*The Size of Nations*

[Pauls' Revere]

The other day I got to thinking, is there an optimal size for a country to be to be most effective? Effective in as many categories as one could imagine I suppose but I traced back through history (what I know of it) and realized that Empires have risen and fallen but something always remains behind.

For example, the Persian Empire rose, fell and we have today Iran. Napolean rose,fell and today we have France. Rome rose,fell and today we have Italy. Russia rose, fell and today we have the break-up in process. The British Empire rose,fell and we have Britian.

My point is not that empires rise and fail but rather that they reach (over extend) as Dr Paul states but then contract to manageable sizes. When, (not if) the U.S.A. finally reaches this critical mass and begins this contraction will we contract to our original 50 states or with the new global economy break apart as Russia is doing into separate regions (economic zones) if you will. Will there be a Western USA and an Eastern USA, divided by the Mississippi?

I included this link with what looks like interesting reading.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=optimal+size+of+nations&aq=f&oq=

What size is optimal weighing cost/benefit and political analysis for this country?

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Never thought of this possibility actually. If others break off then I want to break off as well. My 5 acres will be my own domain damn it.

 

[tmosley]

There's probably some equation that would predict the size of a nation, given the distribution of cultures, the power of it and its neighbors, the size of the landmass, population density, the willingness of the people to accept authority from somewhere X miles away, the size and shape of historical empires, etc.

 

[nate895]

I don't think it is a quantifiable size, I think it is more based on culture. You can't have an empire ruling over several cultures that aren't that compatible with one another. Rome had everything from Roman to Greek to Gallic to Berber in their lands, and they failed. Great Britain had everything from Scottish to English to Indian, and they failed. The United States today has the Southerners, the New Englanders, the Upper Midwestern, the Midwestern, the Mountain West, the Pacific Coast, and the Hawaiians. Some of them are somewhat compatible, but they are far too distinct from one another to all be one country and remain so forever.

 

[M House]

There might be an "optimal" size but Canada is huge and they don't seem to care. Personally, I think we could do without a few pseudo states-Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Mexico, Israel, and Washington DC. Sarcasm aside seriously what is DC? Colbert report rightly makes fun of it.

 

[thesnoo23]

I suspect it is strongly related to a cost/benefit ratio. In order for a country to be bound together in such a way that it is clearly recognizeable as a single sovereign entity, it almost has to have some kind of central governing authority, whether that be a council of elders, a hereditary monarch, an agreed upon social contract, or a tyrannical dictator. The maintenance of that authority will cost money. Maintaining authority over a geographically large area will cost more money. That cost must necessarily be born by those over whom it rules, because where the hell else is it going to come from? If the cost of the authority per person is too large for that person to easily traverse through thier life, then either the people will cast off the government, the government will experience difficulties in collecting the payments necessary to pay the cost of governance with a subsequent degredation of it's authority, or the country will implode, unless someone conquers it first. The key is to find the optimum balance of segregated power for the given size of the country and the benefits derived from it. I think.

 

[NaT805]

A republic with multiple sovereign states (The more the more effective it is) would be the most effective.

 

[Mesogen]

 

[Uriel999]

Well Madison wrote that the ideal republic is large.

 

[Nautargos]

Sometime during the 19th century there was a fundamental shift from calling people by their home state to considering everyone "American". Assuming we maintain state sovereignty we shouldn't be concerned with the "empire" breaking up. Ironically we think of ourselves as one nation, but the EU modeled itself on our own original system.

 

[mediahasyou]

The optimal nation population size: one man.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Sometime during the 19th century there was a fundamental shift from calling people by their home state to considering everyone "American". Assuming we maintain state sovereignty we shouldn't be concerned with the "empire" breaking up. Ironically we think of ourselves as one nation, but the EU modeled itself on our own original system.

IIRC, it was after the Civil War that the mentality of "one nation" started emerging, though I could be wrong on this matter...you're right about the EU though, but I'd say they're very very rapidly headed in the direction of "The European Union is rising in opposition to the actions of XX nation" instead of "The various nation of the European Union have gathered and concluded the action of XX nation".

 

[Uriel999]

IIRC, it was after the Civil War that the mentality of "one nation" started emerging, though I could be wrong on this matter...you're right about the EU though, but I'd say they're very very rapidly headed in the direction of "The European Union is rising in opposition to the actions of XX nation" instead of "The various nation of the European Union have gathered and concluded the action of XX nation".

Fox your correct, I was just about to say this, but you beat me to it.

 

[Kludge]

The United States is a nation of nations. Our colonies and states may secede whenever they wish (if the president decides against a military invasion immediately after), just as Quebec may secede from Canada in the near future.

 

[Conza88]

A nation's size only matters if there is tyranny... the smaller the far easier to control.

Freedom - since it doesn't require centralization or central planning... with a faulty premise of economic calculation... means it can be infinitely big.

 

[nate895]

A nation's size only matters if there is tyranny... the smaller the far easier to control.

Freedom - since it doesn't require centralization or central planning... with a faulty premise of economic calculation... means it can be infinitely big.

I'd argue the larger territory a country has, the less likely it is to be free because there are more groups that want to take advantage of other groups.

 

[Conza88]

I'd argue the larger territory a country has, the less likely it is to be free because there are more groups that want to take advantage of other groups.

I'd argue - as I said previously; it is entirely incumbent upon the type of government. Democracy is NOT freedom, so I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. Democracy is tyranny of the majority over the individual.

 

[nate895]

I'd argue - as I said previously; it is entirely incumbent upon the type of government. Democracy is NOT freedom, so I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. Democracy is tyranny of the majority over the individual.

I don't care what kind of government a large territory with multiple groups of people in it has, they will constantly compete for control over the government and to plunder from the other groups in favor of theirs.

 

[Conza88]

I don't care what kind of government a large territory with multiple groups of people in it has, they will constantly compete for control over the government and to plunder from the other groups in favor of theirs.

Well yes, exactly. Which is why you need to get rid of governments / the state entirely...

 

[nate895]

Well yes, exactly. Which is why you need to get rid of governments / the state entirely...

People will still seek to take advantage of one another in Anarcho-Capitalism. The only way to reduce it is to have small, localized government.