undefined | Better HN

0 pointsWinstonSmith842y ago0 comments

> There are more than 200 sovereign countries in the world out of which 27 decided to completely or partially relinquish their own sovereignty to a supra national agency such as the EU.

> This is hardly the norm and history will tell in a hundred years from now that this was bad idea, just like the USSR was a bad idea.

Please, which norm are we talking about? The very first states with clear borders and independent government as we know today started to emerge in the 17th century. Germany, the most powerful state in Europe, has barely more than 30 years.

Countries are a new invention in the history of mankind and it's not the most likely that they will still exist in the next 100 years. And if you think that can't be true, imagine yourself as a citizen from the Roman Empire in 350, would you think that your super powerful unrivaled empire would cease to exist 100 years later?

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

zosima2y ago· 3 in thread

Countries are as old as mankind.

Empires are a few thousand years old.

Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. And generally not a very succesful one I might add. I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.

kergonath2y ago

> Countries are as old as mankind.

Nation-states and nationalism are less than 3 centuries old, and so are closed borders. Countries in antiquity were nothing like what we have now.

> Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block.

There are several loaded and emotional words in this, which plenty of room to move the goal posts. Faceless bureaucracies with huge power of the people’s daily lives is definitely not you, any empire has to do this to some extent just to keep existing. Famous examples with plenty of documentation are ancient Egypt and the Maya empire. Hardly brand-new fancy countries.

> And generally not a very succesful one I might add.

Appart from all the others, I suppose. How are we supposed to run those huge countries with tens of millions of citizens? You keep harping about the EU, so please enlighten us and explain how your country (or your ideal country, even) does it better.

> I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt.

Lol no is about the most serious answer one can give to this assertion. The Soviet Union was an empire. Its problems came from its stupid political system (which has fuck all to do with either the EU or the US), not from the fact that it was a union of states (just like the US or Germany).

WinstonSmith84OP2y ago

Here, for your information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...

zosima2y ago

Countries change names and area over time. England is said to have been founded in the year 927 and obviously the roman, persian and egyptian empires vastly preceded that. There have been countries for many, many 1000s of years.

The list you show there is the latest incarnation of most countries. In almost all cases, something similar preceded it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse