Second Vermont Republic

Could there be such a thing as an appropriate scale, an ideal size, for a nation?
Obviously through history there have been nations of all sizes, of territory, population, density. Surely some very big nations such as France or Australia have been generally successful, as have such small ones as Malta and Liechtenstein. Is there any way to determine what might be the optimum population and area for a state, the level at which a true and effective democracy could operate, at which internal harmony could be most thorough and efficient, and at which an economy could be successfully self-sufficient?
Aristotle certainly thought so. “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.” And that limit was set by human capacity: “If citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election of offices and their decisions of lawsuits will go wrong.” Montesquieu, similarly: “It is in the nature of a republic that it should have a small territory.”
In my examination of this subject in Human Scale, coming at this from all angles, I concluded that the optimum size of a political unit would be between 5- and 15,000 souls—about the same figure that Rousseau, Plato, and Aristotle found ideal. (The findings of the latter two are not surprising: in the words of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hellenic democracy operated in areas that were “generally confined to a city and its rural surroundings, and seldom had more than 10,000 citizens.”) This I found to be the right size for face-to-face democracy, for the managing of tensions and keeping of harmony, and for providing economic means. Cities for centuries did not grow much over 5,000 people and even in medieval times seldom over 10,000 (and when they did, they were composed of parishes, or quarters, of about 5,000 people each).
Now that is a size for a city state, and some settlements in the modern world have managed to extend that a bit and establish effective polities (San Marino at 28,000, Monaco at 32,000). But that is not likely to be a viable size for a true modern nation, and one would imagine that it would have to be a combination of a number of city-states of such sizes or smaller, plus intervening agricultural populations, that would be necessary for success in our age.
But what might the numbers be for such combinations?
Perhaps we should look at real-world figures of modern-day nations to give us some clue as to population sizes that work. First, let’s start by seeing how many are smaller than, let us arbitrarily say, Vermont, at 620,000. There happen to be no fewer than 35 nations with populations smaller than that, many fairly new (or newly independent) island nations (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cape Verde, Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomons, Tonga, Tuvalu, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Vanuatu), some others of more or less stability (Belize, Brunei, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Qatar, Surinam), but a number that are long-established models of statescraft (Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City). That leaves no question but that a population of 600,000 or fewer is sufficient for a successful nation—and the example of Iceland, with the world’s oldest surviving parliament and an unquestioned beacon of democracy, suggests that 290,000 is quite enough.
Other figures show that there are another seven nations under 1 million in population (Bahrein, Comoros, Cyprus, East Timor, Djabouti, Fiji, Guyana) and a further 41 between 1 and 5 million—some of them not particular models of stability and success (Albania, Bosnia, Central African Republic, Croatia, Eritrea, Liberia, Mongolia, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan), but a number of them states of ordinary competence and stability (Armenia, Bhutan, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldava, Namibia, Oman, Slovenia, Swaziland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates) and some of them fine examples of national sovereignty (Botswana, Costa Rico, Estonia, Ireland, Jamaica, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Singapore, Uruguay).
So taken all in all, there are 83 functioning, or at least recognized, nations of under 5 million people, out of 193 nations at the United Nations (including Taiwan and Vatican City). If 43 per cent of the nations of the world work with less than the population of Minnesota, that would seem to be proof that there are no significant obstacles to governance by small populations.
And as to geographic size, the first thing to know is that the 10 smallest nations are all under 122 square miles in area, and that includes Monaco, Liechtenstein, Vatican City, and San Marino, as well as the island nations (Nauru, Tuvalu, Marshalls, St. Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta). There are 25 nations of the world of the size of Vermont or smaller—that’s 9,610 square miles—and they include Andorra, Bahrein, Brunei, Cyprus, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Qatar, Singapore, and Slovenia, as well as many island nations in the Caribbean and Pacific.
And to further prove that small areas are no necessary obstacles to economic strength, one can look at the nations with the greatest Gross Domestic Product per capita. Eight of the top 20 are smaller than Iceland at 39,700 square miles (Luxembourg, San Marino, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Monaco, Netherlands, Iceland, in order), and three more in the top 20 are effectively of the same geographic area, if you don’t count uninhabitable and unproductive areas of ice and snow (Norway, Finland, and Sweden).
Rounding out the top 40 nations are another 13 small states (Liechtenstein, Singapore, U.A.E., Qatar, Andorra, Israel, Brunei, Slovenia, Taiwan, Bahamas, Malta, Cyprus, Kuwait, in order), giving small states a majority of 24 of the richest 40 states.
Obviously there are countless variables beyond suchlike figures of population and area that matter in the success of a nation state. But none of them are arcane—they all have to do with measurable elements like the number and size of resources, the productivity of economic sectors from farm to factory to college, the education and skills of the populace, the extent of trade and self-sufficiency, the cultural cohesion of the citizens, and the political sophistication and participation at community, city, and regional levels.Therefore any body can reasonably assess the chances for the viability of any future polity.
Reckon with those variables, and keep the population size within the limits suggested by the real-world examples and experiences, and any population can calculate the viability of its secession. Then, if there is the will, the drive, the passion, and the dedication, that secession can be won—and the resulting nation can be an effective and proud player in the affairs of the world.
KIRKPATRICK SALE: AT WHAT SIZE SECESSION?
Submitted by Rob Williams on Mon, 01/02/2006 - 4:21pm.
At What Size Secession?
By Kirkpatrick Sale
Could there be such a thing as an appropriate scale, an ideal size, for a nation?
Obviously through history there have been nations of all sizes, of territory, population, density. Surely some very big nations such as France or Australia have been generally successful, as have such small ones as Malta and Liechtenstein. Is there any way to determine what might be the optimum population and area for a state, the level at which a true and effective democracy could operate, at which internal harmony could be most thorough and efficient, and at which an economy could be successfully self-sufficient?
Aristotle certainly thought so. “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.” And that limit was set by human capacity: “If citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election of offices and their decisions of lawsuits will go wrong.” Montesquieu, similarly: “It is in the nature of a republic that it should have a small territory.”
In my examination of this subject in Human Scale, coming at this from all angles, I concluded that the optimum size of a political unit would be between 5- and 15,000 souls—about the same figure that Rousseau, Plato, and Aristotle found ideal. (The findings of the latter two are not surprising: in the words of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hellenic democracy operated in areas that were “generally confined to a city and its rural surroundings, and seldom had more than 10,000 citizens.”) This I found to be the right size for face-to-face democracy, for the managing of tensions and keeping of harmony, and for providing economic means. Cities for centuries did not grow much over 5,000 people and even in medieval times seldom over 10,000 (and when they did, they were composed of parishes, or quarters, of about 5,000 people each).
Now that is a size for a city state, and some settlements in the modern world have managed to extend that a bit and establish effective polities (San Marino at 28,000, Monaco at 32,000). But that is not likely to be a viable size for a true modern nation, and one would imagine that it would have to be a combination of a number of city-states of such sizes or smaller, plus intervening agricultural populations, that would be necessary for success in our age.
But what might the numbers be for such combinations?
Perhaps we should look at real-world figures of modern-day nations to give us some clue as to population sizes that work. First, let’s start by seeing how many are smaller than, let us arbitrarily say, Vermont, at 620,000. There happen to be no fewer than 35 nations with populations smaller than that, many fairly new (or newly independent) island nations (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cape Verde, Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomons, Tonga, Tuvalu, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Vanuatu), some others of more or less stability (Belize, Brunei, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Qatar, Surinam), but a number that are long-established models of statescraft (Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City). That leaves no question but that a population of 600,000 or fewer is sufficient for a successful nation—and the example of Iceland, with the world’s oldest surviving parliament and an unquestioned beacon of democracy, suggests that 290,000 is quite enough.
Other figures show that there are another seven nations under 1 million in population (Bahrein, Comoros, Cyprus, East Timor, Djabouti, Fiji, Guyana) and a further 41 between 1 and 5 million—some of them not particular models of stability and success (Albania, Bosnia, Central African Republic, Croatia, Eritrea, Liberia, Mongolia, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan), but a number of them states of ordinary competence and stability (Armenia, Bhutan, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldava, Namibia, Oman, Slovenia, Swaziland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates) and some of them fine examples of national sovereignty (Botswana, Costa Rico, Estonia, Ireland, Jamaica, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Singapore, Uruguay).
So taken all in all, there are 83 functioning, or at least recognized, nations of under 5 million people, out of 193 nations at the United Nations (including Taiwan and Vatican City). If 43 per cent of the nations of the world work with less than the population of Minnesota, that would seem to be proof that there are no significant obstacles to governance by small populations.
And as to geographic size, the first thing to know is that the 10 smallest nations are all under 122 square miles in area, and that includes Monaco, Liechtenstein, Vatican City, and San Marino, as well as the island nations (Nauru, Tuvalu, Marshalls, St. Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta). There are 25 nations of the world of the size of Vermont or smaller—that’s 9,610 square miles—and they include Andorra, Bahrein, Brunei, Cyprus, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Qatar, Singapore, and Slovenia, as well as many island nations in the Caribbean and Pacific.
And to further prove that small areas are no necessary obstacles to economic strength, one can look at the nations with the greatest Gross Domestic Product per capita. Eight of the top 20 are smaller than Iceland at 39,700 square miles (Luxembourg, San Marino, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Monaco, Netherlands, Iceland, in order), and three more in the top 20 are effectively of the same geographic area, if you don’t count uninhabitable and unproductive areas of ice and snow (Norway, Finland, and Sweden).
Rounding out the top 40 nations are another 13 small states (Liechtenstein, Singapore, U.A.E., Qatar, Andorra, Israel, Brunei, Slovenia, Taiwan, Bahamas, Malta, Cyprus, Kuwait, in order), giving small states a majority of 24 of the richest 40 states.
Obviously there are countless variables beyond suchlike figures of population and area that matter in the success of a nation state. But none of them are arcane—they all have to do with measurable elements like the number and size of resources, the productivity of economic sectors from farm to factory to college, the education and skills of the populace, the extent of trade and self-sufficiency, the cultural cohesion of the citizens, and the political sophistication and participation at community, city, and regional levels.Therefore any body can reasonably assess the chances for the viability of any future polity.
Reckon with those variables, and keep the population size within the limits suggested by the real-world examples and experiences, and any population can calculate the viability of its secession. Then, if there is the will, the drive, the passion, and the dedication, that secession can be won—and the resulting nation can be an effective and proud player in the affairs of the world.
KIRKPATRICK SALE: AT WHAT SIZE SECESSION?
Submitted by Rob Williams on Mon, 01/02/2006 - 4:21pm.
At What Size Secession?
By Kirkpatrick Sale
Could there be such a thing as an appropriate scale, an ideal size, for a nation?
Obviously through history there have been nations of all sizes, of territory, population, density. Surely some very big nations such as France or Australia have been generally successful, as have such small ones as Malta and Liechtenstein. Is there any way to determine what might be the optimum population and area for a state, the level at which a true and effective democracy could operate, at which internal harmony could be most thorough and efficient, and at which an economy could be successfully self-sufficient?
Aristotle certainly thought so. “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.” And that limit was set by human capacity: “If citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election of offices and their decisions of lawsuits will go wrong.” Montesquieu, similarly: “It is in the nature of a republic that it should have a small territory.”
In my examination of this subject in Human Scale, coming at this from all angles, I concluded that the optimum size of a political unit would be between 5- and 15,000 souls—about the same figure that Rousseau, Plato, and Aristotle found ideal. (The findings of the latter two are not surprising: in the words of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hellenic democracy operated in areas that were “generally confined to a city and its rural surroundings, and seldom had more than 10,000 citizens.”) This I found to be the right size for face-to-face democracy, for the managing of tensions and keeping of harmony, and for providing economic means. Cities for centuries did not grow much over 5,000 people and even in medieval times seldom over 10,000 (and when they did, they were composed of parishes, or quarters, of about 5,000 people each).
Now that is a size for a city state, and some settlements in the modern world have managed to extend that a bit and establish effective polities (San Marino at 28,000, Monaco at 32,000). But that is not likely to be a viable size for a true modern nation, and one would imagine that it would have to be a combination of a number of city-states of such sizes or smaller, plus intervening agricultural populations, that would be necessary for success in our age.
But what might the numbers be for such combinations?
Perhaps we should look at real-world figures of modern-day nations to give us some clue as to population sizes that work. First, let’s start by seeing how many are smaller than, let us arbitrarily say, Vermont, at 620,000. There happen to be no fewer than 35 nations with populations smaller than that, many fairly new (or newly independent) island nations (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Cape Verde, Dominica, Grenada, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomons, Tonga, Tuvalu, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Vanuatu), some others of more or less stability (Belize, Brunei, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Qatar, Surinam), but a number that are long-established models of statescraft (Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, Vatican City). That leaves no question but that a population of 600,000 or fewer is sufficient for a successful nation—and the example of Iceland, with the world’s oldest surviving parliament and an unquestioned beacon of democracy, suggests that 290,000 is quite enough.
Other figures show that there are another seven nations under 1 million in population (Bahrein, Comoros, Cyprus, East Timor, Djabouti, Fiji, Guyana) and a further 41 between 1 and 5 million—some of them not particular models of stability and success (Albania, Bosnia, Central African Republic, Croatia, Eritrea, Liberia, Mongolia, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan), but a number of them states of ordinary competence and stability (Armenia, Bhutan, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldava, Namibia, Oman, Slovenia, Swaziland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates) and some of them fine examples of national sovereignty (Botswana, Costa Rico, Estonia, Ireland, Jamaica, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Singapore, Uruguay).
So taken all in all, there are 83 functioning, or at least recognized, nations of under 5 million people, out of 193 nations at the United Nations (including Taiwan and Vatican City). If 43 per cent of the nations of the world work with less than the population of Minnesota, that would seem to be proof that there are no significant obstacles to governance by small populations.
And as to geographic size, the first thing to know is that the 10 smallest nations are all under 122 square miles in area, and that includes Monaco, Liechtenstein, Vatican City, and San Marino, as well as the island nations (Nauru, Tuvalu, Marshalls, St. Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta). There are 25 nations of the world of the size of Vermont or smaller—that’s 9,610 square miles—and they include Andorra, Bahrein, Brunei, Cyprus, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Qatar, Singapore, and Slovenia, as well as many island nations in the Caribbean and Pacific.
And to further prove that small areas are no necessary obstacles to economic strength, one can look at the nations with the greatest Gross Domestic Product per capita. Eight of the top 20 are smaller than Iceland at 39,700 square miles (Luxembourg, San Marino, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Monaco, Netherlands, Iceland, in order), and three more in the top 20 are effectively of the same geographic area, if you don’t count uninhabitable and unproductive areas of ice and snow (Norway, Finland, and Sweden).
Rounding out the top 40 nations are another 13 small states (Liechtenstein, Singapore, U.A.E., Qatar, Andorra, Israel, Brunei, Slovenia, Taiwan, Bahamas, Malta, Cyprus, Kuwait, in order), giving small states a majority of 24 of the richest 40 states.
Obviously there are countless variables beyond suchlike figures of population and area that matter in the success of a nation state. But none of them are arcane—they all have to do with measurable elements like the number and size of resources, the productivity of economic sectors from farm to factory to college, the education and skills of the populace, the extent of trade and self-sufficiency, the cultural cohesion of the citizens, and the political sophistication and participation at community, city, and regional levels.Therefore any body can reasonably assess the chances for the viability of any future polity.
Reckon with those variables, and keep the population size within the limits suggested by the real-world examples and experiences, and any population can calculate the viability of its secession. Then, if there is the will, the drive, the passion, and the dedication, that secession can be won—and the resulting nation can be an effective and proud player in the affairs of the world.