Smaller countries

Post Reply New Topic

I was looking around after I'd heard about some theoretical secessions from the United States, and I heard about a book that proposed North America could be divided into nine nations based on cultural and economic barriers.



Basically, North America would do the opposite of Europe.

I think that, for one thing, it would be convenient to have people run their country their own way without worrying about coming into conflict with the cultural beliefs of people far away. On the other hand, if those countries become too patriotic and idealistic, international problems arise.

A smaller, less-populated area might be easier to govern without tightening the state's grip, or it could make it easier for the government to fit its hands around and strangle.

Limiting a nation's resources and manpower could encourage it to conserve what it has, or it could encourage that nation to invade others for resources.

What does everyone else have to say? Care to weigh in any pros and cons?

I am a fan of smaller countries. The issues I see are trade issues and currency issues, as well as dealing with international externalities, but the benefits I see are more competitive national policies and greater ability to move if one disagrees with a nation's policies.

I don't think that the strangulation theory is correct because I think that even though a smaller nation might have a more fitting government to it, it will also probably have to get along with its neighbors better and this might allow for significant immigration.

I also don't think that we would necessarily be pushed towards conservation, but rather we could possibly see greater irrationality if nations seek protectionist trade policies. I think that the nations will be pushed towards greater interdependence and trade though, especially given that there will be less ability to unilaterally pursue goals.

I don't think resource wars would happen. War is too costly between developed nations to usually pursue, and not only that, but I think international trade might be more important to the smaller nations(especially given all the common cultural background) and wars get in the way of trade.

I am not sure about the logic of the divisions proposed but I think I would prefer smaller divisions.

Looks like the Empty Quarter is more like a half. I'll take that land if nobody minds; I like the Rocky mountains anyway.

"you better think twice america or no burritos for you!"

I oppose this. We are a union, and we maintain our strength by remaining as one.

I don't have anything to add, except to say that I found that map amusing.
And yes, the U.S. is so divided (idelogically, politically, religion-wise, etc).
I am so moving to Ecotopia!

Well, what strengths are you looking at and what goals? I mean, as one then we are most certainly more militarily powerful, but is that a better goal than another one?

My opinion here is a bit biased by my libertarian (borderline anarchist even) viewpoints, but I disagree with you. I'm a big proponent of states' rights since individual state governments are more directly accountable to the people than is the federal government. Most individual US states could easily be their own country- California, Texas and New York would even be major world powers even if they were on their own. Even my home state of Ohio, along with places like Pennsylvania or New Jersey, would economically be major countries in their own right. I favor a much looser alliance between the States than currently exists- basically, I want the federal government to provide a common currency, minimally regulate trade with outside countries (these two make the US a common economic bloc) and to provide for collective defense through border security and a strong enough combined military that we don't have to worry about being attacked (if each state was independent, Texas would quickly be at war with Mexico, if we stay together for military purposes that's not an issue). Aside from those minor functions, I think the federal government really shouldn't do much of anything else and each state should act more or less like an independent country.

Ecotopia rules! (I'm in Oregon).

Empty quarter is quite big.

what about sports? they will have to send separate contingents to the olympics and other sports. the talents will be spread out so it will be harder for each of them to field a strong team.

Living right outside of Orlando, Fl I refuse to have my country named "Dixie".

@Orwell
you would mean a more loose association. Something like the European Monetary Union (monetary and interest controls)?
(otherwise the EU arranges a lot for its member countries)

I think it'd be better if America expanded rather than fragmented. The USA should offer a deal to all North American countries south of its borders right down to Panama to join the United States of America. Panama has a very small border between the next country - Columbia. It'd be 100 times easier policing that border than the ones in Texas, Nex Mexico and California. All you'd have to do is build a tall wall that wasn't even very long and didn't take long and assign a small army to the area.

Yes, somewhat the same concept, but not quite. I'm not a fan of central banking, so no setting of interest rates for me. From my view, the US should primarily serve for collective defense (the real need for which is very minimal today anyways) and perhaps to provide some basic infrastructure like interstate highways. Also a common currency (which ideally would be backed by gold or some other commodity) regulation of immigration, and basic regulation of international trade, mostly in the form of a moderate tariff.

I'm guessing the person who colored the map just ran out of names.