h a l f b a k e r yThe leaning tower of Piezo
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I'm beginning to wonder if the world would be better off if we
were to go back to a model of confederations of sub-nations,
be
they considered states, regions, etc. that can choose
whichever
loose confederation they would like to join for the moment.
More flexibility to deal with a rapidly-changing
world affected
by climate pressures, technological pressures, and
inequalities.
Big nations = big wars, slow federal response, people mad at
a
faraway capitol, etc.
Small regions = small wars, faster responses to needs,
changes,
etc.
Loose confederacies of convenience = flexibility to respond to
rapid changes in world stimuli such as environmental
catastrophe, economic pressure, displaced people, etc.
National borders = sources of conflict.
regional borders = natural divisions of interest / economic /
cultural groups
The UN could become actually relevant.
so now Michigan doesn't have to deal with Texas school
textbook ignorance, BC doesn't have to put up with Ottawa,
Donetsk
doesn't have to worry about whether they are aligned
eastward
or westward and can just be themselves, and Russians of all
types can fall apart into whatever people group they belong
to.
Big wars take more effort to actually happen because regions
can get involved or leave. Nobody cares what happens in
Moscow, Washington, or Beijing, and smaller nations can be
heard.
[link]
|
| |
“If there is to be peace in the world,
There must be peace in the nations.
If there is to be peace in the nations,
There must be peace in the cities.
If there is to be peace in the cities,
There must be peace between neighbors.
If there is to be peace between neighbors,
There must be peace in the home.
If there is to be peace in the home,
There must be peace in the heart. |
|
| |
I have been thinking the same thing. Except that small nations tend to build strange coalitions. One recent historian claims that in the war between Athens and Persia, 32 Greek citystates joined Athens, but over 300 citystates joined the Persians. |
|
| |
The nice thing about coalitions is that they can be temporary.
With this kind of thinking, historical alignments become less
important in people's minds and places like the Middle East
can get over their past. |
|
| |
Whatever gets the red smears' boot off our necks. |
|
| |
//small nations tend to build strange coalitions//
Not really. They tend to ally with other nations that share their values or strategic interests or with powerful nations that can protect them from the depredations of stronger, imperialist powers (such as Athens). So an alliance with Persia makes total sense.
The ancient Greeks were quite a diaspora. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there were more Greeks in 'Persian' territory than there were in Greece. |
|
| |
Political coffee grinder. All countries are fed into a hopper and ground until only individual humans remain. A sieve or screen filters out any that are non-standard, to be discarded. The remainder are packed into a confined space and flooded with very hot water until their essence flows out of them. The dry remains are discarded and the essence is consumed by |
|
| |
It's delicious, a little bitter and salty. |
|
| |
So some kind of federated political union, with free and
flexible movement of goods, people and capital? Sounds
like a great idea! The only danger might be corrupt states
not wishing to conform to international law would always
seek to break up such arrangements through various
machinations by funding propaganda and dissent among
those members of the populace with emotive and
"identity"/nationalist based activism. Ideally, such rogue
states, might support the rise of corrupt and seditious
individuals amongst the media and political establishment
to further weaken and confuse their foes. |
|
| |
//over 300 citystates joined the Persians// |
|
| |
That *might* have had something to do with the enormous
Persian army at their gates. [DrBob], your chronology is
wrong. |
|
| |
Later the Persians got clever, and just paid the Greek states
to fight each other until they were all exhausted. |
|
| |
No, not a federated. A confederated. With smaller
states that have more autonomy, mostly.
If states don't wish to join confederation A, they can
join confederation B. Or leave for awhile and return.
There's no permanent security council, China
becomes like 30 tribes or whatever, the US turns into
5 or 6 regions. |
|
| |
Conflicts happen from time to time, but are kept
localized by the size of the interested parties.
Nobody fears blowing up the world. |
|
| |
Not my favorite way to simplify civil life, I must say. I'm of
the opinion that states or countries of states like with the
U.S. are far too numerous. Most counties here were
created during horse and buggy days to be readily
canvassed or called to order by a day's ride from a county
seat. Upon the county maps were laid district lines,
apportionment boundaries, and contiguous polling places.
Counties were created for various reasons, some out of
objection to their home counties' rule, others for bizarre
reasons, e.g. "Their sheriff doesn't like where he is and
doesn't want to come here, so he should have a new
county." |
|
| |
How can a system so derived ever be said to have
developed from a basis for unity and congenial political
aims? I really think that less, in the sense of fewer, would
be more. |
|
| |
You'll never get rid of conflict. But you can shrink the
size of it by shrinking the countries involved, so that
the earth always has some skirmish somewhere but
it doesn’t threaten huge wars. |
|
| |
This modern era of large countries and huge wars has seen far, far fewer people die as a percentage of population. Small wars don't mean fewer deaths when there are so many of them. |
|
| |
I'd be curious as to how those numbers add up. |
|
| |