4 ms·

> There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra nation

> There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU. > This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea. Please, which norm are we talking about? The very first states with clear borders and independent government as we know today started to emerge in the 17th century. Germany, the most powerful state in Europe, has barely more than 30 years. Countries are a new invention in the history of mankind and it's not the most likely that they will still exist in the next 100 years. And if you think that can't be true, imagine yourself as a citizen from the Roman Empire in 350, would you think that your super powerful unrivaled empire would cease to exist 100 years later?

zosima 3y ago
Countries are as old as mankind. Empires are a few thousand years old. Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. And generally not a very succesful one I might add. I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.
- WinstonSmith84 3y ago
  Here, for your information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...
  - zosima 3y ago
    Countries change names and area over time. England is said to have been founded in the year 927 and obviously the roman, persian and egyptian empires vastly preceded that. There have been countries for many, many 1000s of years. The list you show there is the latest incarnation of most countries. In almost all cases, something similar preceded it.
    - skummetmaelk 3y ago
      Countries and nation states are different things. Prior to the development of the nation state and national identity, cultural changes were much smoother across Europe. That doesn't mean that the cultural differences between regions weren't larger than they are today, but the change was more gradual. It was only with the development of national ideas that it became important for people living on one end of the country to identify with people on the other end. Heavily centralized nation states create discontinuities in culture. You can see this clearly with countries such as France and Denmark, where you cross the border and suddenly everything is different. For other countries the borders have historical reasons, but are fairly arbitrary. Consider Germany and the Swiss province of Schaffhausen. Why should the people of Schaffhausen be governed under a completely different set of rules than their literal neighbours? I know Switzerland is not part of the EU, but it highlights the absurdity of your claim. You rage against unaccountable bureaucracies as if they are new. They're not, and they're more accountable than those of the past. The Roman Empire certainly had a great deal of power over its citizens, and I find it hard to take you seriously when you imply that the EU is less accountable to its citizens than literally any government of similar size that has ever existed...
      - zosima 3y ago
        > You rage against unaccountable bureaucracies as if they are new. They're not, and they're more accountable than those of the past. The Roman Empire certainly had a great deal of power over its citizens, and I find it hard to take you seriously when you imply that the EU is less accountable to its citizens than literally any government of similar size that has ever existed... Where have I suggested anything remotely similar. I have compared the EU to USSR because of the similarly unaccountable bureaucracy. I could however be brought to argue that the Roman bureaucracy was superior to the EU bureaucracy. At least the Romans had sense enough to let many new laws expire after a set period. (Usually a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision) > Countries and nation states are different things. Prior to the development of the nation state and national identity, cultural changes were much smoother across Europe. That doesn't mean that the cultural differences between regions weren't larger than they are today, but the change was more gradual. It was only with the development of national ideas that it became important for people living on one end of the country to identify with people on the other end. This has to be the main confusion of our time. Just because every border is not exactly perfect, it must mean that every border that has ever been drawn is completely arbitrary. This is just a modern liberal pipe dream. The fact is that European countries are roughly placed where the linguistic, ethnical and religious borders were. . E.g Germany may be a new country, but the German language, was definitely a thing long before Germany. (Clearly, with more dialects than are spoken today, but still languages clearly identifiable as being german). You can still today in Germany, see a clear split between the catholic and protestant parts. Just because something was not called a nation state, does not mean that it wasn't something very, very close to that. A nation state, when it's not an empire, is just the modern version of a tribe. And many places you see tribes struggling to found their corresponding nation state: see e.g. the Basques, the Kurds and the Irish. (First two having failed, third succeeded). You don't seriously claim that there are no Kurds, do you?
- kergonath 3y ago
  > Countries are as old as mankind. Nation-states and nationalism are less than 3 centuries old, and so are closed borders. Countries in antiquity were nothing like what we have now. > Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. There are several loaded and emotional words in this, which plenty of room to move the goal posts. Faceless bureaucracies with huge power of the people’s daily lives is definitely not you, any empire has to do this to some extent just to keep existing. Famous examples with plenty of documentation are ancient Egypt and the Maya empire. Hardly brand-new fancy countries. > And generally not a very succesful one I might add. Appart from all the others, I suppose. How are we supposed to run those huge countries with tens of millions of citizens? You keep harping about the EU, so please enlighten us and explain how your country (or your ideal country, even) does it better. > I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt. Lol no is about the most serious answer one can give to this assertion. The Soviet Union was an empire. Its problems came from its stupid political system (which has fuck all to do with either the EU or the US), not from the fact that it was a union of states (just like the US or Germany).

zosima 3y ago

Countries are as old as mankind. Empires are a few thousand years old. Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. And generally not a very succesful one I might add. I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.

WinstonSmith84 3y ago
Here, for your information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...
- zosima 3y ago
  Countries change names and area over time. England is said to have been founded in the year 927 and obviously the roman, persian and egyptian empires vastly preceded that. There have been countries for many, many 1000s of years. The list you show there is the latest incarnation of most countries. In almost all cases, something similar preceded it.
  - skummetmaelk 3y ago
    Countries and nation states are different things. Prior to the development of the nation state and national identity, cultural changes were much smoother across Europe. That doesn't mean that the cultural differences between regions weren't larger than they are today, but the change was more gradual. It was only with the development of national ideas that it became important for people living on one end of the country to identify with people on the other end. Heavily centralized nation states create discontinuities in culture. You can see this clearly with countries such as France and Denmark, where you cross the border and suddenly everything is different. For other countries the borders have historical reasons, but are fairly arbitrary. Consider Germany and the Swiss province of Schaffhausen. Why should the people of Schaffhausen be governed under a completely different set of rules than their literal neighbours? I know Switzerland is not part of the EU, but it highlights the absurdity of your claim. You rage against unaccountable bureaucracies as if they are new. They're not, and they're more accountable than those of the past. The Roman Empire certainly had a great deal of power over its citizens, and I find it hard to take you seriously when you imply that the EU is less accountable to its citizens than literally any government of similar size that has ever existed...
    - zosima 3y ago
      > You rage against unaccountable bureaucracies as if they are new. They're not, and they're more accountable than those of the past. The Roman Empire certainly had a great deal of power over its citizens, and I find it hard to take you seriously when you imply that the EU is less accountable to its citizens than literally any government of similar size that has ever existed... Where have I suggested anything remotely similar. I have compared the EU to USSR because of the similarly unaccountable bureaucracy. I could however be brought to argue that the Roman bureaucracy was superior to the EU bureaucracy. At least the Romans had sense enough to let many new laws expire after a set period. (Usually a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision) > Countries and nation states are different things. Prior to the development of the nation state and national identity, cultural changes were much smoother across Europe. That doesn't mean that the cultural differences between regions weren't larger than they are today, but the change was more gradual. It was only with the development of national ideas that it became important for people living on one end of the country to identify with people on the other end. This has to be the main confusion of our time. Just because every border is not exactly perfect, it must mean that every border that has ever been drawn is completely arbitrary. This is just a modern liberal pipe dream. The fact is that European countries are roughly placed where the linguistic, ethnical and religious borders were. . E.g Germany may be a new country, but the German language, was definitely a thing long before Germany. (Clearly, with more dialects than are spoken today, but still languages clearly identifiable as being german). You can still today in Germany, see a clear split between the catholic and protestant parts. Just because something was not called a nation state, does not mean that it wasn't something very, very close to that. A nation state, when it's not an empire, is just the modern version of a tribe. And many places you see tribes struggling to found their corresponding nation state: see e.g. the Basques, the Kurds and the Irish. (First two having failed, third succeeded). You don't seriously claim that there are no Kurds, do you?
kergonath 3y ago
> Countries are as old as mankind. Nation-states and nationalism are less than 3 centuries old, and so are closed borders. Countries in antiquity were nothing like what we have now. > Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. There are several loaded and emotional words in this, which plenty of room to move the goal posts. Faceless bureaucracies with huge power of the people’s daily lives is definitely not you, any empire has to do this to some extent just to keep existing. Famous examples with plenty of documentation are ancient Egypt and the Maya empire. Hardly brand-new fancy countries. > And generally not a very succesful one I might add. Appart from all the others, I suppose. How are we supposed to run those huge countries with tens of millions of citizens? You keep harping about the EU, so please enlighten us and explain how your country (or your ideal country, even) does it better. > I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt. Lol no is about the most serious answer one can give to this assertion. The Soviet Union was an empire. Its problems came from its stupid political system (which has fuck all to do with either the EU or the US), not from the fact that it was a union of states (just like the US or Germany).