i think it was fucked up of the British to just take the whole region like that
and I think the Zulus did what they could for as long as they could, as they should
but then, I’ve never been a fan of colonialism anyways

only Americans are allowed to Manifest our Destiny

everyone else needs to stay where they are and wait for us to get to them next

I know, just meming

I think America is probably as big as a nation can sustainably be, really

like, geographically

anything bigger and you get too thin-spread, it all falls apart in a century or two

Yeah, they’re doing good as well

Russia is the biggest, and they’ve been in a rut since the 1980s
Canada is second biggest, but they barely use half their land, and their population is smaller than California, so I don’t really count that
America is the third largest, and we’ve got the most well funded military in the world, but we also have zero local competition, so, maybe also not the best example
China is the fourth largest, and they split up and re-conquer each other every couple hundred years, call it a new dynasty, and move on
then you’ve got Brazil, which is basically just tropical Russia with more gangs
Australia, which is the same as Canada, low population and hectares of untouched land
and India, who can’t poo in loo

So, I repeat:
America does big country the best, or at least the most sustainably

it’s like with stars
bigger stars shine brighter, but they fall apart under their own weight relatively soon
small stars live longer, but they never burn as brightly
America is a big star, and has burned pretty well so far
BUT we’ve only stopped adding new territory in the past 120 years or so, so who knows where it’ll all go to next

yeah, Rome is why I’m thinking about this

Empires

they *had* the longest run

i’m talking about current competitors

i’m mostly rambling, actually, if i’m completely honest

Little sleepy, and just killing time before work

Out of curiosity, who do you consider 2nd?

I’m guessing either Napoleon or Britain

Eh, that’s fair

I feel like the Brits probably have the better claim to 3rd, then

Former owners of the empire where the sun never sets

now arguing over butter knife permits on an island the size of Michigan

(although, if you consider the Queen’s “rule” over Canada and Australia, the sun still never sets)

doubt

Neither, it’s a bit of a skewed question

Or, not neither, but both
I’ve always held a belief tied to Dunbar’s number (essentially, the number of relationships an individual can actively maintain before “friends” becomes “acquaintances”, typically around 100-200), that communism can work in groups smaller than that number, but as populations rise to meet or exceed that number, the system begins to fall apart as competition takes precedent over cooperation in a crowd

That’s why a hippie commune of 60-80 people may operate like a dream, but a massive state with tens of millions cannot maintain the system without destroying the freedoms of those caught within it

but I’m not an economist, so I might be wrong

So, TL;DR, the natural human nature is not fixed either way, it adapts to the environment, and the environment determines why communism will or will not work at different scales, but usually the more people that you force to cooperate, the more likely it is that some will find reasons not to cooperate, and the order falls apart

we’re both competitive AND cooperative

we’re tribal

we form groups within which we will cooperate freely, but there’s a limit to the size of those groups

forcing 293,000,000+ people to be in one wholly cooperative, non-competitive group can only lead to disaster