[Klaustrophobia]

formalized nation-states, yes.  but "nations", no.  people have ALWAYS grouped together in similar cultures and ideals.  back to the dawn of civilization.  people WANT to identify with others like them.  they don't want to be subject to cultures/ideals/governances that aren't their own.  how many revolutions and independence movements have we seen to prove this?  uniting the world under one banner just won't work, and in my opinion trying is unwise.  it is the right of people to form nations, and it is the right of nations to defend themselves and act in their own interest. 

[IronBeer]

The nation state as it exists today is an incredibly recent construct. I doubt it will remain unchanged for the rest of human history.

Could some cracks in the concept of the nation-state already be starting to form? The Internet, and improved communications in general, are making the world a much smaller place, and (as we are presently discussing) secrecy is considerably harder for governments to maintain.

To the topic at hand: do I like seeing transparency in government? Yes. Do I like what WikiLeaks is doing? I honestly can't come up with a yes/no answer at this time. Assange most likely is being crucified unfairly by world governments, but are we really surprised at that? It's all fun and games when it's US secrets being exposed, but get several major world governments involved, then we have a problem.

[Herra Tohtori]

formalized nation-states, yes.  but "nations", no.  people have ALWAYS grouped together in similar cultures and ideals.  back to the dawn of civilization.  people WANT to identify with others like them.  they don't want to be subject to cultures/ideals/governances that aren't their own.  how many revolutions and independence movements have we seen to prove this?  uniting the world under one banner just won't work, and in my opinion trying is unwise.  it is the right of people to form nations, and it is the right of nations to defend themselves and act in their own interest. 

You do realize that when it became advantageous to city-states to unite, they felt necessary to form an ideology that would unite the people within the newly-created borders into one nation?

The concept of "nations" did not exist before the emergence of national states. Nationalism, nations and national states developed side-by-side.

It is true that nationalism takes advantage of the human need to belong to a group, which is older than humanity itself, but the fact that humans are social animals doesn't translate to nations having existed forever. You should note that "nation" is not synonymous to "people" or "ethnic group".

You argue that people could never be united under a single world government, citing the numerous revolutions and independence movements.

Yet, with the exact same argument I could say that any national state whose population consists of more than one ethnic, religious or language group could never work, because each group would want autonomy or sovereignty.

However, they can and do work. Why? Because different ethnic, religious or language groups can identify as members of same nation, even though they don't have all that much in common except their place of living.

There is no reason why this could not be expanded into people identifying themselves as members of humanity, citizens of Earth.

The only problem is getting them to do so. It wouldn't be any less arbitrary as people identifying as members of this and that nationality.

[redsniper]

uniting the world under one banner just won't work

Now that's just quitter talk.

[Topgun]

Uniting the world under one banner isn't the solution. Creating separate city states is.

[Turambar]

Uniting the world under one banner isn't the solution. Creating separate city states is.

How's a city state supposed to mobilize the resources to get into space?

[redsniper]

It would take more than ten years to start making obscene profits from space exploration, so it clearly is not worth ever pursuing by anyone ever.

[Herra Tohtori]

Uniting the world under one banner isn't the solution. Creating separate city states is.

The problem with that is that it would only promote more competition between the city states, which wouldn't solve the problem of wasting resources into fundamentally un-necessary things.

Also, what Turambar said.

However, I must agree that within the world government, semi-autonomous city states or megalopolis-like provinces might not be a bad solution of governance.


Sadly, I don't see true unification being in the interests of world leading nations in quite a while - all the petty squabbles and waste of resources are, after all, profitable to certain lobbyist groups.

Ironically, I suspect the best thing that could happen to Earth would be an external threat of alien invasion. Anyone got the phone number for Vasudans?

[Topgun]

I hold my belief that a self sustained city-states under common laws but not common leaders is the way to go.

Those common laws of course are natural law, as Lock put it. Do not harm others or their property.

[Herra Tohtori]

I hold my belief that a self sustained city-states under common laws but not common leaders is the way to go.

And who will set the common law if not common leaders?

Or do you propose that legislative branch of power would be common to all, while executive and judicial branches of power would take care of day-to-day management and justice?

EDIT: The problem with self-sustained is that not every area has same amounts of resources.

[Topgun]

Basically yes.

[karajorma]

Ironically, I suspect the best thing that could happen to Earth would be an external threat of alien invasion.

Or failing that, a fabricated one.

I've always held that if I were a wealth billionaire the greatest legacy I could ever give humanity would be to trick them into thinking aliens are going to invade in a few years from now.

[NGTM-1R]

You do realize that when it became advantageous to city-states to unite, they felt necessary to form an ideology that would unite the people within the newly-created borders into one nation?

Quite the opposite, I'd argue, when it comes to successes. Rome didn't push an ideology until it started to failure cascade. It pushed a lifestyle, a higher standard of living than the alternatives. Something similar could be said about the United States.

[karajorma]

That is the ideology. They don't call it The New York Dream.

[NGTM-1R]

That is the ideology. They don't call it The New York Dream.

That's not ideology in the slightest. It's economics. The American Dream doesn't demand any political tenants, that's why it works. You can be anything you damn well please politically or in religion, that's not applicable. The same holds true for how the Romans did it.

You want ideology? Talk to the Republican party, they'll give you plenty.

[Herra Tohtori]

You do realize that when it became advantageous to city-states to unite, they felt necessary to form an ideology that would unite the people within the newly-created borders into one nation?

Quite the opposite, I'd argue, when it comes to successes. Rome didn't push an ideology until it started to failure cascade. It pushed a lifestyle, a higher standard of living than the alternatives. Something similar could be said about the United States.

Well, Rome was never a national state, it was a city state that bloated into a Republic by assimilating surrounding regions until it became an Empire.

I doubt there ever was a "Roman" identity widespread throughout the Empire, and the whole thing was built on continuous expansion. Yes, they did built stuff like roads, aqueducts and sewers, which could be argued to have increased the standard of living in occupied areas, but I don't think they occupied areas to increase their standard of living. They conquered more and more area because their economy demanded continuous growth, and they increased the standard of living in occupied areas because it happened to increase the productivity of those areas.

The American Dream doesn't demand any political tenants, that's why it works. You can be anything you damn well please politically or in religion, that's not applicable.

I was not aware that the American Dream actually worked. Meaning, it is not possible in current US of A for everyone to become successful and wealthy. The distribution of wealth is bound to be uneven and the situation is self-propagating.

Sure, small percentage can bounce up in wealth but it requires luck as well as work. And of course, these Cinderella stories become the basis for the continuing illusion of American Dream actually working.

Addendum - there's also a certain career path in the USA where you can't be anything you damn well please if you want to be successful.

Go ahead and try being successful, politician and publicly atheist at the same time.

[Klaustrophobia]

god i hate semantics battles.  call it whatever; nation, city-state, empire, etc.  cultural/geopolitical divides will always be present.  people like having a "national" (again, substitute your favorite divider here) identity.  every attempt at a single world empire has failed.  the closest thing we have to world government now is generally laughed at.  hell, we have a hard enough time trying to run a global football league.

[karajorma]

Just one alien invasion is all we need to prove you wrong.

[Herra Tohtori]

cultural/geopolitical divides will always be present.

So you keep saying, but I haven't so far seen any real argument to why it is so.

people like having a "national" (again, substitute your favorite divider here) identity.

No, people like belonging to a group. If they can either identify as belonging to humankind or being a citizen of Earth (which is not in any way less arbitrary group to belong to than a nation), or if they can satisfy their need for belonging in another fashion independent of governance, then the sense of belonging given by nationality would be redundant.

every attempt at a single world empire has failed.

a. pointing at a series of negatives does not prove that it will always fail.

b. every single empire in the world so far has failed regardless of whether or not they attempted to be a "single world empire" or not. In fact, one could argue that no empire so far has even attempted to be a single world empire.

c. Empire would be a completely bass ackward way of establishing a world wide governmental system, considering that empires subvert other regions under their rule rather than form an united government based on equality.

the closest thing we have to world government now is generally laughed at.

And that proves it shall always remain so? The United Nations is a valid concept, all it lacks at the moment is authority granted to it by national states.

The reason they don't have that authority is because the national states do not wish to give away any smidgen of their sovereignty. Losing independence is a valid concern only if one holds tight onto the concept of national states existing.

It's obvious that the world and its population wouldn't be receptive at this time to the deconstruction of national states and nationalism as an ideology. But you should be aware that great changes can happen relatively fast and unpredictably.

I sincerely hope some day national states will lose their meaning in the present sense, and become more of a part of cultural heritage, something that you can be proud of, but not something that would build an arbitrary wall of separation between everyone in your nation and the rest of humanity.


I believe national states are just a phase in the growing process of humanity. You're free to disagree, but consider what need would there be for national states when we eventually have to abandon our planet, provided that we survive in some way, shape or form up to that point...

hell, we have a hard enough time trying to run a global football league.

Amusing as this straw man is, it's also false - there's a very successful and popular global football league called World Championships Tournament, which culminates to World Championships Final Tournament every four years.

You may have heard of it.

This also has almost nothing to do with the conversation at hand, except that the teams there represent their respective nationalities.


Also - what karajorma said. Alien invastion would be cool.

[Klaustrophobia]

well, we'll see.  maybe.  i do admit the possibility, but it will be because we've now got a new level of self-identity:  humans vs. aliens.  until something to counter "humans" exists, we aren't gonna band together and form the nation-world of terra.  even then, i believe it'll be more of just a new step in the heirarchy.  i predict 'national' identities will remain and turn into something like the states in America back when we were young and the states were in fact largely independent but united.