NationStates Jolt Archive


off the wall thought re micronations and whither the nationstate

Daistallia 2104
02-09-2008, 17:23
Knitting some odd randomish thoughts together here...

On the NS dervived facebook game nations part of my profile now reads:
All citizens of this country take a mandatory standardized test to evaluate their intelligence, and all those who do not score well enough are deported to other countries.

While this is not necessarily what I'd want IRL, it's an interesting question that sort of reminded me of Neal Stephenson's novel The Diamond Age.

The world is divided into many phyles, also known as tribes. There are three Great Phyles; the Han (consisting of Han Chinese), the Neo-Victorians (consisting largely of Anglo-Saxons, but also accepting Indians, Africans, and others who identify with the culture), and Nippon (consisting of Japanese). The novel deliberately makes it ambiguous whether Hindustan (consisting of Hindu Indians) is a fourth Great Phyle or an association of microphyles. In addition to these larger phyles, there are countless smaller phyles. Membership in some phyles, such as the Han and Nipponese, has an ethnic requirement, but the Neo-Victorian phyle and many lesser phyles accept anyone who aspires to live according to the phyle's mores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age#Setting

Finally, in a recent thread on taxat ion the subject of consent and the social contract came up.

So, if the world were divided up into distributed micronation like "phyles", where one had to both consent to the social contract of one's "nation" as well as recieve their consent, would the would be freer?
Gift-of-god
02-09-2008, 18:33
I would think it would depend on the phyle. One of the phyles in the book was one that continued the Communist paradigm (the Senderos?). Being in such a phyle would be less free than the current system, but if you lived in the near anarchic system of those without phyles, you would live in a 'freer' society, i.e. living under a minimalist government. Other phyles would fall between these extremes

The same could be said of the modern nation-state.

So, the question becomes: how easy is it to switch from one phyle to another as compared to one nation to another. Nations currently ask each applicant to the nation to abide the prevailing social contract, and the applicant also has to receive the consent of the nation. So I don't see a difference there.

Mind you, phyles aren't attached to a chunk of land while nations are. It would be a lot easier for a person in Pretoria to join the United Phyles of Slightly Socialist and Gay Friendly Multicultural Canadian Peoples than it would be for the same person to make their way to Canada in the current set-up, from a strictly geographic point of view.
Hurdegaryp
03-09-2008, 00:28
I've read that novel in the Dutch translation. Fascinating book. However, it's not the kind of world that I would like to live in. Dephyle them all!