4 ms·

If you follow it to it's conclusion to abolish nation states and create a world level confederacy ala EU or a politically binding UN, yes very much so. Usually

If you follow it to it's conclusion to abolish nation states and create a world level confederacy ala EU or a politically binding UN, yes very much so. Usually people try to give some defense of patriotism or "acceptable" nationalism, but in my opinion the truth is that until we have the whole planet in a multilayer jurisdiction where local problems are solved locally but there's a clear path towards escalation into global jurisdiction, nationalism will continue to fuck us.

oa335 6y ago
This is an idea that I have been kicking around in my head for several years and I’m interested in learning more about it. Do you have any recommendations on writers that expound on what the world would look like without nation states?
- haunter 6y ago
  The Project for Perpetual Peace, written in the 18th century but still timeless https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Peace/dp/999327237X https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Pe...
- robin21 6y ago
  Super interesting thought. Seems like it would make a good book. Something like Sapiens, looking through history but with a focus on why nation states arose and fell, and then extrapolating. The EU is a great modern case study. The topic of [Federation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) is a good starting point to, because to get to world like that would involve several steps of federation, or some all-encompassing treaties.
treis 6y ago
I don't think that's necessarily the conclusion. One of the major changes after WWII is that now mostly all the Germans lived in Germany, Poles in Poland, Czechs in Czechloslovakia, French in France, etc. That seems to have led to a stable solution. Conversely, the places where ethnicity and/or religion are mixed are constant sources of strife. This conclusion leads to a lot of dark places so it is rightfully rejected on those grounds, but it does seem to work.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- igorkraw 6y ago
  I mean, that observation that you need cultural homogeneity (the most charitable version) is simply wrong. Switzerland has been multi cultural for hundreds of years and continues to be so, the US hasn't seen a civil war in a similarly long time, thinking of china or india as culturally homogenous is silly and on a larger scale, the roman, byzantine and ottoman empires were stable internally over stretches from decades to centuries. The root cause of strife isn't hetereogenity, it's lack of institutions and mechanisms to resolve strife without violence.
taeric 6y ago
Why is that the conclusion? Seems an absurd reduction. Would also lead to abolishing family, which would have no real benefits. I agree with it as a reaction to the idea that strong fences make good neighbors. Good neighbors aren't a static thing. But as an end goal reduction? Seems lacking. A strong set of nations seems to be more benefitted from all nations in the set being strong. Not in any domination.
disposekinetics 6y ago
Your solution to nationalism is a government you cannot flee from. At least with two states if one mistreats you it is possible to flee.

oa335 6y ago

This is an idea that I have been kicking around in my head for several years and I’m interested in learning more about it. Do you have any recommendations on writers that expound on what the world would look like without nation states?

haunter 6y ago
The Project for Perpetual Peace, written in the 18th century but still timeless https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Peace/dp/999327237X https://www.amazon.com/Abridged-Version-Project-Perpetual-Pe...
robin21 6y ago
Super interesting thought. Seems like it would make a good book. Something like Sapiens, looking through history but with a focus on why nation states arose and fell, and then extrapolating. The EU is a great modern case study. The topic of [Federation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) is a good starting point to, because to get to world like that would involve several steps of federation, or some all-encompassing treaties.

treis 6y ago

I don't think that's necessarily the conclusion. One of the major changes after WWII is that now mostly all the Germans lived in Germany, Poles in Poland, Czechs in Czechloslovakia, French in France, etc. That seems to have led to a stable solution. Conversely, the places where ethnicity and/or religion are mixed are constant sources of strife. This conclusion leads to a lot of dark places so it is rightfully rejected on those grounds, but it does seem to work.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
igorkraw 6y ago
I mean, that observation that you need cultural homogeneity (the most charitable version) is simply wrong. Switzerland has been multi cultural for hundreds of years and continues to be so, the US hasn't seen a civil war in a similarly long time, thinking of china or india as culturally homogenous is silly and on a larger scale, the roman, byzantine and ottoman empires were stable internally over stretches from decades to centuries. The root cause of strife isn't hetereogenity, it's lack of institutions and mechanisms to resolve strife without violence.

taeric 6y ago

Why is that the conclusion? Seems an absurd reduction. Would also lead to abolishing family, which would have no real benefits. I agree with it as a reaction to the idea that strong fences make good neighbors. Good neighbors aren't a static thing. But as an end goal reduction? Seems lacking. A strong set of nations seems to be more benefitted from all nations in the set being strong. Not in any domination.

disposekinetics 6y ago

Your solution to nationalism is a government you cannot flee from. At least with two states if one mistreats you it is possible to flee.