re-think the disputed part of it. Maybe it would be better to think of it as countries who would prefer to have cash than a particular chunk of land. |
|
| |