are countries like the united states and canada simply too big to administrate properly? i previously suggested that america's stagnation is causally linked to the rate at which it expanded westward, that it tried to absorb too much wilderness too fast and was ultimately overcome by it. but, what would a more successful rate have been?

well, the geographic middle of the country is still largely closed to civilization. in order for america to have walked down a path that could have avoided collapse, it would probably still have unorganized territories, right now.

if quebec succeeds in annexing new france, that is going to split the united states down the middle, but it might be better off that way.

canada expanded quickly as well, but it created much larger administrative divisions, which allows for more truly regional control. i don't know if the size of the provinces was explicitly constructed as a reaction to madisonian democracy the way that the division of powers was in canada, but it's the same kind of difference: madison's evil plan all along was to create small administrative divisions to prevent regional co-operation, in order to prevent the spread of political ideas that would help the working classes. what america ought to be doing is reorganizing itself in regional divisions that allow for more co-operation between neighbouring states. the country is too big for federal administration, but the administrative divisions are too small for effective oversight, as well. so, this might be best accomplished at this stage by a new level of government that splits the country into 5 or 6 divisions, and three rough categories: urban, rural and mixed. allowing the eastern seaboard to regain some concept of local sovereignty, and setting up the infrastructure to allow for something similar on the west coast, might help america recapture that sense of progress that it lost in the 50s, even as it strands the geographic middle of the country. but, future expansion out of the megalopolises will simply need to occur at a sustainable rate.

would an independent quebec have designs on new france? well, it's not so crazy to think that this society could produce a napoleon.

if it's going to claim quebec on some claim of ethnic identity to the land, why not claim new france? detroit. st louis. new orleans. these are all of french heritage, are they not?

one wonders how much separatist sentiment already exists in new france. nobody talks openly about it in detroit. but, i have reason to think it's there, if you could just scratch the surface. they all know, deep down, that they would join the movement to unite quebec with new france.

but, it is the region that i think the united states needs to be most concerned about actual revolt in. they just might be more interested in joining canada than joining quebec.

still. i would advise all american intelligence agencies to be on the look out for quebcois intelligence agents, trying to sow separatist fervour in new france. it's an inevitability.

you're welcome for the tip.

you know, canada is pretty geologically stable in most places.

i suppose the difficulties in maintaining permanent settlements in canada were always related to the climate; at most historical levels of human development, the cold here would have required migration. the romans couldn't have built cities here. if the germans lived here, they would have fled to mexico. even the norse could only really live on the coast. if the remnants of roman civilization had found america two hundred years sooner, it wouldn't have been able to colonize it. that is the answer as to why the indigenous people did not build cities here: the terrain is uninhabitable for a quarter of the year.

it's really only with the development of technology that inhabited cities in this region of the globe is a real possibility. but, now that this technology is real, i think these cities have a potentially very long life span, given that they're built in such a geologically stable area. large proportions of america's most populated regions are about to be swallowed by the sea, one way or another. but, canada is built on solid rock - the shield - and protected by glacial lakes.

it's funny how what's left of america may end up being basically new france. vive le quebec libre!