Are tiny states better?

[above_us_only_sky]

Many of the world’s richest countries are not big states, they are very tiny.

For example: Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein and luxembourg.

Comparing to them, most countries in the world are large countries, so there may be some benefits of being a large countries, large countries can organize and maintain large armies and they can defend themselves better, if necessary, large countries can invade and plunder small countries. But In large countries, much of the wealth is wasted in the maintaining of a large standing army and military equipments as well as the armament race.

Tiny countries have much lower administration costs, and in a tiny country, government tend to be more transparent and more democratic.

If this is so, is it better that large countries should disorganized into tiny countries where every city is an independent state, then this world would be a much peaceful world.

After all, are tiny states better?

[humunculus]

A federation of federations of tiny states, with progressively impermeable borders would be ideal.

[mafdet]

There have been times when conditions favored the growth of empires, and there have been times that favored the emergence of city-states. The economics of the Twentieth Century favored large states, mainly because large countries generally have better credit. However, as more governments spend their way into bankruptcy, we may reach a point where these large states that are made up of various ethnic groups may begin to break apart, as being tied to a large but bankrupt central government could come to be seen as a liability, rather than an asset.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@mafdet

There have been times when conditions favored the growth of empires, and there have been times that favored the emergence of city-states. The economics of the Twentieth Century favored large states, mainly because large countries generally have better credit. However, as more governments spend their way into bankruptcy, we may reach a point where these large states that are made up of various ethnic groups may begin to break apart, as being tied to a large but bankrupt central government could come to be seen as a liability, rather than an asset.

Interesting. What particular economic changes since the 20th Century would you say favor city states over large states?

[mafdet]

@uglypeoplefucking

@mafdet

There have been times when conditions favored the growth of empires, and there have been times that favored the emergence of city-states. The economics of the Twentieth Century favored large states, mainly because large countries generally have better credit. However, as more governments spend their way into bankruptcy, we may reach a point where these large states that are made up of various ethnic groups may begin to break apart, as being tied to a large but bankrupt central government could come to be seen as a liability, rather than an asset.

Interesting. What particular economic changes since the 20th Century would you say favor city states over large states?

Besides, the credit issue, another major factor is advancement of weapons. As Above-us-only-sky has noted, there is a military advantage to being part of a large state. Of course, this advantage is going to vary with the relative cost of producing the weapons of the day. World War II was a particularly interesting time in this regard. The end of WWI had seen the development of the Thompson machine gun. As you may know, the Thompson, aka the Chicago Typewriter, fired a small caliber bullet, and thus, at medium to long range, it was more likely to injure than kill. Having a weapon that maimed rather killed gave the advantage to the state, as an injured combatant would require medical attention, and the services of a doctor were usually much harder to come by for guerillas than for soldiers in a organized army. This is classic film noir: You see the gangster, who almost gets away with some robbery, but gets a little flesh wound, and can’t find a doctor, so he slowly bleeds to death. (All very consistent with the film code, of course) Also, after WWI, there was this bigger is better in nearly all types of weapons, leading up to WWII. And so, this set the stage for the emergence of many of the Fascist states of the 1930s. Small armies and guerilla movements were just not effective against the large well equipped armies the Third Reich, and the Japanese empire.

Things changed, however, after WWII. With the development of the A-bomb, it seemed that war would no longer be something that could be fought, except by the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful states. Time would show, however, that few countries were willing to go down the nuclear road. Instead, another invention following WWII proved to be the biggest game changer: this was the Kalashnikov rifle, aka the AK-47. Unlike the Thompson, it fired a full caliber bullet, making it an effective weapon for guerillas. We saw the consequences of the small, light, reliable and yet effective Kalashnikov in Vietnam, where a large well eqipped army (the US), was unable to crush the mainly guerilla resistance of the Viet-cong. We also saw the development of rocket propelled grenades, where a single RPG can take out a multi-million dollar tank. They say that Afghanistan was the Soviet Union’s “Vietnam”, but once again, a large organized army had failed to crush a guerilla movement, and this may have contributed to the demise of the USSR.

Returning to the credit issue thing, large states do have the ability to run up huge deficits year after year, sometimes it seems almost indefinitely. Eventually there does come a time however, when interest payments on these debts can eat up most of a country’s budget. So unlimited credit would seem to be a bad thing to combine with democracy, as it seems that the party that promises the most is the party that usually wins. We can see the full consequences of this in countries like Greece. I don’t know that Greece is likely to break apart, however, as I believe it to be a relatively homogenous country ethnically. There are other countries with a debt problem, like Spain, where you could see separatist movements gaining momentum, if there were another financial crisis, like the one in 2008, and you were to see debt-ridden countries like Spain pushed over the brink.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@mafdet

Besides, the credit issue, another major factor is advancement of weapons. As Above-us-only-sky has noted, there is a military advantage to being part of a large state. Of course, this advantage is going to vary with the relative cost of producing the weapons of the day. World War II was a particularly interesting time in this regard. The end of WWI had seen the development of the Thompson machine gun. As you may know, the Thompson, aka the Chicago Typewriter, fired a small caliber bullet, and thus, at medium to long range, it was more likely to injure than kill. Having a weapon that maimed rather killed gave the advantage to the state, as an injured combatant would require medical attention, and the services of a doctor were usually much harder to come by for guerillas than for soldiers in a organized army. This is classic film noir: You see the gangster, who almost gets away with some robbery, but gets a little flesh wound, and can’t find a doctor, so he slowly bleeds to death. (All very consistent with the film code, of course) Also, after WWI, there was this bigger is better in nearly all types of weapons, leading up to WWII. And so, this set the stage for the emergence of many of the Fascist states of the 1930s. Small armies and guerilla movements were just not effective against the large well equipped armies the Third Reich, and the Japanese empire.

Things changed, however, after WWII. With the development of the A-bomb, it seemed that war would no longer be something that could be fought, except by the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful states. Time would show, however, that few countries were willing to go down the nuclear road. Instead, another invention following WWII proved to be the biggest game changer: this was the Kalashnikov rifle, aka the AK-47. Unlike the Thompson, it fired a full caliber bullet, making it an effective weapon for guerillas. We saw the consequences of the small, light, reliable and yet effective Kalashnikov in Vietnam, where a large well eqipped army (the US), was unable to crush the mainly guerilla resistance of the Viet-cong. We also saw the development of rocket propelled grenades, where a single RPG can take out a multi-million dollar tank. They say that Afghanistan was the Soviet Union’s “Vietnam”, but once again, a large organized army had failed to crush a guerilla movement, and this may have contributed to the demise of the USSR.

The irony being that the Kalashnikov was a Soviet product.

Returning to the credit issue thing, large states do have the ability to run up huge deficits year after year, sometimes it seems almost indefinitely. Eventually there does come a time however, when interest payments on these debts can eat up most of a country’s budget. So unlimited credit would seem to be a bad thing to combine with democracy, as it seems that the party that promises the most is the party that usually wins. We can see the full consequences of this in countries like Greece. I don’t know that Greece is likely to break apart, however, as I believe it to be a relatively homogenous country ethnically. There are other countries with a debt problem, like Spain, where you could see separatist movements gaining momentum, if there were another financial crisis, like the one in 2008, and you were to see debt-ridden countries like Spain pushed over the brink.

True. But alongside that you also have large, expansive states extending their reach even further. Like Putin reclaiming the Ukraine for Russia. Also, with so many little sovereign states each asserting and pursuing their own independent economic interests, you either have lots of large alliances which in their own way act as large states (the EU for example) or you have lots of violent conflict (often involving separatist armies and large states) a la the Middle East.

[mafdet]

Eras of large states and empires have tended to be characterized by relative peace, a la 19th Century, when most of the world was under the thumb of the various European powers, with the British Empire by far taking the biggest chunk. Alternatively, you see the ancient Greek city states, like Athens, Troy, and Sparta being characterized by almost constant warring. It was the same thing when the Soviet Union collapsed. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe had enjoyed relative peace for many years, but when the Berlin Wall fell, all these divisions started opening up, of which Ukraine is just the latest. Putin probably dreams of Russia’s “glory days”, when it was the USSR, and sees himself as the one who will restore that former glory.

Besides the EU, there’s the UN, which has a mandate to protect member states from aggression by other member states. But unlike the EU, membership in the UN doesn’t require the formal surrendering of that member state’s powers of sovereignty. So the UN is definitely another factor, which has helped small states to survive, without being devoured by large states, or empires, although the UN has not always been effective in fulfilling this role.

[uglypeoplefucking]

@mafdet

Eras of large states and empires have tended to be characterized by relative peace, a la 19th Century, when most of the world was under the thumb of the various European powers, with the British Empire by far taking the biggest chunk. Alternatively, you see the ancient Greek city states, like Athens, Troy, and Sparta being characterized by almost constant warring. It was the same thing when the Soviet Union collapsed. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe had enjoyed relative peace for many years, but when the Berlin Wall fell, all these divisions started opening up, of which Ukraine is just the latest. Putin probably dreams of Russia’s “glory days”, when it was the USSR, and sees himself as the one who will restore that former glory.

Oh yeah, almost certainly. He loves his motherland and will be as big an asshole as necessary to advance Her place in the world, and his legacy in the process.

Besides the EU, there’s the UN, which has a mandate to protect member states from aggression by other member states. But unlike the EU, membership in the UN doesn’t require the formal surrendering of that member state’s powers of sovereignty. So the UN is definitely another factor, which has helped small states to survive, without being devoured by large states, or empires, although the UN has not always been effective in fulfilling this role.

The UN is a prototype, and a highly flawed one. There can be and probably will be more effective and useful broad reaching alliances between states, but these things take time. Learning from mistakes is never a quick process, especially not when it comes to expansive bureaucratic regimes.