What of the nation state?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess this is a very big topic and a lot of it will be speculation, but nonetheless...

What is the future of the nation state? Is it the final point in a strict process of increasing centralisation, with the relatively homogenous populations of the nation state being the foundations for a well functioning state?

Combined with neoliberalism and the collapse of ideologies that were global in their outlook like imperialism or communism, are we really at the 'end of history' as Fukuyama put it?

Or will the development of multi-level governance herald the end of the nation state? I think we are seeing this already. The high point of the nation state was with the totaliatarianism of the mid-20th century, ever since then it has been in decline. There are external factors, like multinational organisations, most obviously the EU. But also internal. For example, in the UK the erosion of the welfare state has left a much less centralised government.

And now the UK itself is breaking up with devolution, and the EU offers an alternative form of independence for Scottish and Welsh nationalists. These small states wouldn't be the traditional sovereign nation state, but of course be heavily intertwined in the European framework.

This EU isn't unique in this though. In Canada, the Quebecers look to NAFTA to make an independence Quebec viable, complementing their nation building at the regional level.

It almost like with all these different layers of government (local, regional, national, continental, global), we are returning to a situation more like the Middle Ages, where you had the local nobles/town, then the duke/county/whatever, then the kingdom, then things like the HRE or the Papacy. The 20th century model with everything being run from the nation's capital certainly seems to be disappearing.

Any thoughts?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I guess this is a very big topic and a lot of it will be speculation, but nonetheless...

What is the future of the nation state? Is it the final point in a strict process of increasing centralisation, with the relatively homogenous populations of the nation state being the foundations for a well functioning state?

Combined with neoliberalism and the collapse of ideologies that were global in their outlook like imperialism or communism, are we really at the 'end of history' as Fukuyama put it?

Or will the development of multi-level governance herald the end of the nation state? I think we are seeing this already. The high point of the nation state was with the totaliatarianism of the mid-20th century, ever since then it has been in decline. There are external factors, like multinational organisations, most obviously the EU. But also internal. For example, in the UK the erosion of the welfare state has left a much less centralised government.

And now the UK itself is breaking up with devolution, and the EU offers an alternative form of independence for Scottish and Welsh nationalists. These small states wouldn't be the traditional sovereign nation state, but of course be heavily intertwined in the European framework.

This EU isn't unique in this though. In Canada, the Quebecers look to NAFTA to make an independence Quebec viable, complementing their nation building at the regional level.

It almost like with all these different layers of government (local, regional, national, continental, global), we are returning to a situation more like the Middle Ages, where you had the local nobles/town, then the duke/county/whatever, then the kingdom, then things like the HRE or the Papacy. The 20th century model with everything being run from the nation's capital certainly seems to be disappearing.

Any thoughts?

Global Papist plot?

[Beskar]

It almost like with all these different layers of government (local, regional, national, continental, global), we are returning to a situation more like the Middle Ages, where you had the local nobles/town, then the duke/county/whatever, then the kingdom, then things like the HRE or the Papacy. The 20th century model with everything being run from the nation's capital certainly seems to be disappearing.

Wrong imagery.

United Global Federation yes, akin to USA on Mass Scale. Middle Ages? Completely different. Chalk and Cheese.

[Centurion1]

United Global Federation yes, akin to USA on Mass Scale. Middle Ages? Completely different. Chalk and Cheese.

more like apples and oranges, they are both fruit, yes. but their the similarities end.

Rhy let me tell you know what is ending the capital run nation state. MAD and nuclear weapons. the kind of warfare that was prevalent in that era and created the nationalism that is now dissapearing but was the glue that help these sorts of governments and regions together has completely dissapeared. As mass warfare has dissapeared with the nuclear weapon so too has radical nationalism

[Megas Methuselah]

I like to think my reserve is a nation-state. :evilgrin:

[Centurion1]

I like to think my reserve is a nation-state.

hey i watched last of the mohican a couple hours ago it realy helped me understand you and your people

i really respect your opinion and your semi sovereignty.

:clown:

seriously dont unload on me it was a joke megas *cringes*

native americans (i dont know about canada) enjoy a form of sovreignity as well very complex legally but i know it involves the ability to have casinos *stereotypical, yes but a good example* and ignore certain laws (probably state, i believe they answer only to the federal government but dont quote me)

though from what i know of life on american reservations i question how much of these "benefits" are a good thing

[Megas Methuselah]

The relationship between the First Nations and the Canadian state is very, very complex. Most claim to be full sovoreign states, but at the same time, by signing treaties with the government of Canada, my own ancestor agreed to abide by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Perhaps most importantly, this means we are restricted by treaty to deal with, and only with, the crown. Does this mean my chief can open relations with Great Britain and Australia? I don't know.

That aside, what you call "benefits" have an entirely different name in Canada. And that is "rights." Some non-Aboriginal complain about our rights, how it's unfair to them, etc, etc, etc. Well, that's all good. I might as well complain about their treaty rights, and that is the right to settle here, work here, and to live their lives on traditional land that was given to Canada by treaty. Huh.

Anyways, the existence of these treaties definitely stand as proof that Canada is a multinational state. Even though I identify myself with my own nation-state, my reserve, I was still born with Canadian citizenship. The vision of my ancestor the treaty-signer, to see us all live together as brothers, is really beginning to unfold. Too bad it took so long to happen.

EDIT: Thus are the consequences of not defeating my ancestors and subjugating the land by right of conquest. Hah, take that, Canada! :clown:

[PanzerJaeger]

Unfortunately, the trend is towards one world government. What was once a conspiracy theory is quickly becoming a reality. There is a long way to go before the dissolution of national borders, though, and hopefully there will be a pushback against it in the future..

[Megas Methuselah]

Unfortunately, the trend is towards one world government. What was once a conspiracy theory is quickly becoming a reality. There is a long way to go before the dissolution of national borders, though, and hopefully there will be a pushback against it in the future..

Hey, I hope you can excuse my ignorance, but can you explain your stance on this matter (particularly why you feel it is a bad thing)?

[Centurion1]

The potential for a disutopian society reminiscent of 1984 or clockwork orange becoming our reality becomes very real

[Furunculus]

everyone here should David Wingroves Chung-Kuo..........

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey, I hope you can excuse my ignorance, but can you explain your stance on this matter (particularly why you feel it is a bad thing)?

There are so many specific downsides to such a situation, but on a fundamental level, I believe that the further removed government is from the people it serves, the more potential there is for adverse impact in regard to the laws it implements and the actions it takes.

Even the most well intentioned world government would have difficulty acting equitably on behalf of all of the world's people. And if such a government did not have the people's best intentions at heart, or was motivated by the betterment of one specific group over others? Well, there would be no escape, no counterbalance...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Global Papist plot?

Oh come on I managed to resist, gimme a break!


Wrong imagery.

United Global Federation yes, akin to USA on Mass Scale. Middle Ages? Completely different. Chalk and Cheese.

I'm not so sure. I think this may be your idealism getting the better of you here. My point is that while the nation state might be on the decline, this doesn't appear to be due to the centralisation to a more global level that you might expect.

A lot of actors now cross state borders, such as big business etc, and this fact appears to reduce the sovereignty of any state.

The nation states are increasingly interconnected, but we are not seeing a straightforward path of centralisation. Instead of all the power going from London to Brussels, instead there will be new, small power centres at Edinburgh, Cardiff, wherever etc.

[Husar]

There are so many specific downsides to such a situation, but on a fundamental level, I believe that the further removed government is from the people it serves, the more potential there is for adverse impact in regard to the laws it implements and the actions it takes.

Even the most well intentioned world government would have difficulty acting equitably on behalf of all of the world's people. And if such a government did not have the people's best intentions at heart, or was motivated by the betterment of one specific group over others? Well, there would be no escape, no counterbalance...

Well, it would be a layered government of sorts, with elected officials from all those regions in it's parliament, giving the entire planet and all the microplanning into the hands of just one government would be quite overwhelming I think, the world government would take on mostly things like ensuring peace, earth defense and other global concerns, not dictating the same crop rotation process to the sahara desert and the antarctic. It could draw from the best of all countries to drive space exploration and exploitation, build ion cannons directed at orbit, operate space stations etc. There already is some cooperation with these things, but I would think if it were directed by one single agency with the combined funds of all current agencies but united towards one goal, it might be more effective.

And concerning the 1984 scenario, it's more or less a reality in North Korea and where are our counterbalancing efforts to help these people? Britain installed cameras everywhere and noone invaded Britain. Nation-states also have that problem that the people in them say "we don't care about people of other nationalities, we have our own problems and they have theirs", so the counterbalancing only comes into effect once the "evil nation" declares war on the "better nation". Or harbors people who fly two planes into a big twin-tower, or something like that. A world government couldn't keep the people down anymore than the US government or any european government can now, but in addition it could also intervene and restore order if a regional government tried to limit freedom.

What might be worth trying is to elect people for two years only, with four years you usually get bad policies in the beginning to give people two years to forget about them, with two year terms that would be harder I guess.

[Beskar]

The potential for a disutopian society reminiscent of 1984 or clockwork orange becoming our reality becomes very real

It is actually probably closer to Brave New World. At least the plebs would be happy.


I'm not so sure. I think this may be your idealism getting the better of you here. My point is that while the nation state might be on the decline, this doesn't appear to be due to the centralisation to a more global level that you might expect.

A lot of actors now cross state borders, such as big business etc, and this fact appears to reduce the sovereignty of any state.

The nation states are increasingly interconnected, but we are not seeing a straightforward path of centralisation. Instead of all the power going from London to Brussels, instead there will be new, small power centres at Edinburgh, Cardiff, wherever etc.

Again, it is Federal level. To quote Husar:

Well, it would be a layered government of sorts, with elected officials from all those regions in it's parliament, giving the entire planet and all the microplanning into the hands of just one government would be quite overwhelming I think, the world government would take on mostly things like ensuring peace, earth defense and other global concerns, not dictating the same crop rotation process to the sahara desert and the antarctic. It could draw from the best of all countries to drive space exploration and exploitation, build ion cannons directed at orbit, operate space stations etc. There already is some cooperation with these things, but I would think if it were directed by one single agency with the combined funds of all current agencies but united towards one goal, it might be more effective.

At different levels will have different things occurring.

While Wales/Scotland in the future possibly separates from Britain, it will be together still under Europe, and Europe would be under the World Government. Then you would have other Continental Governments such as the African Union, NAFTA, South American Union, etc.

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, it would be a layered government of sorts, with elected officials from all those regions in it's parliament, giving the entire planet and all the microplanning into the hands of just one government would be quite overwhelming I think, the world government would take on mostly things like ensuring peace, earth defense and other global concerns, not dictating the same crop rotation process to the sahara desert and the antarctic. It could draw from the best of all countries to drive space exploration and exploitation, build ion cannons directed at orbit, operate space stations etc. There already is some cooperation with these things, but I would think if it were directed by one single agency with the combined funds of all current agencies but united towards one goal, it might be more effective.

I'm not sure that highlighting the increased layers of bureaucracy required to implement such a scheme is a convincing argument for an overarching world government, not to mention you've got Beskar talking about continental government's as well. So when the unwashed head to the polls, they're going to be expected to have educated themselves on candidates and issues for their local government, their state government, their national government, their continental government, and the world government? Or are the higher level politicians going to be Euro-like semiautonomous unelected bureaucrats? :dizzy2:

You seem to be implying that such an organization would be limited in its power and authority to such things as "earth defense". That begs the question, why bother? What benefits does such an organization offer that, say, the UN, the WTO, or individual alliances/partnerships already not cover? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, a coalition was formed via the UN to correct the situation. When trade disputes emerge, the WTO arbitrates them. Either this proposed World Government has real power, and is thus subject to the concerns I mentioned in my previous post; or it has extremely limited functions, which makes one question whether such an organization is worth the time and resources it would take to create and maintain.


And concerning the 1984 scenario, it's more or less a reality in North Korea and where are our counterbalancing efforts to help these people? Britain installed cameras everywhere and noone invaded Britain. Nation-states also have that problem that the people in them say "we don't care about people of other nationalities, we have our own problems and they have theirs", so the counterbalancing only comes into effect once the "evil nation" declares war on the "better nation". Or harbors people who fly two planes into a big twin-tower, or something like that. A world government couldn't keep the people down anymore than the US government or any european government can now, but in addition it could also intervene and restore order if a regional government tried to limit freedom.

Nation states are certainly not perfect, but at least abuse of power on a national level does not spill over on to the rest of the world. Who is going to control these ion cannons? Who will decide when, where and on who they will be used?

Humanity has always benefited from competing governmental systems and ideologies. For Sparta, there was Athens. For the monarchies that ruled Europe, there was a France. For Fascism, there was Communism. And for Communism, there was America. And now even for America, China's hybrid communism/capitalist system is forcing us to change and adapt to stay competitive. It is never a good idea to put all of one's proverbial eggs in one basket, or you end up with a government like that of North Korea.

I just don't understand the desire for another layer of government. If the massive wars and terrible loss of life during the 20th century taught us anything, it is the dangers of big, powerful government. (My apologies if that is deemed to be an invocation of Godwin :shame:)

[gaelic cowboy]

Well this guy seemed to think one day we might have to do it anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag44dRO8LEA

[Centurion1]

With a single unified government technological advances would peter out evebtually. The reason western europe has been so syccesfull is because of its nations close proximity and the multitude of regions. When thre is one almighty power the desire to compete and improve dissappears

[gaelic cowboy]

Hence we would have to order our society differently and seeing as there would be a world government in place this process would have started or be in place. If your running the world then you need to allocate resources responsibly the innovation comes by using education and technology to improve our use of resources to prevent collapse of the system. It is too simple to say innovation will disappear because we do not fear being attacked anymore there will still be lots of problems which need fixing even then

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh come on I managed to resist, gimme a break!

Yea have ben seduced by thae Pappists!

He's a Pappist! Get the irons!

Banquo: I do have a contribution, but it's too late a night to do anything other than cheap sectarian jokes.

[Centurion1]

Hence we would have to order our society differently and seeing as there would be a world government in place this process would have started or be in place. If your running the world then you need to allocate resources responsibly the innovation comes by using education and technology to improve our use of resources to prevent collapse of the system. It is too simple to say innovation will disappear because we do not fear being attacked anymore there will still be lots of problems which need fixing even then

but in such a society there would be a pervasive maintain the status quo mindset fort he government and many individuals.

[gaelic cowboy]

but in such a society there would be a pervasive maintain the status quo mindset fort he government and many individuals.

Yes if the Nation State mindset is retained however the ideal would be more a caretaker style people would just have to evolve.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yea have ben seduced by thae Pappists!

He's a Pappist! Get the irons!

Banquo: I do have a contribution, but it's too late a night to do anything other than cheap sectarian jokes.

Hey, don't complain to me, it's Seamus who will be gunning for you. :wink:

And now you have given me a chance to tell an amusing cheap sectarian anecdote.

I once had the honour to escort a young lady of high birth and cheekbones but limited intellect on a date whereby we found ourselves watching a Civil War re-enactment at a friend's estate. (Yes, I know how to show a lady a good time). There was cannon fire and general to-and-froing, which seemed to captivate the delicious creature. Cavaliers bellowed deprecations on the size and shape of Cromwell's dangly bits, whilst the altogether more sober Parliamentarians contented themselves with cries of "No Popery".

Her delicate brow furrowed as she struggled with some momentous divination, before turning to our small crowd and asking, sweetly doe-eyed: "Those Parliament fellows: Why do they hate dried flowers?"

[Centurion1]

S
Hey, don't complain to me, it's Seamus who will be gunning for you. :wink:

And now you have given me a chance to tell an amusing cheap sectarian anecdote.

I once had the honour to escort a young lady of high birth and cheekbones but limited intellect on a date whereby we found ourselves watching a Civil War re-enactment at a friend's estate. (Yes, I know how to show a lady a good time). There was cannon fire and general to-and-froing, which seemed to captivate the delicious creature. Cavaliers bellowed deprecations on the size and shape of Cromwell's dangly bits, whilst the altogether more sober Parliamentarians contented themselves with cries of "No Popery".

Her delicate brow furrowed as she struggled with some momentous divination, before turning to our small crowd and asking, sweetly doe-eyed: "Those Parliament fellows: Why do they hate dried flowers?"



Ah the life of an aristocrat. How are the ancestral lands old chap

[Beskar]

What benefits does such an organization offer that, say, the UN, the WTO, Either this proposed World Government has real power, and is thus subject to the concerns I mentioned in my previous post; or it has extremely limited functions, which makes one question whether such an organization is worth the time and resources it would take to create and maintain.

Yet both UN and WTO are cut down versions of a World Government. It would also bring an end to war, destroy the social constructions of imaginary divides on a piece of paper. A World Government would be far better as it would force the nations to actually comply, to bring human rights and prosperity to all.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hey, don't complain to me, it's Seamus who will be gunning for you. :wink:

And now you have given me a chance to tell an amusing cheap sectarian anecdote.

I once had the honour to escort a young lady of high birth and cheekbones but limited intellect on a date whereby we found ourselves watching a Civil War re-enactment at a friend's estate. (Yes, I know how to show a lady a good time). There was cannon fire and general to-and-froing, which seemed to captivate the delicious creature. Cavaliers bellowed deprecations on the size and shape of Cromwell's dangly bits, whilst the altogether more sober Parliamentarians contented themselves with cries of "No Popery".

Her delicate brow furrowed as she struggled with some momentous divination, before turning to our small crowd and asking, sweetly doe-eyed: "Those Parliament fellows: Why do they hate dried flowers?"



My reply to said anecodote is that such things are almost as common among the lowere classes.

Still, never mind.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yet both UN and WTO are cut down versions of a World Government. It would also bring an end to war, destroy the social constructions of imaginary divides on a piece of paper. A World Government would be far better as it would force the nations to actually comply, to bring human rights and prosperity to all.

I think you are thinking too much in terms of government. Remember, the idea here isn't just that there will be different layers of government, but there will be different kinds of actors as well. International organisations are one of these different actors, as as long as they stay confederal in their nature, I don't think they would be considered a form of government.

Also, I think there is far more to the nation state than "imaginary divides on a piece of paper".

Hmmm.. that might be an interesting way to take this discussion... are nations natural (and hence the nation state would be natural to make it relevant to this thread), or are they constructs, which emerged in the early modern period, and which will fade away with globalisation?


it's too late a night to do anything other than cheap sectarian jokes.

I might have expected as much from an Anglican, always spouting intolerant bile and virulent anti-Catholicism wherever they go. As a Presbyterian, I am above such bigotry. :snob:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And now you have given me a chance to tell an amusing cheap sectarian anecdote.

I once had the honour to escort a young lady of high birth and cheekbones but limited intellect on a date whereby we found ourselves watching a Civil War re-enactment at a friend's estate. (Yes, I know how to show a lady a good time). There was cannon fire and general to-and-froing, which seemed to captivate the delicious creature. Cavaliers bellowed deprecations on the size and shape of Cromwell's dangly bits, whilst the altogether more sober Parliamentarians contented themselves with cries of "No Popery".

Her delicate brow furrowed as she struggled with some momentous divination, before turning to our small crowd and asking, sweetly doe-eyed: "Those Parliament fellows: Why do they hate dried flowers?"

Many chuckles.

Now, who do I sic the "Hounds of God" upon? I've been torquing up my Torquemada auto-pliers and I am rarin' to go!

[Megas Methuselah]

Yet both UN and WTO are cut down versions of a World Government. It would also bring an end to war, destroy the social constructions of imaginary divides on a piece of paper. A World Government would be far better as it would force the nations to actually comply, to bring human rights and prosperity to all.

There was a time when such thoughts were mere fiction. It sounds sweeter when said aloud.

[Centurion1]

Yes if the Nation State mindset is retained however the ideal would be more a caretaker style people would just have to evolve.

But will humans be able to not only create but also to maintain school a society. Because of traits inherent to humanity that make certain forms f government impossible may prevent humanity from allowing a system of this type to exist unless there is an outside threat Ala invaders from space or rival humans; basically the work of science fiction authors

[gaelic cowboy]

But will humans be able to not only create but also to maintain school a society. Because of traits inherent to humanity that make certain forms f government impossible may prevent humanity from allowing a system of this type to exist unless there is an outside threat Ala invaders from space or rival humans; basically the work of science fiction authors

Maybe maybe not I take your point however we used to be allowed to keep slaves or go for a spot of badger baiting but people change and evolve create new ideas etc.

We cannot say for certain what the people who come after us will value but the world is so global now I believe people will feel like they have a stake in each others backyard even if we don't feel like that about each other today.

[Centurion1]

Your anecdote while true isn't really comparable. You are asking for a complete change in human nature. While throughout history slavery has not always been a supported thing by everyone, its more culturally based than a base instinct like self preservation and independence. No doubt though the world is becoming more global and interventionist and there is no better place to see that than America post WW1