6 ms·

How to Start a New Country

38 points by allenleein 6y ago

floydnoel 6y ago
I’ve had this idea for a few years, although I’ve been calling it a virtual country rather than a cloud country. Not sure if I love the name cloud, but I’m biased! Help
marsven_422 6y ago
Guns, you need lots of guns.
marcusverus 6y ago
It is unfortunate that the institutions with the greatest power and influence over our lives are the hardest to reform, and, by dint of their monopoly on force, nearly impossible to replace. See the bid for Catalan independence in 2017. If human beings don't have a right to start a new government, then they effectively do not have a right to self-representstion. If Catalan doesn't want to part of Spain, but they're forced to remain (the politicians who declared independence in 2017 are either in jail or in exile), the fact that they have a 16% say in how Spain is run is not democracy. After all, that means the Spaniards have an 84% say in how this captive region is run. That's just imperialism with extra steps.
- antr 6y ago
  The 2017 event in Catalonia was a slow-motion, low-cost coup d’etat, dressed as a democratic movement, and an event the European Union already warned was illegal. The result is that second-tier Catalan politicians and activists are now in jail.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - overkalix 6y ago
    The fact that something is illegal doesn't really address the issue of renewing/maintaining the legitimacy of a social organization. If anything saying that something is illegitimate or unjust because it is illegal suggests that one benefits from the status quo.
    - antr 6y ago
      What's your point? If you want the laws changed, vote for a party that legitimately changes the law through the defined channels (congress, senate, etc). However, if you break the law, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
      - laurencerowe 6y ago
        That doesn't really work in this case though. A majority in the Catalan parliament voted for the independence referendum but it was disallowed by Spanish law. Support for Catalan independence is necessarily going to be of limited interest to voters outside of Catalonia, so changing the law at the Spanish level isn't something Catalan's can really hope to achieve.
        antr 6y ago
        Your "Texas vs. Federal Government" argument is weak: 1. The local Catalan parliament is not above any national law. Your argument reminds me of the Texas Government vs any US Govt. 2. The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math.
        laurencerowe 6y ago
        Most secessions are illegal, the US from Britain, Texas and California from Mexico. I personally don’t see anything wrong with Texas becoming independent from the US should it choose to. (Confederate secession was wrong because it was about perpetuating slavery.) The referendum law was passed by a majority of members of the Catalan parliament. It just seems very odd that Spain would not work on a mutually acceptable structure for an independence vote. Especially if a majority of people would vote against it!
- Jeema101 6y ago
  It's not quite so black and white, though, because if you say that people have the unlimited right to form their own country, then where does that right end? Does a city, or a small group of people, or a single person have the right to declare themselves an independent country? What about when the cause itself is ambiguous or outright unjust (i.e. the South in the American Civil War)? That's why I think the cause itself and the claimed grievances have to be considered and are the most important part of the discussion.
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
This reminds me of -- - Networks of "safe spaces" marked by rainbow flags or triangle icons. - The vision of WeWork, before it imploded. - White-nationalist and right-libertarian groups who invest in militias and firearms. - Black separatist movements, like the (peaceful) one happening in Freedom, Georgia: https://thefreedomgeorgiainitiative.com/ https://thefreedomgeorgiainitiative.com/ - CHAZ and other "autonomous zones". - British Zionism before the existence of Israel. - Other nationalist movements, like Irish Republicanism. See also the IRA. - Charter Cities: https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/ https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/ - The creation of new subreddits. Opaque and off-putting vocabulary, like WSB's. - The Amish system of communal aid and health care. - American utopian communities, like the Oneida community. - The Islamic State, and its publication Dabiq. - 70s-90s subcultures, e.g. hippies and punks. - The Mormon Church. A number of properties seem useful: - Barriers to entry. E.g. a language (resurrect a dead one, like Gaelic or Hebrew, as done by previous nationalist movements? Or Arabic, as was encouraged by Dabiq? I see possibilities for indigenous languages (e.g. there is a fringe neo-Aztec movement), for Latin, for Sanskrit, and for a reverse-engineered PIE). - A coordinating media apparatus (again, Dabiq is a good example). - Risk-pooling with defenses against free-riding (see the Amish). - Significant exclusive advantages to members. (The Roman system of earned citizenship is one example.) - A strong reproductive capacity, whether purely memetic (LGBTQ movement), or biological. In the latter case it's vital that the ideology minimize within-group gender conflict (ideally without domination), and assist productive heterosexual union. Consider the symbol of the upturned triangle (male) and downturned triangle (female) interpenetrating to form a union with new symmetries; in some cultures this is the "Star of David", but it is also known outside those cultures. This might be achieved through separate (but interacting) male and female aspects of the culture, instead of through a completely unisex culture. It needs to achieve r > 2.1 or it's dead in the water. - Mechanisms of self-defense, ranging from passive denial of benefits (blacklisting), to coordinated harassment (Twitter), to limited and mostly symbolic violence (parades, protests, street riots), to real organized violence (militias). It's a good sign if people are afraid to criticize symbols of your tribe (see Charlie Hebdo). Though insularity, stealth, and non-aggression -- a purely defensive strategy -- might get you reasonably far if you can quietly obtain resources. - A moral narrative about the inherent goodness and righteousness of your people and your cause. The weakest would be a pluralistic "we have a right to exist too"; the strongest is "we are morally superior" -- whether because you are the "Master Race", or "chosen by God", or those most downtrodden and deserving of justice, or those with the best principle ("liberty"). But the first step of war is always demoralization of the enemy, so you can't neglect this. Fake corporate values don't work. Cynically, the moral case has to be a stealth restatement of the interests of the group members. - An immune system capable of dealing with agent provocateurs, whether by embracing them ("Nothing is too radical!"), or by ejecting those who violate some more nuanced concept of "good". - A founding myth. Ideally a true one. - Heroes.

38 points by allenleein 6y ago

I’ve had this idea for a few years, although I’ve been calling it a virtual country rather than a cloud country. Not sure if I love the name cloud, but I’m biased! Help

marsven_422 6y ago

Guns, you need lots of guns.

marcusverus 6y ago

It is unfortunate that the institutions with the greatest power and influence over our lives are the hardest to reform, and, by dint of their monopoly on force, nearly impossible to replace. See the bid for Catalan independence in 2017. If human beings don't have a right to start a new government, then they effectively do not have a right to self-representstion. If Catalan doesn't want to part of Spain, but they're forced to remain (the politicians who declared independence in 2017 are either in jail or in exile), the fact that they have a 16% say in how Spain is run is not democracy. After all, that means the Spaniards have an 84% say in how this captive region is run. That's just imperialism with extra steps.

antr 6y ago
The 2017 event in Catalonia was a slow-motion, low-cost coup d’etat, dressed as a democratic movement, and an event the European Union already warned was illegal. The result is that second-tier Catalan politicians and activists are now in jail.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- overkalix 6y ago
  The fact that something is illegal doesn't really address the issue of renewing/maintaining the legitimacy of a social organization. If anything saying that something is illegitimate or unjust because it is illegal suggests that one benefits from the status quo.
  - antr 6y ago
    What's your point? If you want the laws changed, vote for a party that legitimately changes the law through the defined channels (congress, senate, etc). However, if you break the law, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
    - laurencerowe 6y ago
      That doesn't really work in this case though. A majority in the Catalan parliament voted for the independence referendum but it was disallowed by Spanish law. Support for Catalan independence is necessarily going to be of limited interest to voters outside of Catalonia, so changing the law at the Spanish level isn't something Catalan's can really hope to achieve.
      - antr 6y ago
        Your "Texas vs. Federal Government" argument is weak: 1. The local Catalan parliament is not above any national law. Your argument reminds me of the Texas Government vs any US Govt. 2. The pro-independence seats in parliament in Catalonia is a voter minority... in Catalonia. Check your math.
        laurencerowe 6y ago
        Most secessions are illegal, the US from Britain, Texas and California from Mexico. I personally don’t see anything wrong with Texas becoming independent from the US should it choose to. (Confederate secession was wrong because it was about perpetuating slavery.) The referendum law was passed by a majority of members of the Catalan parliament. It just seems very odd that Spain would not work on a mutually acceptable structure for an independence vote. Especially if a majority of people would vote against it!
Jeema101 6y ago
It's not quite so black and white, though, because if you say that people have the unlimited right to form their own country, then where does that right end? Does a city, or a small group of people, or a single person have the right to declare themselves an independent country? What about when the cause itself is ambiguous or outright unjust (i.e. the South in the American Civil War)? That's why I think the cause itself and the claimed grievances have to be considered and are the most important part of the discussion.

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

This reminds me of -- - Networks of "safe spaces" marked by rainbow flags or triangle icons. - The vision of WeWork, before it imploded. - White-nationalist and right-libertarian groups who invest in militias and firearms. - Black separatist movements, like the (peaceful) one happening in Freedom, Georgia: https://thefreedomgeorgiainitiative.com/ https://thefreedomgeorgiainitiative.com/ - CHAZ and other "autonomous zones". - British Zionism before the existence of Israel. - Other nationalist movements, like Irish Republicanism. See also the IRA. - Charter Cities: https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/ https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/ - The creation of new subreddits. Opaque and off-putting vocabulary, like WSB's. - The Amish system of communal aid and health care. - American utopian communities, like the Oneida community. - The Islamic State, and its publication Dabiq. - 70s-90s subcultures, e.g. hippies and punks. - The Mormon Church. A number of properties seem useful: - Barriers to entry. E.g. a language (resurrect a dead one, like Gaelic or Hebrew, as done by previous nationalist movements? Or Arabic, as was encouraged by Dabiq? I see possibilities for indigenous languages (e.g. there is a fringe neo-Aztec movement), for Latin, for Sanskrit, and for a reverse-engineered PIE). - A coordinating media apparatus (again, Dabiq is a good example). - Risk-pooling with defenses against free-riding (see the Amish). - Significant exclusive advantages to members. (The Roman system of earned citizenship is one example.) - A strong reproductive capacity, whether purely memetic (LGBTQ movement), or biological. In the latter case it's vital that the ideology minimize within-group gender conflict (ideally without domination), and assist productive heterosexual union. Consider the symbol of the upturned triangle (male) and downturned triangle (female) interpenetrating to form a union with new symmetries; in some cultures this is the "Star of David", but it is also known outside those cultures. This might be achieved through separate (but interacting) male and female aspects of the culture, instead of through a completely unisex culture. It needs to achieve r > 2.1 or it's dead in the water. - Mechanisms of self-defense, ranging from passive denial of benefits (blacklisting), to coordinated harassment (Twitter), to limited and mostly symbolic violence (parades, protests, street riots), to real organized violence (militias). It's a good sign if people are afraid to criticize symbols of your tribe (see Charlie Hebdo). Though insularity, stealth, and non-aggression -- a purely defensive strategy -- might get you reasonably far if you can quietly obtain resources. - A moral narrative about the inherent goodness and righteousness of your people and your cause. The weakest would be a pluralistic "we have a right to exist too"; the strongest is "we are morally superior" -- whether because you are the "Master Race", or "chosen by God", or those most downtrodden and deserving of justice, or those with the best principle ("liberty"). But the first step of war is always demoralization of the enemy, so you can't neglect this. Fake corporate values don't work. Cynically, the moral case has to be a stealth restatement of the interests of the group members. - An immune system capable of dealing with agent provocateurs, whether by embracing them ("Nothing is too radical!"), or by ejecting those who violate some more nuanced concept of "good". - A founding myth. Ideally a true one. - Heroes.