Do all states need superpower patrons? Is political decentralization possible today?

4 posts

President Camacho

From an interesting Shoutbox convo:

The example of Switzerland would seem to run counter to Nic's assertion.

Perhaps Switzerland's acceptance was simply "grandfathered in" from the obsolete world order? Or maybe Switzerland is only allowed to survive in its current form because it doesn't have oil fields or agriculture that can be exploited by globalism, while its banking system and independent currency serves as a valuable hedge for American and Euro elites/investors.

While a solitary Hungary would not be able to withstand the coordinated assault of the EU, US, and IMF, I DO think that a larger bloc of several such states (say, a re-alignment of the successor states of the Austrian Empire) would be able to survive and thrive.
Niccolo and Donkey
Switzerland is the exception that proves the rule. There is too much already invested in that country from across the world and in particular by large powers to make it worthwhile to upset that balance.

States that try to emulate Switzerland have to start from scratch, with less wealth, industry, and would have to untangle themselves from the globalist system or any larger political entity that they belong to. They might not even have Switzerland's political/demographic stability to begin with.

This would require the extraction of said states from the EU and would require quite a large amount of support within these states to overcome the shackles of demosclerosis in which opposing parties will take advantage of any weakness/policy by allying themselves with outside forces such as the USA or the EU to remove the governing party from power. Not only are the institutional obstacles severe, but democracy impedes such swift national movement by its very nature.

These empires need to run their course and collapse from their own internal contradictions/economic reasons so that a New Order can arise.
Niccolo and Donkey
Bob Dylan Roof

I agree with nic. Under Classical International Law, neutral and small states enjoyed neutrality and "sovereignty" because, as pawns and bargaining chips in the conflicts and negotiations between Great Powers, existence was guaranteed by the functional utility of the small state to the Great Power order. This dynamic doesn't change with the advent of "modern" International Law just because the new order elevates the liberal theology of the individual to the domain of territorial nation-states and conceals the actual force fields of power beneath a morass of abstract formulations. All patches of dirt on earth called "states" may have formal sovereignty, but not all patches of dirt have equal power. Hence, some states cannot simply decide to pursue favorable economic policies if those policies impinge upon the absolute sovereignty of more powerful states.