4 ms·

Micro nations are not new, and they are almost never successful [1]. They are ripe for fraud: selling passports, fraudulent government bank, etc. In the event

Micro nations are not new, and they are almost never successful [1]. They are ripe for fraud: selling passports, fraudulent government bank, etc. In the event that they pick up any traction, they are swallowed by their neighbors with real armies (eg. Minerva), and the rest of the world sighs with relief. An interesting example of one that is still officially around, also claims land in Croatia, and exists just for fraud is the Dominion of Melchizedek [2]. Even Lichtenstein, which thrives on laws that allow outside companies to evade their local taxes, skirts on the definitions of "legal", "nation", et al. (though I have a few friends from there who are all great guys) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation [2] http://www.quatloos.com/groups/melchiz.htm http://www.quatloos.com/groups/melchiz.htm

kauffj 12y ago
Agreed, but why should the "rest of the world sighs with relief"? Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Is there a special property of government service that makes this principle fail here?
- pjc50 12y ago
  Government is not a service. It nearly always provides services, but it also provides stability and a means of dealing with "negative externalities". Running a government with a particularly lax policy on fraud, pollution, etc. can easily export problems around the world.
  - deong 12y ago
    Also, governments don't compete with each other in the same market. Australia and Denmark aren't trying to outdo each other in recruiting the same "customers". We do sometimes see multiple governments competing in the same "markets". We usually call them "warlords" though, and it hasn't really worked out all that well for the people and lands being competed for.
  - gosub 12y ago
    Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? Without goverments people would seek them elsewhere (other forms of ruling, insurance companies, etc.)
    - lmm 12y ago
      > Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? In a sense, but they're subject to a tragedy of the commons (that's almost the definition of a negative externality), so competition does not improve them.
  - Crito 12y ago
    How many people do micronations actually have the capacity to harm? I mean in the real world, going from real world performance, not in fevered day-dreams of what "could" happen. I don't think the "rest of the world" really has any stake in it at all. A few hundred people do, at most. These people may not be completely harmless, but they also lack the capacity to hurt people in any significant numbers. If you can be hurt by a micronation, perhaps you need to reevaluate what your government is doing. How badly do they have to fuck up to the point that a micronation becomes relevant in your life?
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  >Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Government is not a product or service. It doesn't follow market rules. Heck, who enforces market norms when at anytime you can send out warships and conquer everyone? If anything, we have way many small governments that often must bow down to the regional power and become de facto client states with limited autonomy and almost no ability to fight off the regional power if it thinks you've offended it in any way. Ukraine is getting a lesson in how little autonomy they have when they're so close to an aggressive regional power. Just because you are recognized as a country doesn't mean you enjoy the autonomy a country should. Smaller nations are just going to be under the thumb more than larger nations who can put up a proper military deterrent.
pjc50 12y ago
Liechtenstein is entirely legal, although formed by this kind of manoeuvring 200+ years ago. "For this reason, the family sought to acquire lands that would be classed as unmittelbar ("unintermediated"), or held without any intermediate feudal tenure, directly from the Holy Roman Emperor. " ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein#Principality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein#Principality ) The quasi-independent fragments of the British Isles / Empire are also interesting and tend to operate as tax havens.
goatforce5 12y ago
The Principality of Hutt River in Australia is a micro nation in an interesting position. It seems as though it may be legally valid due to an administrative mistake and clever use of some obscure laws. Its continued existence seems to be largely due to the Australian government refusing to get involved any more than it really has to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

kauffj 12y ago

Agreed, but why should the "rest of the world sighs with relief"? Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Is there a special property of government service that makes this principle fail here?

pjc50 12y ago
Government is not a service. It nearly always provides services, but it also provides stability and a means of dealing with "negative externalities". Running a government with a particularly lax policy on fraud, pollution, etc. can easily export problems around the world.
- deong 12y ago
  Also, governments don't compete with each other in the same market. Australia and Denmark aren't trying to outdo each other in recruiting the same "customers". We do sometimes see multiple governments competing in the same "markets". We usually call them "warlords" though, and it hasn't really worked out all that well for the people and lands being competed for.
- gosub 12y ago
  Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? Without goverments people would seek them elsewhere (other forms of ruling, insurance companies, etc.)
  - lmm 12y ago
    > Aren't stability and "dealing with negative externalities" also services? In a sense, but they're subject to a tragedy of the commons (that's almost the definition of a negative externality), so competition does not improve them.
- Crito 12y ago
  How many people do micronations actually have the capacity to harm? I mean in the real world, going from real world performance, not in fevered day-dreams of what "could" happen. I don't think the "rest of the world" really has any stake in it at all. A few hundred people do, at most. These people may not be completely harmless, but they also lack the capacity to hurt people in any significant numbers. If you can be hurt by a micronation, perhaps you need to reevaluate what your government is doing. How badly do they have to fuck up to the point that a micronation becomes relevant in your life?
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>Existing government is sub-optimal and competition tends to increase quality. Government is not a product or service. It doesn't follow market rules. Heck, who enforces market norms when at anytime you can send out warships and conquer everyone? If anything, we have way many small governments that often must bow down to the regional power and become de facto client states with limited autonomy and almost no ability to fight off the regional power if it thinks you've offended it in any way. Ukraine is getting a lesson in how little autonomy they have when they're so close to an aggressive regional power. Just because you are recognized as a country doesn't mean you enjoy the autonomy a country should. Smaller nations are just going to be under the thumb more than larger nations who can put up a proper military deterrent.

pjc50 12y ago

Liechtenstein is entirely legal, although formed by this kind of manoeuvring 200+ years ago. "For this reason, the family sought to acquire lands that would be classed as unmittelbar ("unintermediated"), or held without any intermediate feudal tenure, directly from the Holy Roman Emperor. " ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein#Principality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein#Principality ) The quasi-independent fragments of the British Isles / Empire are also interesting and tend to operate as tax havens.

goatforce5 12y ago

The Principality of Hutt River in Australia is a micro nation in an interesting position. It seems as though it may be legally valid due to an administrative mistake and clever use of some obscure laws. Its continued existence seems to be largely due to the Australian government refusing to get involved any more than it really has to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River