Switzerland is one of the best countries in Europe by almost every measure despite being tiny...

>MAILONLINE

Krauts captured Norway because they figured the Brits would do it first. It already happened to Iceland, and in fact the Brits were planning to pre-emptively "protect" Norway. More for its coast than for mining.

I don't have a problem with either of those things

>FREE MONIES
And the Canton will promptly collapse and the voters and courts hold the people responsible accountable so long as no federal government sweeps in to get everyone into one long corruption line.

It's because Bosnia is inhabited by Bosnians.

Well Americans and Brits bombed a school full of children in Norway.

>welfare programs

These are only abused because of a strong federal government.

With progroms on a local level welfare would have to be sustainable or not introduced at all.

>there is plenty about Switzerland that is hardly perfect.

Indeed, I hate how sterile everything looks in newly developed areas though I doubt that' what you're referring too. Still nothing is perfect but I do believe it's better than the world system we have going on now with 2/3 of the planet in the "developing" section for what seems like perpetuity.

System which will only end in war and genocide as the poorly educated masses eventually overwhelm their own poorly run governments and migrate to richer economies only to find they're unwelcome as the rich nations are very intent on keeping poor nations poor and in debt.

It's because they're too uneducated to be centralized. All you get is a bunch of morons leading a bunch of idiots and everywhere being the same.

No, actually, it's inhabited by Bosniaks. And Serbs, Croats and Turks.

Exactly

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Redpill me on dog eating Swiss

Do they descend from the Huns?
I have read about an isolated town in Valais where Huns settled and the locals have an Asian look but I can't remember the name

At least the mountain parts, they're pretty much indigenous "romified" Celts, although they speak different languages depending which vallies they live in. Of course, since it's in the middle of Europe, it's a genetic mosh-mash. The plains area are more conventional French or German populations.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anniviers

Haha, Star Wars

Switzerland's status as a tax haven only functions by eroding tax bases in other developed countries. It's a race to the bottom in that regard, thriving by being a a parasite on government revenues worldwide like the Caymans and Andorra.

>these faggots were too yellow to fight the Nazi's and would rather bank with them
>nation spared destruction like the rest of europe
>fast forward 70 years
>GUYS WHY'S SWITZERLAND SO GREAT AND THE REST OF EUROPE IS SHIT?

>too yellow to fight the Nazi's
They've had universal neutrality far longer than the Germans have been uppity

>Switzerland
>open borders
Switzerland recently closed their borders off from Italy, and if you're not rich enough, they don't let you apply as a citizen or resident in the country.
As they should. That country is not large enough to support open borders shit.

Regardless, my point stands.

Switzerland being spared the destruction the rest of Europe saw during the 20th century is undoubtedly why they are where they are today.

Read better goddamnit.

I guess Portugal must be an economic powerhouse too...oh wait.

Wait, Switzerland doesn't have petroleum.

Same with much of Scandanavia, Norway and Sweden in particular. They were almost untouched by the world wars, of course they're doing better.

Norway was occupied by the Nazis, mate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Norway

If we assume that not being occupied by the nazis is a massive economic boon then by your logic, Norway shouldn't be doing as well as it is.

So why are Germany, Netherlands, France and the UK doing so well? I ask because clearly your theories regarding economic development being dependent on the immediate effects of a conflict that occurred 70 years ago is absolutely flawless.

Come to think of it Germany os pretty much singlehandedly keeping the Euro afloat, and my history might be rusty but I'm pretty sure Germany was occupied by the Nazis at some point.

>Should democracies open their borders and compete in a free market of prosperity and legislation where the people of one nation may freely move to a new one and nations are held to account not just by votes but by the market of population on the move?
Cultural difference of people in Swiss Cantons = 1 to 2 points
Cultural difference of people around the world
= 10 to 20 points

You cannot have open borders with democracies. Look, Nicaragua, Philippines and India are democracies, but they have very different cultural norms and political ideals from Swiss democracy. Fuck, US, French and German democracies have different cultural and political principles as well.

If you simply allowed people to move to one place to another solely on the fact that they are "democracies," you'll most likely end up destroying the culture of the country people gravitate to.

Just fucking think about shit before you spout it.
What the fuck do you think will happen to the political make-up of Switzerland if New York's entire population moved there?
Their entire national army reserve system and gun ownership tradition would get banned in the following election. Also, poorly managed welfare programs would be set up left and right.

Occupied, sure, but they weren't bombed or fought over to the same degree as many of the other countries (IE France, Germany, Poland, Italy, etc). Just a few raids.

not him btw, just saying.

>you'll most likely end up destroying the culture of the country people gravitate to.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Cultures have risen, changed and become extinct since the dawn of human history. Why do you think they're something precious that merit eternal protection?

>Their entire national army reserve system and gun ownership tradition would get banned in the following election
That's in the constitution so no it can't. They might be able to modify a canton a bit but over time they would migrate to the less shithole cantons and assimilate there.

You didn't read his post very well.

He meant open borders within a country and a very small federal government.

Constitutions can be changed through democratic vote. That's what democracies do. If 300 million Americans came in, that's way more than the 8 million Swiss today. Way more than a required supermajority to change the Swiss constitution through democratic processes.
>Should democracies open their borders and compete in a free market of prosperity and legislation where the people of one nation may freely move to a new one
>open their borders
>one nation may freely move to a new one
The irony. Read his post.

>Nazi Germany rose from a democracy
>the current Russian republic came from a democracy
The Swiss model you (or OP) is showing as a bright example to follow would be destroyed if peoples who have different cultural ideals/principles managed to overrun a small democratic population.
The Indian democracy was basically a single party system for decades until lately, Japan is the same thing.
Again, the entirety of the Swiss model could be overriden if they got bumrushed by Americans who think their system sucks and just said, "let's change this model democratically" via a constitutional change.
Stop talking shit like you're making sense. You're not.

They eat dogs for real?

I meant extrapolated to the whole world. The Swiss system, but everywhere. Every state, province, commonwealth and territory on the planet a separate canton with a small central government and freedom of movement between all of them.

Lrn2read. I am replying directly to OP, who suggests everywhere should have open borders because then a huge influx of GIBBE MONIES will somehow make a global democratic utopian super-state... or something. OP has clearly been smoking too much herb.

Even if they did, so what? Dogs are protein.

>Nazi Germany rose from a democracy
A federalized one.
>the current Russian republic came from a democracy
A federalized one

Small central government is the key to peace.

The Swiss government is a federalized one. Their federal government recently just fucked up their private gun ownership rights that the cantons can't even say no to it.

Make it SMALLER

It's already small. But that is what federal governments have in power inherently.

No, make it SMALLER

The cultural and political differences of the Swiss are miniscule in comparison to the cultural and political differences of each democracy with each other. That plan won't work and doesn't make sense. The Swiss are able to work with each other because they identify with each other as Swiss and a shared cultural heritage.

>Should democracies open their borders
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Switzerland, the country where the population repeatedly refused to open their borders

It might be destroyed in Switzerland or in some or even the majority of the cantons but that's the beauty of it. The people that were in the cantons could up and move and change things somewhere else to more closely resemble their former home and the place that once was prosperous would defer prosperity to stagnate and then collapse repeating the cycle without violence and without resorting to political degradation and endangerment of the entire planet through the rise dictators and strong men as each ill performing region could simply be left and improved in the absence of the detrimental elements.

>and a shared cultural heritage.
Except they don't have one, Cantons differ from each other linguistically and culturally.

It would be better if the Swiss system took over the entire planet.

Like

All of it

Again, that level of difference is miniscule. It's the same cultural difference of people from the American South to its Midwest to its East Coast to its West Coast to its Northeast.
They still share their cultural heritage as Americans. The same thing happens with the Swiss. You are looking at this way too shallowly, thinking that cultural differences are equal and the same everywhere.

>there is an idiot who thinks that open borders between democracies around the world is a good idea based on a narrow view of the world
This is how communism was born.

>It's the same cultural difference of people from the American South to its Midwest to its East Coast to its West Coast to its Northeast.
Those differences aren't miniscule and all those places can understand each other perfectly.

That implies that a destroyed canton would magically recover when people move out from there or that people who destroyed a canton won't move out to a new canton then destroy it again.
That also implies that there are places where you could create a new canton without any inhabitants in it.
It's not a cycle, because a destroyed canton will most likely remain destroyed for a generation or two.
That's not beautiful at all. It's a cycle of stagnation. Instead of constantly improving one area while others are getting destroyed, everything is destroyed in a generation.
Humanity cannot advance with a shortsighted vision like that.

Are you the same delusional american doing all the threads on /k/ and /int/ too?

>It's miniscule in comparison to the difference of an Indian man with a Japanese man. It's miniscule in comparison to a Mexican and an Argentinian. It's miniscule in comparison to a Spaniard and an American.
The difference of a Swiss canton to another Swiss canton is miniscule compared to the difference of Chilean with a Finn.

>It's miniscule in comparison to the difference of an Indian man with a Japanese man.
A couple of minutes ago you were saying the differences were like New York and Miami, quit shifting goal posts.

I didn't shift goalposts. I said the difference of an American from another American are miniscule just like the Swiss are from the Swiss. It's not my fault you don't know the difference between intranational cultural differences from international ones.

It's like communism. Everyone's equal. Equally poor.

>I didn't shift goalposts
You literally shifted goalposts. Then you made another post, deleted that post, and made yet another post with even more shifted goal posts.

The post wasn't complete, which is why it was deleted. I just added a second sentence, which in no way shifts any goalposts, you dumb shit. The point still remains the same as with the original post: Americans from different regions are still more similar than people from other countries. The same is the case with the Swiss.

I thought it was funny. Dick.

The Swiss close their borders a lot. Also, they don't like admitting refugees or immigrants unless they are filthy rich. Even then, they might not accept you on cultural grounds.

I think he was saying that corruption is Switzerland's main export, not that it has petroleum.

If by "magically" you are referring to the process through which government denied taxes and income pass legislation to increase taxes and income, then yes, it will be a magic kingdom equal to Disneyland. To imply this is stagnation when it very explicitly implies constant change, well I must ask what your definition of stagnant means. Destruction of one aspect doesn't mean destruction of all aspects, many Swiss would look at New York and Singapore and see these as "destroyed" urban wastelands robbed of their natural beauty by skyscrapers with nary a mountain or pine in sight. This summary while accurate makes these metropolises no less prosperous.

>The same is the case with the Swiss.
Really? Whqat are the overwhelming differences between the people of Chiasso and the people of Como and how are the people of Chiasso much more similar to the people of Zurich than the aforementioned people of Como?

This can't work, because every time people make a good canton, the shitty people that ruined other cantons will move there and make it a shitty canton. When the hardworking people who go outside make another good canton, the cycle repeats. Instead of just advancing all the time, a reset occurs every decade or so.
That is not stability and will not lead to progress.

What constitutes "shitty"?

Probably something like "black people gibsmedat we wuz kings an sheeit, boy I sure do hate black peop- I mean niggers"

Californians.
They make rules and regulations that make it hard to live in California until they can't live there anymore, then they move to a state that is less crap than their home state (Oregon/Washington/Colorado), start voting people into power who votes in the same shitty policies that forced them to move out of their state in the first place repeating the process that got them to move to said state originally.

Ah, so anyone that doesn't think like you.

No, it's normally white middle-class liberals (dudebro Californians) who do that, not minorities.

It's not a matter of people who don't think like I do, but a matter of people voting in policies that literally make it hard to live in a state, they leave that state, then vote in people who make rules that make it hard to live in the state they moved to.
That has nothing to do with different ideology but people who are stupid enough to not see that they are doing the same shit that forced them to move to another state all over again.

There was an article about this about some hippie woman from San Francisco that kept on voting for tax increases to pay for "good" programs that she literally made her community too expensive to live in and she had to move. And then she claims it's gentrification.

>That has nothing to do with different ideology but people who are stupid
They voted that way because of an ideology so it has everything to do with ideology.

Marx didn't think ahead, which is why Bakunin ridiculed him a lot.

>run away from the ideology that impoverished them
>vote in people who has the ideology that will impoverish them again in the future
That's not ideology. That's just tribalistic voting patterns.

Bakunin ridiculed Marx because he thought way too far ahead without thinking of how it will get to his end goal.

Sounds like North England, where people will vote for anyone but Conservatives because their parents voted that way.

>because their parents voted that way.
That seems like a simplistic and biased opinion.

>be me
>vote on my own taxes since I'm18
>have approved and declined both tax raises and reductions on at least a dozen instance
>have voted at least a dozen times on tax issues, if you include social insurances then its two dozen times.
>I have "won" more often then the Swiss government

I know my vote doesn't count for much and my country is not magically better because I vote, but I appreciate it that I have been asked and we had a proper discussion and vote about the things that concerns me and the society I live in.
We have no world wars, tons of money and good chocolate, so I must assume democracy works.

Russia is corrupt as fuck, and the various "republics", oblasts, krais, etc. rely heavily on a patronage system.

Swiss are pretty multi-lingual. Only very rural isolated farmer types speak ONE language only. Not everyone may be highly fluent in all 3 (Romansch, lol) languages, but they can carry on fairly well.

>source: I have a dozen Swiss relatives, they all speak German and either French or Italian, depending on their spouses. Plus English for most of them, since they're execs and professionals and shit.

And most don't really identify with the canton that much, but granted they are urbanites.

....ok?

>Californians.
Eat my ass redneck, we're awesome.

Wasn't heavy water important?

Maybe it has something to do with the fact Tories don't give a single shit about 99% of Northerners? Why WOULD they vote for a party keen to destroy them?

...

You fkn faggots Switzerland is rich because the european billionaires early decided to have a neutral country as a bank. Then the swiss were smart and applied that money wisely (on industry and technology) and called on even more money (and dirtier)

Using it as an example for some kind government structure example is moot.

Sort of, but more like a minor bonus. Despite thrillers that posit the contrary, nuclear research was not that developed yet in Nazi Germany that they desperately needed heavy water.

He wasn't?

I can't read Portuguese user