4 ms·
wouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own It very much would be. This is another argument for
by carsongross 11y ago
wouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own
It very much would be. This is another argument for federalism/secessionism: a laboratory of governments/social structures will provide better feedback as to what works and what does not for various populations.
I think it is also worth bearing in mind that "does better" is inherently subjective, since value is subjective. Some political units may be fine trading GDP for a better environment, while others may be fine trading sexual freedom for stability. The irreconcilability of values/moral axioms dictates that we either agree to allow sufficiently differentiated groups to develop their own political units, or we impose our axioms on them (or they, us.)
- Xcelerate 11y agoIt would be interesting if we had "virtual countries" where you could choose among the tradeoffs for yourself. I suppose the difficulty would be handling the interactions between each person's virtual country, but the idea that everyone signs up for a different set of laws and freedoms has interesting implications.
- mantas 11y agoAlthough that's a very long shot, life in most parts of Europe was kinda similar before industrial revolution. Nobility had their own laws. Church had theirs. Jews were living in pretty much a "virtual country", both culturally and legally. Peasants were living in another totally different world with different rules. IMO French revolution and Holocaust were the ultimate endings of "virtual countries". On the other hand, I totally support independent communities who could live on their own terms, as long as their rules don't conflict with other communities.
- makerman1982 11y agoSounds a bit like the game Civilization!