Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PATRICK

(12,348 posts)
2. That says it better
Sat Sep 13, 2014, 04:58 AM
Sep 2014

than this typical debate piece that blithely mixes throwback tribalism, ethnic divisions as an ideal even though most the small nations except maybe Iceland still contain dissatisfied minorities. The US has no such easy sectoring based on tribalism except the diffuse bundle of native American tribes. A good thin in one case is a bad in another. The final argument in breaking up and down unfair and non-working states would be enlightened anarchy. The other end would be sensibly pooling for the largest cooperative collectives. This argument, presumably tailored for Scotland, falls into some historical morass in between.

Somehow the article seems a paean to the misery that is human governance, sort of off point or blinkered.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should Large Nations Spli...»Reply #2