3 ms·

I absolutely agree on the matter of nation states. Because they have been the reality for longer than any living human being can remember we usually consider th

I absolutely agree on the matter of nation states. Because they have been the reality for longer than any living human being can remember we usually consider them to be the natural order of things. However, on a historical scale nation states are a fairly recent concept. Before the 19th century allegiances for the most part were much more local on one hand and centred around religion (rather than concepts such as nationality) on the other hand. Nation states helped with getting rid of feudalism and gradually ushering in modern democracy. So, historically they certainly were beneficial. In my opinion, they're increasingly and continually becoming obsolete, though. That doesn't mean, however, that a supranational entity such as the EU necessarily is the right solution to each and every problem in the future. As much as nation states served a purpose in pre-globalisation times the EU was useful in the post-war, Cold War era but it remains to be seen if or in which ways it can continue to be useful in the future. On the matter of Brexit it'd be pertinent to ask why a disintegration movement should stop at a national level. Why not further devolve power to for example the countries the UK is made up of or eminent city 'states' such as London? I concur in that I think some aspects are probably still best dealt with at a unified supranational level (foreign policy, currency, removing trade barriers) while a lot more should be handled at a local level.

grey-area 8y ago
That doesn't mean, however, that a supranational entity such as the EU necessarily is the right solution to each and every problem in the future. Sure, perhaps a federal superstate isn't the answer - I certainly don't think it's a great answer for local gov, taxes or accountability, though given the world we live in surrounded by hostile autocracies I think having armed forces and trade at that level is advantageous, so that's why I'm for it, but further devolution of powers would be ideal in my view, if coupled with free movement of people and goods at a federal level. Given that I see no reason for Nations to exist. Free movement of people at least within large federal states and later globally is a worthy ideal to strive towards - why should the place of your birth dictate the rights and opportunities accorded to you? Why should nation states claim the right to bestow and strip citizenship?
- BjoernKW 8y ago
  > why should the place of your birth dictate the rights and opportunities accorded to you? Why should nation states claim the right to bestow and strip citizenship? These questions give rise to an ethical dilemma. On one hand you're absolutely right: The birth lottery shouldn't determine your opportunities in life. However, communities also have a legitimate right to try and ensure their continued sustainable economic welfare, which might be endangered if there are more immigrants over a period of time than that economy can reasonably handle. This is why - again - economic development not only has to tie in with but often is a prerequisite for pursuing desirable ideals.

grey-area 8y ago

That doesn't mean, however, that a supranational entity such as the EU necessarily is the right solution to each and every problem in the future. Sure, perhaps a federal superstate isn't the answer - I certainly don't think it's a great answer for local gov, taxes or accountability, though given the world we live in surrounded by hostile autocracies I think having armed forces and trade at that level is advantageous, so that's why I'm for it, but further devolution of powers would be ideal in my view, if coupled with free movement of people and goods at a federal level. Given that I see no reason for Nations to exist. Free movement of people at least within large federal states and later globally is a worthy ideal to strive towards - why should the place of your birth dictate the rights and opportunities accorded to you? Why should nation states claim the right to bestow and strip citizenship?

BjoernKW 8y ago
> why should the place of your birth dictate the rights and opportunities accorded to you? Why should nation states claim the right to bestow and strip citizenship? These questions give rise to an ethical dilemma. On one hand you're absolutely right: The birth lottery shouldn't determine your opportunities in life. However, communities also have a legitimate right to try and ensure their continued sustainable economic welfare, which might be endangered if there are more immigrants over a period of time than that economy can reasonably handle. This is why - again - economic development not only has to tie in with but often is a prerequisite for pursuing desirable ideals.