End of the Nation-State?

[TNAR]

It is my belief that the concept of a political nation-state is archaic and restrictive. As I look at the various movements throughout the world I cannot help but see a correlation between a push for more individual freedoms at the detriment of the modern nation-state. In my opinion, sometime within our lifetime we will witness a stateless society in at least a portion of the globe.

Does anyone else share this perception? What do you think will be the catalyst which pushes people over the edge?

 

[Wiggen]

It is my belief that the concept of a political nation-state is archaic and restrictive. As I look at the various movements throughout the world I cannot help but see a correlation between a push for more individual freedoms at the detriment of the modern nation-state. In my opinion, sometime within our lifetime we will witness a stateless society in at least a portion of the globe.

Does anyone else share this perception? What do you think will be the catalyst which pushes people over the edge?

We already have one. It's called Somalia. And it appears to be the rip-roaring success we all thought it would be.

 

[TNAR]

We already have one. It's called Somalia. And it appears to be the rip-roaring success we all thought it would be.

I hardly consider a chaotic region with a long history of violence an example of every scenario possible under anarchy. By your sophomoric logic I should be able to use the USSR as an example of every Communist nation, Nazi Germany as an example of every Fascist nation, and Mexico as an example of every Federalist nation.

A free people who have long enjoyed the benefits of social cooperation will not change their philosophies overnight simply because a central government no longer threatens to throw them in prison.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Because the European Union appears to be working sooo well.

 

[TNAR]

Because the European Union appears to be working sooo well.

The primary purpose of every government on the face of the earth is to keep itself in power. How this can be construed to be "good for the people" is beyond me.

Consider: How many people within your own neighborhood do you like? How many are you friends with? How many do you dislike? If one of them was accused of some particular crime would you defend them based on their character? How many people even know everyone in their neighborhood? Now expand this to your town/city and ask yourself the same questions. Then expand it to the county. Then the state. You get the idea.

Advanced society depends on social cooperation. As such, we all depend upon one another and get to choose who we associate with. Nationalism is simply ignorant pride based on an arbitrary classification. Every single one of us has "enemies" within our own neighborhood and yet we are supposed to believe that "Americans" or "Canadians" or "Germans" (or wherever you hail from) are better than those individuals who happened to be born in another geographic location on the earth. Rather than base our relationships on meaningful metrics we personally value, we are brainwashed into believing that random people living thousands of miles away whom we have never met and know nothing about are "better" than other random people living thousands of miles away whom we have never met and know nothing about but live within a different political boundary.

Talk about the biggest sham on the face of the earth.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

I hardly consider a chaotic region with a long history of violence an example of every scenario possible under anarchy. By your sophomoric logic I should be able to use the USSR as an example of every Communist nation, Nazi Germany as an example of every Fascist nation, and Mexico as an example of every Federalist nation.

A free people who have long enjoyed the benefits of social cooperation will not change their philosophies overnight simply because a central government no longer threatens to throw them in prison.

Problem is, fascist, communist, and federalist states existed before and in many numbers. Anarchic states (?), not so

 

[TNAR]

Problem is, fascist, communist, and federalist states existed before and in many numbers. Anarchic states (?), not so

I'm not sure what you are driving at. It used to be scientific fact that the earth was flat. We used to know that earth was the center of the universe. It was well-known that man would never be able to fly. It was established that Kings were God's representatives on earth. The pope speaks for God. Legalizing drugs would create mass drug addiction and crime. Money could be easily manipulated without consequence. None of these are true even though at one point in our history we believed them to be so.

Why do we need government? What is only possible through government (which is beneficial to everyone)?

 

[gunner]

It is my belief that the concept of a political nation-state is archaic and restrictive. As I look at the various movements throughout the world I cannot help but see a correlation between a push for more individual freedoms at the detriment of the modern nation-state. In my opinion, sometime within our lifetime we will witness a stateless society in at least a portion of the globe.

Does anyone else share this perception? What do you think will be the catalyst which pushes people over the edge?

I follow the Hobbesian social contract theory that the nation state was created because of brutality within a 'state of nature'.

"Hobbes wrote that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"

State of nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So in answer to your question, I do not feel the end is nigh for the state

Paul

 

[JusticeForSome?]

It is my belief that the concept of a political nation-state is archaic and restrictive. As I look at the various movements throughout the world I cannot help but see a correlation between a push for more individual freedoms at the detriment of the modern nation-state. In my opinion, sometime within our lifetime we will witness a stateless society in at least a portion of the globe.

Does anyone else share this perception? What do you think will be the catalyst which pushes people over the edge?

I don't think that social anarchy is really reasonable or realistic. However, I think that as modern society progresses, political reform towards a more socialist attitude is essentially inevitable. The pursuit of personal freedoms is evermore prevalent. I think one more reasonable outcome is direct democracy, as evident in Switzerland; where the nation is by no means stateless but where the public have a huge say in the politics of the state, as evidenced by their referendums.

 

[samsmart]

It is my belief that the concept of a political nation-state is archaic and restrictive. As I look at the various movements throughout the world I cannot help but see a correlation between a push for more individual freedoms at the detriment of the modern nation-state. In my opinion, sometime within our lifetime we will witness a stateless society in at least a portion of the globe.

Does anyone else share this perception? What do you think will be the catalyst which pushes people over the edge?

There will always be nation-states because geographical territory must be administrated somehow.

Nation-states may change, and our concept of government may change, but the idea of nation-states will always be around.

 

[samsmart]

I don't think that social anarchy is really reasonable or realistic. However, I think that as modern society progresses, political reform towards a more socialist attitude is essentially inevitable. The pursuit of personal freedoms is evermore prevalent. I think one more reasonable outcome is direct democracy, as evident in Switzerland; where the nation is by no means stateless but where the public have a huge say in the politics of the state, as evidenced by their referendums.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were brilliant in that they developed an adequate set of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Where they were deficient was in that they failed to provide an adequate set of checks and balances between representative democracy and direct democracy.

 

[samsmart]

Problem is, fascist, communist, and federalist states existed before and in many numbers. Anarchic states (?), not so

Well, that may be true, but fascist and communist states have fallen as well.

 

[Slartibartfast]

It is my belief that the concept of a political nation-state is archaic and restrictive. As I look at the various movements throughout the world I cannot help but see a correlation between a push for more individual freedoms at the detriment of the modern nation-state. In my opinion, sometime within our lifetime we will witness a stateless society in at least a portion of the globe.

Does anyone else share this perception? What do you think will be the catalyst which pushes people over the edge?

Any society needs its institutions to support itself. How would those still exist without a state?

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Any society needs its institutions to support itself. How would those still exist without a state?

Well, you could privatize them. (I'm not saying it's going to work, but it is an option).

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well, you could privatize them. (I'm not saying it's going to work, but it is an option).

Well, I was looking for serious answers, but you are right, it is an option.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Well, I was looking for serious answers, but you are right, it is an option.

How is that not a serious answer?

 

[Slartibartfast]

How is that not a serious answer?

Many institutions and pieces of infrastructure tend to form a natural monopoly, which will end up being devastating for those who don't wish to be milked and basically taxed, but without representation.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were brilliant in that they developed an adequate set of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Where they were deficient was in that they failed to provide an adequate set of checks and balances between representative democracy and direct democracy.

The US was never meant to be that, rather it was meant to be an empire from the beginning (Uncommon Knowledge: COMMANDING HEIGHTS: American Empire | Hoover Institution) George Washington himself said that the US was a "nascent empire."

 

[Wiggen]

I hardly consider a chaotic region with a long history of violence an example of every scenario possible under anarchy. By your sophomoric logic I should be able to use the USSR as an example of every Communist nation, Nazi Germany as an example of every Fascist nation, and Mexico as an example of every Federalist nation.

A free people who have long enjoyed the benefits of social cooperation will not change their philosophies overnight simply because a central government no longer threatens to throw them in prison.

You're the guy with the 'lets not have nation states' lunacy and asking when we'd have our first example. I gave you one, which you didn't like. Really dumb idea.

 

[ChuckBerry]

The pope speaks for God.

No he doesn't, and he never did. If you want to discuss what "infallibility" means, please start a topic in Religion.

 

[TNAR]

However, I think that as modern society progresses, political reform towards a more socialist attitude is essentially inevitable. The pursuit of personal freedoms is evermore prevalent.

These are contradicting statements. If the pursuit of personal freedom is an increasing phenomena in society then there would necessarily be a decrease in socialist attitudes. Socialist society must forfeit much in the way of individual liberties.

I think one more reasonable outcome is direct democracy ... where the nation is by no means stateless but where the public have a huge say in the politics of the state...

This is a reasonable assertion. However, I will point out that Switzerland is half the size of South Carolina and only slightly larger than Maryland. It may also be a reasonable assumption that enormous central governments will go the way of the Dodo to be replaced by more localized governments.

There will always be nation-states because geographical territory must be administrated somehow.

Why? My property does not have its own government. I don't need a government to ensure I trade fairly with those whom I engage in contract. What can a central government do which cannot be done privately or locally?

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were brilliant in that they developed an adequate set of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

I'm not so sure I would call them brilliant (though they did make an exemplary effort) since their designs failed to achieve the desired results.

Any society needs its institutions to support itself. How would those still exist without a state?

What sort of institutions? Private police forces already exist and are very efficient. Private defense is perhaps questionable depending on the sort of war one desires to engage in. However, America's disastrous campaigns in the Middle East are quite telling about the effectiveness of small covert defense forces. Law is already handled privately in international trade and can be easily adapted to localized trade. Criminal law would be a bit of a tricky issue but by no means unsolvable.

What am I missing?

Many institutions and pieces of infrastructure tend to form a natural monopoly, which will end up being devastating for those who don't wish to be milked and basically taxed, but without representation.

Monopolies are impossible without state assistance so this would be a non-issue.

You're the guy with the 'lets not have nation states' lunacy and asking when we'd have our first example. I gave you one, which you didn't like. Really dumb idea.

You gave me one example which you used as a model of the only possible outcome. This is neither scientific nor honest. We can certainly examine in which ways it has succeeded and in which ways it has failed and apply these outcomes to potential effects of other nations eliminating their governments. However, claiming that this is the only example of an anarchic society is plain ignorance.

No he doesn't, and he never did.

Depends on your religion.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Well, that may be true, but fascist and communist states have fallen as well.

I wasn't defending fascism or communism. I was pointing out how his position of holding only one communist and one fascist country as examples of the whole history of fascism and communism is wrong, but how our statement of holding Somalia as the best representation of anarchy is valid, given that there were/is no other form of anarchy anywhere else

 

[TNAR]

I was pointing out how his position of holding only one communist and one fascist country as examples of the whole history of fascism and communism is wrong, but how our statement of holding Somalia as the best representation of anarchy is valid, given that there were/is no other form of anarchy anywhere else

By this logic we should be able to point to the first example of any political system as the blueprint of how each and every following examples will exist. Russia would be a representation of every later communist nation. Italy would be a representation of every later fascist nation. Qustul would be a representation of every later monarchy. Et cetera.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

By this logic we should be able to point to the first example of any political system as the blueprint of how each and every following examples will exist. Russia would be a representation of every later communist nation. Italy would be a representation of every later fascist nation. Qustul would be a representation of every later monarchy. Et cetera.

It's the first, and the only agreeable example of anarchy we had for centuries.

 

[Oberon]

This whole 'Globalism' fad is merely a propaganda campaign by multi-national corps. The last era wherein the pseudo-intellectual 'Internationalist' fad became the dominant mantra of the financial elites the end result was international loansharking on a colossal scale that kept most of Central and South America on the verge of bankruptcy right up to the current decades, via Teddy Roosevelt, and played a major role in starting WW I and WW I PartTwo. The multi-nationals dearly love the idea that they can operate with impunity anywhere on the planet, while paying no taxes, setting up slave labor colonies at will, and of course pay no taxes to anyone, and hiding out under flags of convenience top avoid the consequences, much as they hide under the US flag today.

Sorry, no sale on the latest BS from Wall Street, or more accurately, Greenwich, Conn. and the associated fever swamps.