Size Matters

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1752744]

Context for the first question.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I have a theory that part of the internal problems of both Russia and the US is that they are too large to actually have a common direction, and are thus riven by internal strife, as what will work for one part of the country is not acceptable to another. The US works through having a lot of abuse and shouting, Russia works through having someone incredibly strong leveraging nationalism. I do wonder if their populations would be happier if they were to fragment.

[skington.livejournal.com]

How much of this is geography, though, rather than population numbers?

[andrewducker]

Good question. A large number of people in close proximity will tend to be more easy to govern than the same number spread over a large area, I'm sure - if for no other reason than that they will be forced into communication more often, and less likely to polarise (cities always come up as more liberal and less judgemental than the surrounding rural areas).

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

The USA isn't really a single country, but a union of 50 individual countries (states) each with their own laws and government. It has some similarities with the EU insofar as some areas of law are decided entirely at state level , whilst in other areas states enact legislation that has to comply with legislation passed at a federal level.

[andrewducker]

It seems to be much more of a single country than the EU is - possibly because they elect people centrally who actually make laws, which seems quite different to how the EU does it.

[kerrypolka.livejournal.com]

I would agree with you -- I don't know much in-depth about Russia's history but I certainly think the US would be happier (and more productive/progressive both for itself and the world) as multiple smaller nations.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

I think you misunderestimate [stet] the cantankerousness of the American character... their history does not indicate that a strengthening of states' rights would lead to overall greater productivity/progressiveness. (Rather the opposite, actually.)

-- Steve thinks that the more developed states would indeed improve, but that much of that improvement would be eaten away by inter-state disputes (that are currently moderated by their federal government and courts) and the remainder much less than the plunge the lesser-developed states would take without the support they currently receive from the federation.

[arkhamrefugee.livejournal.com]

I think that in the short term, the populations -might- be happier if the Union dissolved and states either went their own ways or some of the states reformed into smaller confederacies (wow, talk about a Civil War re-enactor's wet dream).

However, the present Federal government has more resources to draw on than any one single state or even a conglomeration of states outside something the size of Texas or California could manage on their own. Also, without the presence of the Feds to (obstensibly) see the bigger picture and force behaviors which might not otherwise be allowed to flourish in specific regions. Case in point would be the desegregation of the south over the course of the 1960's and 1970's.

My analysis is that while it would take an outside force to unify the American citizenry again (and in the last century that has almost always been a hostile military action), I think that the present system is still better than any alternative we could come up with.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

China? India?

[andrewducker]

India struck me as quite Europe-like when I was there. It has 22 different officially recognised languages, and 28 states which each have a lot of power. I don't know enough to know how stable it is (and I suspect that Pakistan being right next-door is enough to frighten a lot of states into being part of India). It's rife with corruption, and there was a massive fuss in the newspapers when I was there because someone big was holding a hunger-strike to force anti-corruption legislation through (with a lot of public support).

China, I know less about. But I do wonder how well it will hold together when education and wealth levels rise.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

I ticked Scotland for the 1st question because I suspect we have people from most areas of world here somewhere, not as many as London, but a pretty good spread never the less, plus the crazy islanders. I very much doubt London has whole communities of people who want to ban transport into their area from operating on a Sunday! I'll concede London probably has more different communities though (as opposed to people from different cultures originally).

I'm showing my East Coast, non-Christian bias though...

[kerrypolka.livejournal.com]

I would be very surprised if the Litvak community in Stamford Hill weren't in favour of banning transport on Saturdays! Not to the extent of campaigning for it that I've heard, admittedly.

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

To be fair, I haven't visited London for over 10 years but I do live in the second most ethnically diverse city in Scotland so that also colours my view.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

This may help in anchoring estimates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

[steer.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends what you mean by "independent set of laws" -- Monaco does "French law except the ones we don't like". Independent military could be simply enough to have mutual agreements with neighbours. Health system could include "go next door for anything complex". In those conditions no problem to have a really very small country.

[andrewducker]

None of those sound terribly independent to me.

"Go next door for anything complex" sounds like the very opposite of indenpendent!

[steer.livejournal.com]

Yes -- but for, say, medical care, every country in the world does it, it just depends on your definition of complex.

[davidcook.livejournal.com]

I seem to be a lower bound on the minimum viable number. One reason could be different assumptions behind phrases like "health system" - your definition seems to be "comprehensive health system similar to that in the UK or other Western European nations". Mine is more along the lines of "does it have a hospital ? Then it has a health system - maybe not a very good one, but it does have a system".
So I'm thinking of some of the tiny Pacific nations - Nauru, Tuvalu, Niue, which are clearly independent (being on islands or island-groups) and would have some form of all the required features.

[andrewducker]

I do agree that being a "modern" country requires more resources than it used to.

I was mostly thinking - if you were to lay out countries from scratch (say, if you were breaking up a larger one), what would be the minimum size that would make sense to separate off.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

That sort of suggests you're looking for the ideal size, not a minimum viable size. NZ has four and a half million people, and it functions reasonably well. Chop China up into such sized countries and you've suddenly 200+ competing countries in the region.

I don't think there's any ideal size. And the big and powerful have no wish to become smaller and weaker, so change to smaller countries seems unlikely. I think people will care less and less about countries in the future though, and more about the cities they've chosen to live in. Which will be less and less likely to be in the country they were born in.

[errolwi.livejournal.com]

So I'm thinking of some of the tiny Pacific nations - Nauru, Tuvalu, Niue, which are clearly independent (being on islands or island-groups)

Niue is self-governing in free association with NZ, and much of its income is from NZ aid. That doesn't count as 'clearly independent' to me.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

The tiny Pacific nations have a hard time getting by independently, mainly due to the cost of modern living. They can obviously subsist as they did before Europeans turned up, which is a perfectly viable way of life assuming you're willing to go without the joys of modern technology that a higher than subsistence economy can provide.

Nauru's experience of going independent for instance is quite sobering - see the first few paragraphs there.

What services or stuff to sell to the big wide world out there is the problem that needs to be solved. Note that some work in other countries, either permanently or seasonally, with some of the money they make going back to the islands. Whether that can be classed as exporting though is arguable.

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

Er, I appear to have clicked 500,000 for the maximum governable question. Definitely meant "no limit".

I love the conceit that Scotland is somehow more diverse than London ;)

[andrewducker]

Well, it's got less for'n types in it, but when it comes to number of sheep farmers, fishing fleets, people that live half way up a mountain, and other diverse rural types it's got London beat.

(And you do know that you've always been able to change your poll responses, right?)

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

Right, but that's all part of the same culture, I'd argue. Visitors to Scotland often remarked to me that it was incredibly white.

And no! I didn't realize that. Me = doofus.