01 Sep 09
2 edits
Really. Look at some of the most prosperous countries in the world, subtract the "exploitation of
weaker nations"-fact and look at the difference. You have people from all over the world, from a
multitude of religious convictions and cultural origins, living and working together under the same
flag. What's the point in trying to set ourselves apart from other countries, when clearly we can live
together regardless of who we are or where we originated?
Isn't it about time we recognise that nation equal zero in geographical division? Input error!
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo is everything starting from the time we left the jungle.
There is no point, it's a historical artifact.
Nationhood is a product of democratic states wanting to be sovereign. It's one way to justify having a division between domestic citizens with a right to vote and foreigners who do not.
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by JigtieHow would you suggest that sovereignty and lawmaking authority be allocated?
Really. Look at some of the most prosperous countries in the world, subtract the "exploitation of
weaker nations"-fact and look at the difference. You have people from all over the world, from a
multitude of religious convictions and cultural origins, living and working together under the same
flag. What's the point in trying to set ourselves apart from ...[text shortened]... n't it about time we recognise that nation equal zero in geographical division? Input error!
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by JigtieThey allow for different sets of laws for different people, and for groups to be protected from other aggressive groups. For example, Israel couldn't just meld in with the Arab world. Canada and the US, as similar and friendly as we are, do have different approaches to the political system, etc.
Really. Look at some of the most prosperous countries in the world, subtract the "exploitation of
weaker nations"-fact and look at the difference. You have people from all over the world, from a
multitude of religious convictions and cultural origins, living and working together under the same
flag. What's the point in trying to set ourselves apart from ...[text shortened]... n't it about time we recognise that nation equal zero in geographical division? Input error!
01 Sep 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNations are not necessarily required for that. You can conceive of a system where people are free to move and choose their preferred set of laws, where the concept of nationhood is not required for that, only preferences. Nationhood is required to close borders. This can be motivated by fear that the above system is utopian or simply by a need/want to exclude people from having the rights you have. But it remains, nationhood is just required for excluding people from being citizens, by labelling them as foreigners.
They allow for different sets of laws for different people, and for groups to be protected from other aggressive groups. For example, Israel couldn't just meld in with the Arab world. Canada and the US, as similar and friendly as we are, do have different approaches to the political system, etc.
01 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI believe nations are the natural result in a world without nations. In a nationless world, some tough guy will put together an army and take over territory and refuse to allow others in. Then what do the nationless do? Will there be a world military, or world police? Then the tough guy will work through the system and take over the world military, with no one to stop him.
Nations are not necessarily required for that. You can conceive of a system where people are free to move and choose their preferred set of laws, where the concept of nationhood is not required for that, only preferences. Nationhood is required to close borders. This can be motivated by fear that the above system is utopian or simply by a need/want to exclud ...[text shortened]... hood is just required for excluding people from being citizens, by labelling them as foreigners.
I think your system is indeed unrealistically utopian. It does not allow for the power of organized violence in the hands of people like Hussein.
01 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI've always wanted to ask an economist: do you know of any relevant scholar trying to theorize the nation state as a good and its boundaries as artificial scarcity?
Nations are not necessarily required for that. You can conceive of a system where people are free to move and choose their preferred set of laws, where the concept of nationhood is not required for that, only preferences. Nationhood is required to close borders. This can be motivated by fear that the above system is utopian or simply by a need/want to exclud ...[text shortened]... hood is just required for excluding people from being citizens, by labelling them as foreigners.