3 ms·
>In that case, why do we have ~200 nations instead of a single world government? The correct starting question is "why do we have 200 nations, instead of milli
by woodandsteel 8y ago
>In that case, why do we have ~200 nations instead of a single world government?
The correct starting question is "why do we have 200 nations, instead of millions of individuals and families living autonomously?" and the answer is: human beings are basically tribal people, and military conquest.
And then the answer to your question about why 200 is that military conquest never got any farther before the atom bomb eliminated direct warfare between major nations.
- mathnmusic 8y agoWhy don't we have a single registrar for all TLDs? Why don't we have GitHub as the single repository for ALL software in the world? My point is that sovereignty, innovation etc. are valuables which centralization can't deliver. "Monopolies will maximize profits and therefore, under-supply the product" is Economics 101. So, yes, economics of scale and network effects do encourage centralization but there are counter-balancing forces. What we need is protocols that allow a sliding scale as opposed to non-interoperable silos. DNS, TCP/IP, Git delivered exactly that. While GitHub has the scale and network effects, plenty of people are happily using GitLab, BitBucket etc.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- oarabbus_ 8y agoRight... but that doesn't address the point that nations in modern day are still decentralized.