I've seen quite a few posts like this that make it sound like running a country can be bought for the price of land. I'm curious (as I really don't know), how many new countries have been created that didn't happen because of war, bloodshed or some other violent conflict?
It seems like this is almost a requirement any time a new country is created as people & especially governments are very likely to sell you land, but not sell you control.
I imagine these kind of articles/blogs being written by people somewhat removed from the fact we live in a physical world.
Land/property is only in one's possession for as long as an opportunist is deterred from seizing it from you. The author should take a good look at eastern Europe to see how "new countries" are a bad idea.
The whole thing is largely irrelevant for another reason though: the continuing emergence of the market state. Corporations increasingly do not give a single hoot about borders, and they're gaining more and more power by the minute; mercenaries already exist en masse in the U.S. and are taken for granted in even less stable countries.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were liberated from outright annexation to the Soviet Union, though that was not recognized by the US and other countries. The Czech Republic and Slovakia parted amicably. Do you think a Republic of Texas would cause a war?
It seems like this is almost a requirement any time a new country is created as people & especially governments are very likely to sell you land, but not sell you control.