When we're done with nation-states...

[bankside]

Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the world has been increasingly divided into and defined by nation-states.

It was then that the idea of countries with fixed borders, recognised rulers, and defined citizenship took root.

Before that, you might live near a village not far from a city and a Lord might come through from time to time and demand allegiance and tribute. His loyalty to one crown or another was a separate question.

After that, you might live 5 miles from the border of the Kingdom of Ruritania, and that made you a Ruritanian until the end.

Since then, we've had that system of defined borders, rulers, and citizens. There are some variations on it: the multinational state (Canada, UK, Swizerland), the stateless nation (the Kurds), the federal state (Australia, USA, Canada) but it is all variations on the same structure.

The thing is, it has only been with us for a few centuries. Who can say if it will last?

Do you think the future holds more of the same? Will countries break apart into city-states? Will the UN be replaced by a global government? Regional empires? Or something previously unimagined?

 

[EastMed]

The popularity of the nation state remains strong - witness the recent efforts of Catalunya, Scotland, Palestine, etc.
Though it is under pressure from global capitalism.

 

[JayHawk]

I don't think it will last. However it will be the earth that shakes it apart. Nations and defined lines are the ultimate expression of dominion over and area and the people contained within and even some of the waters and resources attached.

I think that we will come across something that changes mankind and how we live despite all the conspiracy theories about a new world order and survivalist ideas about the earth ending. It could be that whomever adapts more readily to the changing height of the seas will assume power and control the wealth. It could be that a massive EMP from the sun eliminates modern electrical and electronic dependence and immediately we are all living in the 1700s. That would eventually result in villages or city states. But not until a vast majority of mankind has been killed or died from being too inept to care for oneself. Hell yellow stone could blow up and blanket the earth in ash for fifty or more years.

Those things I believe will happen eventually. What will happen I don't know but something will change the course. In the meantime we will progress towards more and more unity and away from a nation state eventually becoming one world that delves into space and beyond. The ultimate outcome really depends on when the period changing event occurs on earth.

 

[JayHawk]

The popularity of the nation state remains strong - witness the recent efforts of Catalunya, Scotland, Palestine, etc.
Though it is under pressure from global capitalism.

So you think it would be possible to become a corporate state where lines don't matter just profit?

 

[Kulindahr]

So you think it would be possible to become a corporate state where lines don't matter just profit?

Profit and corporate loyalty -- yes. Sci-fi novels by credible authors explored that in the fifties. Nobel laureate Friedman described some ways in which it could work.

The dark side is that anyone not under the employ/cover of a corporation would be literally an outlaw, outside the law with no one to turn to for protection.

 

[Kulindahr]

Large nation states at the least are doomed as decisions needed to guide them become more complex. The job of president of the US became too complex for any one man to handle a few decades ago; the job of Congress for legislating is bordering on too complex now. Something has to take their place, but I'm not sure what will except that it will involve shared leadership and accountability.

We have a place in the world where a non-geographical state concept could be tried: Israel/Palestine. Leaders should be contemplating how to allow two states to exist in geographically overlapping regions.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Most nation states are lousy and corrupt, but multinational companies depend on nation states to provide a place for them to exist and are even more flakey with their employees than states are with their citizens.

 

[Telstra]

too hard,
i need simple questions ..

 

[desertboi]

I personally think that nation-states will last to some extent simply because countries like the United States, Germany, Russia, Israel, the UK, China, Japan, Australia, and so on won't want to give up their sovereignty. I think in "third-world countries" you will see the breakdown of states, but in so-called "first world" countries I don't see it happening. I could be wrong, it's just my opinion.

 

[rareboy]

It is such an interesting question because it is all rooted in tribalism.

The US being a nation quite literally made up of states reflects a grand experiment in rethinking the role of and meaning of individual states within a larger federation. Oddly enough though, the states' insistence on having jurisdiction over certain things (like marriage) and their right to leave the federation begs the question as to the future of the collective.

In Canada, the future of Quebec and the desire by many Quebecois to be their own nation state demonstrates that even in the modern world, language and perceived cultural differences can still be a potent motivation for a region to withdraw from neighbours.

Even in Europe, where the nation states have been trying to collectivize in order to be a credible force in the modern economic world...we see continuing resistance by many people to the idea of their country being partnered, even voluntarily, with old foes or people they do not believe have the same cultural values.

Eventually, as the entire global population shifts and most countries become more muti-ethnic and multi-cultural, we may see some kind of 'one world' movement that allows and even supports autonomy for states, but moves beyond border conflicts.

Or as Jayhawk points out...we could all be fighting the folks in the next village over food again.

 

[bankside]

Large nation states at the least are doomed as decisions needed to guide them become more complex.

Aren't you saying we're all doomed then? The decisions required are complex at any level.

We have a place in the world where a non-geographical state concept could be tried: Israel/Palestine. Leaders should be contemplating how to allow two states to exist in geographically overlapping regions.

What would that look like?

 

[Kulindahr]

Aren't you saying we're all doomed then? The decisions required are complex at any level.

No -- we just need a different way to go at things. Having one central authority over a large area won't work, though having one coordinating agency can. It's like building skyscrapers: no one man can grasp everything that needs to be done, any longer, so the head honcho serves not to command, but to make sure the guys in charge of the various sections are talking to each other so they work together and don't get in each other's way.

The "one authority for all" failing can be illustrated by the protection of wetlands: there's one nation-wide definition of "wetland", despite the fact that what actually composes a wetland varies from place to place. In some areas, a spot that holds standing water two weeks out of the year may constitute a wetland, while in others it would be one that holds standing water consistently except in the dray season. Defining a wetland, then, should not be in the hands of a central authority -- nor should numerous other such decisions.

What would that look like?

People have citizenship with the "country" they choose. Their taxes go to that country.

Though first there's an adjustment to a rational basis for private property instead of the "might makes right" rule of conquest we're founded on at the moment: property must be defined as belonging to all, so that "rent" of the property (what we now call "property tax" is done by an agency not beholden to any government, which agency collects the rent and then sends out an equal dividend to every adult (old enough to work) person. Then municipalities would receive money from the fund corresponding to the number of residents, instead of levying direct taxes, and so would not be beholden to any country/government, only to their citizens.

Then a single city could be capital of more than one country, because being a country would no longer be about where you were born and thus into what social system you've been locked, or about owning land within certain boundaries, but of freely-given allegiance.

A side benefit would be that war against one's neighbors would become far closer to impossible, since they might quite literally be the neighbors of those expected to fight.

 

[bankside]

No -- we just need a different way to go at things. Having one central authority over a large area won't work, though having one coordinating agency can. It's like building skyscrapers: no one man can grasp everything that needs to be done, any longer, so the head honcho serves not to command, but to make sure the guys in charge of the various sections are talking to each other so they work together and don't get in each other's way.

On one hand I am reminded of an anecdote from the fall of communism. Seeking to embrace western capitalism, a newly ex-Soviet bureaucrat was in contact with a British economist and asked to be put in touch with the person in charge of London's bread supply to see what he could learn. I find the anecdote somewhat dubious; I'm sure communists would have read about the Invisible Hand even if they rejected it.

The "one authority for all" failing can be illustrated by the protection of wetlands: there's one nation-wide definition of "wetland", despite the fact that what actually composes a wetland varies from place to place. In some areas, a spot that holds standing water two weeks out of the year may constitute a wetland, while in others it would be one that holds standing water consistently except in the dray season. Defining a wetland, then, should not be in the hands of a central authority -- nor should numerous other such decisions.

On the other hand I think that the central authority should just be using better definitions of wetlands.

And if you had 15 876 local wetlands authorities, we'd be here complaining that none of them are very well run, they're all a bunch of little empires, with people reinventing the wheel from one place to another, that they don't really learn from each other, and the priority and value placed on getting the job done varies wildly.

People have citizenship with the "country" they choose. Their taxes go to that country.

Though first there's an adjustment to a rational basis for private property instead of the "might makes right" rule of conquest we're founded on at the moment: property must be defined as belonging to all, so that "rent" of the property (what we now call "property tax" is done by an agency not beholden to any government, which agency collects the rent and then sends out an equal dividend to every adult (old enough to work) person. Then municipalities would receive money from the fund corresponding to the number of residents, instead of levying direct taxes, and so would not be beholden to any country/government, only to their citizens.

Then a single city could be capital of more than one country, because being a country would no longer be about where you were born and thus into what social system you've been locked, or about owning land within certain boundaries, but of freely-given allegiance.

A side benefit would be that war against one's neighbors would become far closer to impossible, since they might quite literally be the neighbors of those expected to fight.

What should the agency be beholden to then?

(Isn't that just another way of saying the agency should not permit corruption?)

(and then doesn't it follow that we could skip the agency and just not elect corrupt governments?)

 

[Kulindahr]

On one hand I am reminded of an anecdote from the fall of communism. Seeking to embrace western capitalism, a newly ex-Soviet bureaucrat was in contact with a British economist and asked to be put in touch with the person in charge of London's bread supply to see what he could learn. I find the anecdote somewhat dubious; I'm sure communists would have read about the Invisible Hand even if they rejected it.



On the other hand I think that the central authority should just be using better definitions of wetlands.

And if you had 15 876 local wetlands authorities, we'd be here complaining that none of them are very well run, they're all a bunch of little empires, with people reinventing the wheel from one place to another, that they don't really learn from each other, and the priority and value placed on getting the job done varies wildly.

But there is no one definition of "wetland" -- it can't be done. Scientifically, a wetland authority should cover one bioregion; for example, almost the entire Oregon coast would be one region, while the Willamette Valley would be another. Most states woulnd't end up with more than a half dozen wetlands authorities -- and in fact they should ignore state lines.

What should the agency be beholden to then?

(Isn't that just another way of saying the agency should not permit corruption?)

(and then doesn't it follow that we could skip the agency and just not elect corrupt governments?)

The agency should be beholden to its shareholders, i.e. all the adults in its region, regardless of political boundaries or affiliations. Governments would have to pay their land rent just like anyone else, paying into the fund from which dividends would come.

And no, it isn't just a way to say the agency should avoid corruption, it's a way of saying that government cannot be trusted with such a job, nor should politics be allowed to interfere. The moment government is involved, there's inherently corruption for the mere reason that politicians want to be reelected and like to favor their supporters/constituents with goodies. Governments, on the other hand, which receive funds from the agency, would be accountable to the agency.

 

[bankside]

But there is no one definition of "wetland" -- it can't be done. Scientifically, a wetland authority should cover one bioregion; for example, almost the entire Oregon coast would be one region, while the Willamette Valley would be another. Most states woulnd't end up with more than a half dozen wetlands authorities -- and in fact they should ignore state lines.

No; scientifically, a relevant definition of "wetland" should be applied to each piece of land in question. A single wetland regulator applying the relevant definition to each of the bioregions in its remit would be doing its job.

The agency should be beholden to its shareholders, i.e. all the adults in its region, regardless of political boundaries or affiliations. Governments would have to pay their land rent just like anyone else, paying into the fund from which dividends would come.

And no, it isn't just a way to say the agency should avoid corruption, it's a way of saying that government cannot be trusted with such a job, nor should politics be allowed to interfere. The moment government is involved, there's inherently corruption for the mere reason that politicians want to be reelected and like to favor their supporters/constituents with goodies. Governments, on the other hand, which receive funds from the agency, would be accountable to the agency.

My point is exactly that: if a government can't be trusted, why would your agency be any different? And why exactly do I want my government to be beholden to some agency somewhere? It's one thing to allow professional lobbyists to try to influence our elected leaders on one special interest or another, but your system would require the politicians to lobby the special interests to obtain their approval.

 

[Kulindahr]

No; scientifically, a relevant definition of "wetland" should be applied to each piece of land in question. A single wetland regulator applying the relevant definition to each of the bioregions in its remit would be doing its job.

The government bureaucrat capable of understanding a scientific definition of "wetland" that applies to all situations does not exist, and the scientists who are capable have far more important things to do.

My point is exactly that: if a government can't be trusted, why would your agency be any different? And why exactly do I want my government to be beholden to some agency somewhere? It's one thing to allow professional lobbyists to try to influence our elected leaders on one special interest or another, but your system would require the politicians to lobby the special interests to obtain their approval.

What "special interest"?

And there would be no "lobbying"; local government receiving funds from the agency could file a request for an increase, or the agency could investigate to see if the custodianship of those funds was fair and just, and that would be it. If the municipal government wanted more revenue, it could try other means, i.e. local taxes of various sorts.

 

[cgymike]

The nation state is just a glorified Ponzi scheme.....

 

[Kulindahr]

The nation state is just a glorified Ponzi scheme.....

Maybe in a way. I'd say the nation state is a relic of a system based on believing that men can own anything they can have power over.