What's the point with nations?

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!

There is no point, it's a historical artifact.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is no point, it's a historical artifact.

So is everything starting from the time we left the jungle.

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.

As all juridical fictions do, it shall evolve as society does.

Just don't wait standing.

Originally posted by Jigtie
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!

How would you suggest that sovereignty and lawmaking authority be allocated?

Originally posted by Jigtie
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!

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.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
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.

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 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.

Originally posted by Palynka
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 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.

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.

Originally posted by Palynka
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'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?

Originally posted by Seitse
I'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?

Not that I know of. However, that type of research is not my bag at all (it bores me to tears).

Originally posted by Palynka
Not that I know of. However, that type of research is not my bag at all (it bores me to tears).

You micro?

Originally posted by Seitse
You micro?

Macro. You know, the real economy. 😛

Originally posted by Palynka
Macro. You know, the real economy. 😛

And that's where your kind should stay. I'm still pissed off for the theory of the firm.

😉

Originally posted by sh76
How would you suggest that sovereignty and lawmaking authority be allocated?

How are they allocated within a nation?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It does not allow for the power of organized violence in the hands of people like Hussein.

Ever heard of Hell's Angels, the mafia, somalian pirates, Al Qa'ida?..