We need new countries !
peterkris.svbtle.com
peterkris.svbtle.com
America was founded by political dissidents, religious nut bags, criminals, and paranoid sociopaths who couldn't cut it in civilized Europe.
Today, America is controlled by billionaires that profit from and exploit that same paranoia and fear. Yes, America is a nation that is nearly entirely crippled by fear. Originally, we were afraid of spirits, and later we were afraid of werewolves, and then witches. Now, we're afraid of terrorists, gays, education, and essentially anyone who is different than us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio&feature=youtu.be...
America != United States We know that an "United Stater" is also an American, but there are Americans who are not "United Staters".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states#Etymology
People of the United States are most commonly referred to and understood as "Americans." If you say "I'm an American," virtually no one would think that you meant that you were vaguely from one of the two American continents, North or South. They would know that you meant you're a citizen of the United States; you know, America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_United_States_citize...
EDIT: Your downvote was not from me.
Uh, this is the first time I have heard that Americans are somehow genetically or racially superior thanks to their national founding myth. Certainly sounds like a similar theory to a certain other, now hugely discredited political outlook I won't mention.
It seems to lack explanatory power - why are there so many other countries composed of the descendents of migrants that are not as wealthy? Why are there countries composed mostly of lumpen aboriginals and left-behinds that are even wealthier per-capita?
You still see this today, altho' to a less extent because the risks are much less. Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home.
As JetSetWilly pointed out, this lack explanatory power. For instance, it does not explain why the USA is a global power whereas Agentina, Brazil and Mexico are far from it. So while this may be necessary, it cannot be sufficient.
There are also other factors like the dominant protestant work ethic in the north (i.e. that working hard is the best way to get close to God, as opposed to focusing on observing dogmatic traditions).
There was also a more established rule of law in the north and there are other differences. So although the potential for similar outcomes was there at the start when the Americas was being founded, they set off on wildly different trajectories.
Edit: I'd recommend reading Civilization by Niall Ferguson.
Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking.
Maybe likely - but not required. It sounds nice, but until you have a source for this, I'm not likely to believe it.
If anything, especially with these types of endeavors, where there's not just money, but life to be lost - I'd presume that the wealthy would have more to lose than someone with nothing.
In other words, with a wealthy person taking risks has a much higher opportunity cost than someone with nothing to lose.
As an aside, you can move abroad to asia & live for a fraction of the cost that you'd require in the states. International travel & work isn't just the domain of the wealthy anymore.
Anyone can move to Asia and have a better quality of life, perhaps, but it sure as hell helps if:
* you can afford regular plane tickets home to family/possibly at short notice,
* you have support back in your home country until you get settled,
* you are wealthy or privileged enough to have access to whatever visa in whichever country you prefer. (e.g. sufficient education and experience to meet the requirements of a skilled work visa)
With respect, if you think intercontinental travel & work isn't primarily the domain of the wealthy, we may have different definitions of wealthy.
This is a problem for some and an opportunity for others. Many of the people capable of kickstarting the economies of Greece and Spain have left for England or Germany...
Whether or not that attitude is actually still pervasive or whether it's a nice story we tell ourselves is debatable, but it was true of the europeans that founded the country.
I actually see much of the early immigration as the reverse: people who wanted to maintain their old stable lives, but for various reasons were finding it difficult to do so in Europe, due to religious or political differences. So, they left to found a new society elsewhere, where they could keep and enforce their traditional community norms. The Puritans were not looking for frontier living or risky fortune, but rather for the opportunity to maintain a very communalist, strict, religious community in keeping with their faith. Early Puritan communities were not some kind of individualist libertarian society, but more like religious communes, with strict rules on what you could do on which days of the week and in what manner. The Hasidim might be the closest modern-day analog: they moved to places like Brooklyn not out of a desire for adventure, but because it was somewhere they could maintain their traditional way of life, which was becoming impossible to do in Eastern Europe. Within the U.S., the "Mormon exodus" westwards from Illinois to Utah had a similar motivation.
Please do not start a race-war, this was a solid reasoning, anyone could have moved to America back then.
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?
It also reads like a libertarian pipe-dream.
Also: Why in Xolotl's name is this on Hacker News?!?
At worst, we're gonna starve because JS framework is not edible.
If you want to explain the current state of the USA with history you have to mention the indian genocide, slavery, every American war and the absence of any kind economical compensation or balancing of the wealth distribution.
American history is shaped not by freedom but self-righteousness.
> more decentralization
Pick one. More countries means more decentralization.
It seems like this is almost a requirement any time a new country is created as people & especially governments are very likely to sell you land, but not sell you control.
Land/property is only in one's possession for as long as an opportunist is deterred from seizing it from you. The author should take a good look at eastern Europe to see how "new countries" are a bad idea.
The whole thing is largely irrelevant for another reason though: the continuing emergence of the market state. Corporations increasingly do not give a single hoot about borders, and they're gaining more and more power by the minute; mercenaries already exist en masse in the U.S. and are taken for granted in even less stable countries.
Wake me when that happens.
Smaller Americas would be less likely to go to war, implement TBTF bank policies, or engage in other follies. Congressional districts would become too small to gerrymander. Buying five Congresses would cost five times as much.
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 borders remain as thin as they are in Europe, I'm sure people will eventually vote with their feet (or their wallets) and give us much more solid evidence of what really works and what doesn't. Meanwhile, Vermont can go ahead and implement single-payer health care, and Alaska can start experimenting with a more substantial basic income. Political experiments are much easier to carry out in small countries.
Unfortunately, power has a tendency to keep growing and never willingly limit itself. So I don't see this realistically happening any time soon, except in the aftermath of some sort of disaster you'd expect to see in a Roland Emmerich movie.