4 ms·

This is really unfortunate because it seems like there might be some good value in the idea of charter cities, but this particular example used the idea to stea

This is really unfortunate because it seems like there might be some good value in the idea of charter cities, but this particular example used the idea to steal land for doing crooked stuff. Many of those involved appeared to want to do good, but the idealized commercial center they conceived of seems to need more structure, transparency, and rules in order to function as intended. With so much money on the line one might think that there would be a hard nosed focus on making things really work, but the oversight of the project seemed to work in a manner similar to a monastic order. Oh, well, but hopefully people keep working with these ideas, maybe in an alternative form like a specialized zone or neighborhood incorporated with an existing city.

edgyquant 5y ago
I disagree. The nation state evolved when and where it did for good reason. Charter cities and minor polities not loyal to the central government is a good way to leave your nation in ruin. I’m obviously referring to Germany and how it faced a demographic and political collapse following that war.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Having a country/city literally chopped in half between two superpowers with opposing economic systems is quite a bit different. Hong Kong turned out perfectly fine, arguably better on its own apart from mainland China. Singapore is more or less a city-state, and world history has plenty of examples of city-states functioning just fine for centuries, even when belonging to broader federations (such as the Greeks).
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    I was referring to the thirty years war and the Treaty of Westphalia which gave the first real definition of nations not as land owned by some king but as the people who inhabit them. Germany was the center of the struggle between catholic and Protestant powers (since Germany had a north south divide between religions.) The war saw 1/3 of all Germans killed and the rise of the Dutch and Swedes as Protestant great powers who halted and reverted the Habsburg empires growth. Our modern idea of states is very much based around being the antithesis of what allowed the Habsburg monarchy to control pretty much all of Western Europe but France. I feel like an idiot I wasn’t even thinking of Germany during the Cold War, but that’s obviously what people will think when you mention it being divided and losing a third of its territory. No when these 33% went it wasn’t to a different polity: it was to a horrible early grave as the armies of all sides believed their opponents to be working for the literal devil.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  What are you talking about? When Germany was a fragmented host of smaller principalities and free cities, before the Prussians "unified" most of it, it was in fact prospering quite nicely!
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    If you mean the time right before, when France forced the dissolution of the HRE then I suppose you could come up with a definition of prospering. But whatever definition you come up with would have been unbearable as “prospering” to any one but the Wittlesbachs. But I suppose that’s all a bit of a derail.

edgyquant 5y ago

I disagree. The nation state evolved when and where it did for good reason. Charter cities and minor polities not loyal to the central government is a good way to leave your nation in ruin. I’m obviously referring to Germany and how it faced a demographic and political collapse following that war.

chrisco255 5y ago
Having a country/city literally chopped in half between two superpowers with opposing economic systems is quite a bit different. Hong Kong turned out perfectly fine, arguably better on its own apart from mainland China. Singapore is more or less a city-state, and world history has plenty of examples of city-states functioning just fine for centuries, even when belonging to broader federations (such as the Greeks).
- edgyquant 5y ago
  I was referring to the thirty years war and the Treaty of Westphalia which gave the first real definition of nations not as land owned by some king but as the people who inhabit them. Germany was the center of the struggle between catholic and Protestant powers (since Germany had a north south divide between religions.) The war saw 1/3 of all Germans killed and the rise of the Dutch and Swedes as Protestant great powers who halted and reverted the Habsburg empires growth. Our modern idea of states is very much based around being the antithesis of what allowed the Habsburg monarchy to control pretty much all of Western Europe but France. I feel like an idiot I wasn’t even thinking of Germany during the Cold War, but that’s obviously what people will think when you mention it being divided and losing a third of its territory. No when these 33% went it wasn’t to a different polity: it was to a horrible early grave as the armies of all sides believed their opponents to be working for the literal devil.
_0ffh 5y ago
What are you talking about? When Germany was a fragmented host of smaller principalities and free cities, before the Prussians "unified" most of it, it was in fact prospering quite nicely!
- edgyquant 5y ago
  If you mean the time right before, when France forced the dissolution of the HRE then I suppose you could come up with a definition of prospering. But whatever definition you come up with would have been unbearable as “prospering” to any one but the Wittlesbachs. But I suppose that’s all a bit of a derail.