> Countries are as old as mankind. Nation-states and nationalism are less than 3 centuries old, and so are closed borders. Countries in antiquity were nothing

> Countries are as old as mankind. Nation-states and nationalism are less than 3 centuries old, and so are closed borders. Countries in antiquity were nothing like what we have now. > Unaccountable bureaucracies, disconnected from citizens, but with huge power over their daily lives, is definitely the new kid on the block. There are several loaded and emotional words in this, which plenty of room to move the goal posts. Faceless bureaucracies with huge power of the people’s daily lives is definitely not you, any empire has to do this to some extent just to keep existing. Famous examples with plenty of documentation are ancient Egypt and the Maya empire. Hardly brand-new fancy countries. > And generally not a very succesful one I might add. Appart from all the others, I suppose. How are we supposed to run those huge countries with tens of millions of citizens? You keep harping about the EU, so please enlighten us and explain how your country (or your ideal country, even) does it better. > I think comparison to Soviet seems quite apt. Lol no is about the most serious answer one can give to this assertion. The Soviet Union was an empire. Its problems came from its stupid political system (which has fuck all to do with either the EU or the US), not from the fact that it was a union of states (just like the US or Germany).