NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine if each country were divided into separate 'homelands.' Except, people would not be separated on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, but rather, they would be separated on the basis of political views. The size of the homelands would be proportionate to the number of people of each political view: i.e., the moderates homeland would obviously be the largest. There would be a moderate homeland, a liberal homeland, a paleoconservative homeland, a neoconservative homeland, a libertarian homeland, an anarcho-capitalist homeland, an anarcho-syndicalist homeland, an anarcho-communist homeland, a democratic socialist homeland, a Marxist-Leninist homeland, a Stalinist homeland, a Maoist homeland, a National Socialist homeland, a fascist homeland, and several racist homelands (i.e., so white racists would have their own little land, and we wouldn't have to listen to their crap), as well as theocratic homelands (Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc. would get to mingle with their own ilk, and not be near anyone else). Plus, each homeland would be subdivided into smaller sub-homelands, i.e., a pro-life moderate homeland, a pro-choice moderate homeland, etc. Each homeland would be divided into as many sub-homelands as were needed. All would be separated by 25-ft. tall electric fences and armed guards. People would be allowed to travel between homelands, but only if they had a relevant pass. If they did not, they would be refused admission. So, people would be allowed to visit family and friends in other homelands if they wished, provided they had a pass. Each homeland would have almost total autonomy. The only things they would not handle would be foreign policy, which would be handled by a federal government (which would handle national defense, protecting the homelands from each other, and foreign policy). Legal, economic, political, social, etc. issues would all be handled by the individual homelands. Best of all, if someone wanted to leave the country, they could do so. Hell, they'd even be compensated for the loss of their property. Basically, there would be no wars, no political infighting. You would be surrounded by people just like you, and things would be your way. No annoying laws you didn't like, annoying people with different views, etc. Best of all, there would be a huge 'apolitical' homeland, as well.

What do you think?

What do you think?

Makes more sense than this "nations" crap we have at the minute. However, who's going to get the nukes?

Makes more sense than this "nations" crap we have at the minute. However, who's going to get the nukes?

No one. We would destroy them all.

Political orientation usualy reflects such factors as "race," gender, religion, so you're basically proposing "racial," gender, and religious apartheid. Additionally, political orientations are not homogenous; a general ideology can be subdivided across a huge spectrum in and of itself. As such, conflict is still inevitable. And, exactly who controls the "federal government" in this scheme? Isn't a single ideology inevitably going to seize control over all the others?

Plus, we basically already do this, only we call them "states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State)" and we call the centralized government "international relations."

Would it work...?


NO

It's a no-brainer really.

Are you gonna forcefully relocate people to other regions? Move them from the area's they prefer to live to one fitting their political alaignment?

If you answer no and say that they don't have to move to the region that's designated for them then you're resigning them to second class citizenship under the rule of those whose ideology they don't agree with.

Either way you're trampling all over civil rights.

Political orientation usualy reflects such factors as "race," gender, religion, so you're basically proposing "racial," gender, and religious apartheid. Additionally, political orientations are not homogenous; a general ideology can be subdivided across a huge spectrum in and of itself. As such, conflict is still inevitable. And, exactly who controls the "federal government" in this scheme? Isn't a single ideology inevitably going to seize control over all the others?

Plus, we basically already do this, only we call them "states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State)" and we call the centralized government "international relations."

Homelands would be subdivided into several sub-homelands; i.e., a racist fascist homeland, a non-racist fascist homeland, a pro-life moderate homeland, a pro-choice moderate homeland, a pro-gay marriage liberal homeland, an anti-gay marriage homeland, etc. The government would be made up only of apolitical individuals. Other than foreign affairs (a peaceful, neutral foreign policy) and national defense, the federal government would leave everything to the individual homelands.

Imagine if each country were divided into separate 'homelands.' Except, people would not be separated on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, but rather, they would be separated on the basis of political views. The size of the homelands would be proportionate to the number of people of each political view: i.e., the moderates homeland would obviously be the largest. There would be a moderate homeland, a liberal homeland, a paleoconservative homeland, a neoconservative homeland, a libertarian homeland, an anarcho-capitalist homeland, an anarcho-syndicalist homeland, an anarcho-communist homeland, a democratic socialist homeland, a Marxist-Leninist homeland, a Stalinist homeland, a Maoist homeland, a National Socialist homeland, a fascist homeland, and several racist homelands (i.e., so white racists would have their own little land, and we wouldn't have to listen to their crap), as well as theocratic homelands (Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc. would get to mingle with their own ilk, and not be near anyone else). Plus, each homeland would be subdivided into smaller sub-homelands, i.e., a pro-life moderate homeland, a pro-choice moderate homeland, etc. Each homeland would be divided into as many sub-homelands as were needed. All would be separated by 25-ft. tall electric fences and armed guards. People would be allowed to travel between homelands, but only if they had a relevant pass. If they did not, they would be refused admission. So, people would be allowed to visit family and friends in other homelands if they wished, provided they had a pass. Each homeland would have almost total autonomy. The only things they would not handle would be foreign policy, which would be handled by a federal government (which would handle national defense, protecting the homelands from each other, and foreign policy). Legal, economic, political, social, etc. issues would all be handled by the individual homelands. Best of all, if someone wanted to leave the country, they could do so. Hell, they'd even be compensated for the loss of their property. Basically, there would be no wars, no political infighting. You would be surrounded by people just like you, and things would be your way. No annoying laws you didn't like, annoying people with different views, etc. Best of all, there would be a huge 'apolitical' homeland, as well.

What do you think?

It wouldn't work.

After about 10 years the Anarcho-Capitalist and Libertarian city-states would be so fabulously wealthy, that people from the other homelands would break down the fences to get in. There would be so much pressure to switch to those systems that the other homelands would in effect merge with the libertarian ones and the system would be over.

The government would be made up only of apolitical individuals.


So a particular political ideology would be chosen to reign over all others. So basically this entire scheme achieves nothing, except for creating conflict between those with central government power and those without.

Nevermind that this idea of an "apolitical" government doesn't make any sense. Or that "apolitical" doesn't even exist. (Edit: I would predict that your "apolitical" individuals will become very political, once they get the keys to the city...)

There would be homelands with policies that included the conversions, by force if necessary, of all non-believers. They would still war with other homelands and still cause nationalistic strife as their 'superiority' would lead them to the natural conclusion that everyone should be like them.

Pat Robertsonland will probably be the fisrt to cause trouble. :p

It wouldn't work.

After about 10 years the Anarcho-Capitalist and Libertarian city-states would be so fabulously wealthy, that people from the other homelands would break down the fences to get in. There would be so much pressure to switch to those systems that the other homelands would in effect merge with the libertarian ones and the system would be over.

Not really. Those at the bottom of the system would leave for socalist states. And without a plentiful supply of cheap labour, things would be much more difficult than you imagine.

Not really. Those at the bottom of the system would leave for socalist states. And without a plentiful supply of cheap labour, things would be much more difficult than you imagine.

At the beginning, yes, but in ten years the socialist economies would collapse and the poorest person in the Anarhco-Capitalist homeland would be a king in the socialist states, especially because of the immigration of poor, unproductive individuals to the socialist states.

It wouldn't work.

After about 10 years the Anarcho-Capitalist and Libertarian city-states would be so fabulously wealthy, that people from the other homelands would break down the fences to get in. There would be so much pressure to switch to those systems that the other homelands would in effect merge with the libertarian ones and the system would be over.
It wouldn't work, but not for that reason.

Here's the reason it wouldn't work--humans like to argue. It's our pastime, bigger than football (either kind), even bigger than sex, if you note that we argue about sex an awful lot as well. So even if you divide people up into these groups, you'll still have infighting inside those groups until you get down to groups made of individuals, and then you'll have the schizophrenics arguing with themselves.

It's a great idea, but the difficulty in assembling it would be very high...and I mean "aftermath of a large-scale world war" difficult. What would have to happen is this:

1. A large-scale world war breaks out. The whole damn world participates. Distant islands are used as bases. Hundreds of millions die. Cities are destroyed. People decide, "This can never happen again."

2. Leaders agree with the people that this can never happen again. For once, world leaders are in line with the views of the people. Something different needs to be done.

3. Homelands are conveniently divided up for various ideologies. People are allowed to migrate between these homelands. Many states remain large, democratic states much like the U.S., western Europe, and Japan. The major ideologies are given homelands, and some smaller homelands are set aside for smaller city-states that are self-founded and self-regulating. Self-determination is considered for the most part, but the more "dangerous" and possibly expansionist ideologies have a close, watchful eye kept on them. Wahhabi Muslims are kept at a safe distance from anyone who isn't a Wahhabi Muslim. Maybe border them with the Christian fundamentalists and let them go to war and thin their populations every few years. Put the Pure White homeland next to the Pure Black homeland and let the fur fly. And shock the hell out of the North Koreans. Make them the 51st state.

In today's world, it's impractical. If another war breaks out, it could be done.

Imagine if each country were divided into separate 'homelands.' Except, people would not be separated on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, but rather, they would be separated on the basis of political views. The size of the homelands would be proportionate to the number of people of each political view: i.e., the moderates homeland would obviously be the largest. There would be a moderate homeland, a liberal homeland, a paleoconservative homeland, a neoconservative homeland, a libertarian homeland, an anarcho-capitalist homeland, an anarcho-syndicalist homeland, an anarcho-communist homeland, a democratic socialist homeland, a Marxist-Leninist homeland, a Stalinist homeland, a Maoist homeland, a National Socialist homeland, a fascist homeland, and several racist homelands (i.e., so white racists would have their own little land, and we wouldn't have to listen to their crap), as well as theocratic homelands (Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, etc. would get to mingle with their own ilk, and not be near anyone else). Plus, each homeland would be subdivided into smaller sub-homelands, i.e., a pro-life moderate homeland, a pro-choice moderate homeland, etc. Each homeland would be divided into as many sub-homelands as were needed. All would be separated by 25-ft. tall electric fences and armed guards. People would be allowed to travel between homelands, but only if they had a relevant pass. If they did not, they would be refused admission. So, people would be allowed to visit family and friends in other homelands if they wished, provided they had a pass. Each homeland would have almost total autonomy. The only things they would not handle would be foreign policy, which would be handled by a federal government (which would handle national defense, protecting the homelands from each other, and foreign policy). Legal, economic, political, social, etc. issues would all be handled by the individual homelands. Best of all, if someone wanted to leave the country, they could do so. Hell, they'd even be compensated for the loss of their property. Basically, there would be no wars, no political infighting. You would be surrounded by people just like you, and things would be your way. No annoying laws you didn't like, annoying people with different views, etc. Best of all, there would be a

huge 'apolitical' homeland, as well.

What do you think?

weought to give it a shot

Wherever will we put the anarchists? Siberia? Antartica? Iceland? Or maybe Kansas City?

What you are proposing is pretty much contractarianism, and therefore Anarchism.

That's the idea: No one gets forced anything on them, and everyone lives voluntarily in the sort of society they desire.

And actually, there is absolutely nothing that suggests that Abarcho-Capitalism, or even Libertarianism will make anyone wealthy. It might just lead to civil war, caused by market failures.

And actually, there is absolutely nothing that suggests that Abarcho-Capitalism, or even Libertarianism will make anyone wealthy. It might just lead to civil war, caused by market failures.
Hey, it worked in the late 19th century in the U.S. Granted, it caused thousands of people to starve to death, and resulted in one of the most corrupt systems in the world, but hey, as long as people make money.

[/sarcasm]

Plus, we basically already do this, only we call them states and we call the centralized government "international relations."

Then where the hell is my state? Almost everything is legal. Except hurting other people. And religion.

So tell me where that is and I will pack my bags.

Then where the hell is my state? Almost everything is legal. Except hurting other people. And religion.

So tell me where that is and I will pack my bags.

While homo sapiens is already in the habit of dividing itself up into political units, said units need not and will not necessarily satisify your preferences. Totally satisfying every possible individual preference, while avoiding the chaos of never-ending revolution and division, is impossible anyway. As such, this "political apartheid" scheme is doomed to failure.

What do you think?
I'm not particularly interested in being separated from some of my family members or friends.