This is more of a thought experiment that interested me so bare with me.
Suppose Earth were 10x the size it is now and that it still could sustain life and looked just like Earth does today.
Given the immense amount of resources required to control and enforce laws over such a large area wouldn't it be easier to establish a free society on some unclaimed terriotory? Or would governments realize the danger of leaving too much land unclaimed and divert alot of efforts to grabbing as much land as possible? (basically imperialism on steroids)
If it turns out that the government would be unable to secure so much land then perhaps one of our curses was that our planet was too small.
----
My thoughts on this were that governments would do their best to cover as much territory as possible but many governments would fail hard and fast as they attempt to conquer too much too fast. The giant land masses available would provide a safe harbor for many communities to live in "contested" territory, including socialist / communist communities. Anarcho-capitalists from around the world could simply designate a spot and all migrate to it (like the free state project). If the NAP was successfully installed as the law of land within that area then the economic freedom would provide the resources required to quickly build up Private Defense Agencies to fend off any government invasion. However, governments would learn that it would be much safer to blind their citizens to the existence of such communities and avoid them at all cost.
I don't think China, the EU or the USA will exist in their current forms in a few decades. Large empires are costly to maintain and the internet has greatly weakened their ability to pour out bullshit to keep the masses docile. Even with their current territories these regimes are coming under increasing stress. They're over-stretching themselves.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Thanks for the response Jon but even if they don't exist in their current forms does that mean other states wont pop up to replace them? If China, the EU and the USA all collapse but are replaced by smaller/different states or perhaps even larger ones / world government is that anything to look forward to?
I'm certain the EU will break apart in no time. There are just too many differences in language, culture, and tradition to remain cohesive. The US will take a while longer, if ever.
I don't think the size of a planet would impede government's attempt to conquer all of it. Centuries ago that was true, due to limitations in communication technology and the slow speed of ships and land vehicles. The earth's geography was such an unknown back then.
We'll see. If the current financial crisis blows up in their faces, I don't think it'll be forgotten any time soon. Even with technology - and this runs both ways - they might just be confronted with a populace less willing to put up with government depradations. That alone will be a huge blow to the ability of governments to effectively control vast territories.
As for the EU, well it'll probably witness the exit of the peripheral countries and probably the UK. The Eastern European countries are using it for the subsidies it provides and easy access to wealthier labour markets. If that comes to an end, they might just choose to take their business elsewhere too. I'm quite hopeful that in the coming decades we'll see a lot of fragmentation of mega-states. People are beginning to realise we're not all "in it together". This is particularly the case where wealthier, more productive provinces within countries subsidise poor performers. How long will governments be able to lie about this and just paper it over?
I think fragmented states/micro-states will be something to look forward to as they'll put much more intense pressure on governments to compete. A one world government will only come to pass if the elites pretty much ignore their subjects at this stage. The implication of it will be to create a massive redistributionist state, with no one to run to if its finances blow up, and with very little popular assent. With the EU in shambles, I can't see it as a realistic possibility. World governments refuse even to cooperate on things like Kyoto. The only thing they can do with each other is trade. You don't need them for that.
Jon Irenicus:I think fragmented states/micro-states will be something to look forward to as they'll put much more intense pressure on governments to compete
I am hopeful but not sure if we will learn from our past. If the big unions break apart but years later attempt to merge into a big central government again then we are back to square one. Unless the masses are better informed I see this as a possiblity. Just like the continuous support for socialism and the "It just wasn't implemented right!" argument we could see similar arguments in the future for big mega-states like the EU and the US again.
i dont think the size of the planet is relevant. We would still migrate to cities and towns. There would also be 10x more people if everything was multiplied by 10x (meaning fertile lands, resources, tropical islands, mountains, basically all geographical equals were multiplied by 10).
I think you can make a case (US as an example) of an isolated region that is incredibly costly and almost impossible to get to, but using US history as an example it wont last long.
And if you were to argue if the planet became 10x larger over night it would even be worse. The world's government have the power and would just lay claim to it, and then lease the land to the public or sell which would make them more powerful.
*and obviously everything i said should include "it is my opinion"
If you can make a scientific arguement on the population size it could be possible.
Territorial monopoly is always and everywhere an economic phenomenon. We have been seeing a long-term breakdown in the primacy of territorial monopoly for quite some time. Do you think the King of Bhutan has as much power as, say, the Rockefeller family? Being "the King of oil" or "the King of transport" is much more formidable than being the absolute territorial King of some enclave. This is the true meaning of globalization... ruling power is becoming more intertwined with the economic bases of power so that it matters less and less where you are as compared to what you own and control.
Clayton -
Clayton:Territorial monopoly is always and everywhere an economic phenomenon. We have been seeing a long-term breakdown in the primacy of territorial monopoly for quite some time. Do you think the King of Bhutan has as much power as, say, the Rockefeller family? Being "the King of oil" or "the King of transport" is much more formidable than being the absolute territorial King of some enclave. This is the true meaning of globalization... ruling power is becoming more intertwined with the economic bases of power so that it matters less and less where you are as compared to what you own and control.
Do you believe that in the scenario I described above that those economic bases of power would be able to succeed regardless of whether it's operating in a state or a free society? I don't believe that a company created under a state that relies on state power to operate and expand could survive in a free society because it wouldn't be able to exercise its political entrepreneurial powers there. Likewise, a company started in a free society even though it's neither taxed nor regulated would end up getting taxed and regulated if it attempted to expand into a state-controlled territory. And that's if it's lucky, it might not even be allowed to operate at all within a state and I bet its competition would be right there behind the state trying to keep it out. I imagine you would more likely see two sets of powers, those operating within the state and those operating outside of the state. But again this is pure conjecture so I could be wrong.
grant.w.underwood:And if you were to argue if the planet became 10x larger over night it would even be worse. The world's government have the power and would just lay claim to it, and then lease the land to the public or sell which would make them more powerful.
I'm not sure if I agree with this. You are basically saying that the current governments would be able to sustain a several order of magnitude increase in their size and remain solvent. The current world governments can barely sustain themselves given their current size and scope. Given that the land would be mostly empty there wouldn't even be a tax base to extract wealth from.
no im saying there will be 10x more people, 10x more wealth, 10x times as many governments.