| SamuelRSmith said: Countries have no rights. Murray Rothbard - "Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? |
There's a lower bound on practical governability, is the issue. The tiny city-states of the modern world exist almost exclusively at the mercy of the countries around them, with Singapore being the sole exception for strong enough to stand on its own two feet. Tiny countries like Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino are anachronisms, while the goodwill afforded the Church is the only thing that keeps the Vatican around. Tiny countries that aren't sustained by old inherited wealth like the European ones (for instance, pacific Nauru), survive on charity in a meaner way.
There comes a point when groups should be prevented from making stupid decisions. Let's say Missouri decided they were hell-bent on being their own country: being surrounded by America, how much of Missouri's affairs would be so intimately tied with American affairs that it would be less efficient to allow Missouri to continue to be "free"?
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
