3 ms·

The smaller the better. Given the US perspective of polarized politics, how does it make sense that the strongly-held beliefs of one portion of the voting citi

The smaller the better. Given the US perspective of polarized politics, how does it make sense that the strongly-held beliefs of one portion of the voting citizens should be foisted upon the remainder of the entire population? Smaller government is more responsive to the local conditions and culture than is large government. And the inevitable abuses of the state against the citizenry will be limited in scope.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
The question wasn't about the size of the government, it was about the physical size of the country. Tiny countries would lack many natural resources, would probably lack any sizable military, and would be powerfully affected by the economies of the countries around it.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  It would be interesting to see if there is correlation between size of the government and size of the country. Of course, along with very small government, I would also advocate 100% free trade and very low regulatory burden, such that a small land-area country could still be an economic powerhouse.
ethbro 9y ago
On the contrary, smaller countries are less effective in the international arena (militarily, economically, and politically). Banding together with other countries only creates a meta-republic of countries (e.g. the EU). So I think the original question is quite valid. There's a sweet spot somewhere between "as big as possible" (e.g. US or Russia) and "as small as possible" (e.g. city-states). My gut would be that it's more determined by economic production and ethnic subgroups than some constant. Sufficient economic production to play competitively on the world stage, while grouping as many like or agreeing ethnic groups as possible (and preventing their repressing minority groups). Or in other words, international jerrymandering.
- JCzynski 9y ago
  I personally favor a weak federal government, somewhere in the vicinity of the Articles of Confederation or EU, which manages military and basic rights, supervening mainly on city-states and with special provision for a different local model for large rural areas.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

The question wasn't about the size of the government, it was about the physical size of the country. Tiny countries would lack many natural resources, would probably lack any sizable military, and would be powerfully affected by the economies of the countries around it.

clarkmoody 9y ago
It would be interesting to see if there is correlation between size of the government and size of the country. Of course, along with very small government, I would also advocate 100% free trade and very low regulatory burden, such that a small land-area country could still be an economic powerhouse.

ethbro 9y ago

On the contrary, smaller countries are less effective in the international arena (militarily, economically, and politically). Banding together with other countries only creates a meta-republic of countries (e.g. the EU). So I think the original question is quite valid. There's a sweet spot somewhere between "as big as possible" (e.g. US or Russia) and "as small as possible" (e.g. city-states). My gut would be that it's more determined by economic production and ethnic subgroups than some constant. Sufficient economic production to play competitively on the world stage, while grouping as many like or agreeing ethnic groups as possible (and preventing their repressing minority groups). Or in other words, international jerrymandering.

JCzynski 9y ago
I personally favor a weak federal government, somewhere in the vicinity of the Articles of Confederation or EU, which manages military and basic rights, supervening mainly on city-states and with special provision for a different local model for large rural areas.