Why Nation States??


Jersay
#1
What is a nation state??

I am proud of being Canadian but until fairly recently, around about 1500 or 1600 the world was based on a feudal or king, duke, royalty, one man or woman system to look after. Only recently have people been united by a nation-state, and in some places in Africa, and Asia, and even in Europe, this nation state just doesn't work. Brings too much conflict, hostility, and racism against people within and without the nations borders. And the central government will have to have a wide section of people to take care of and try to gain their support.

So wouldn't it be simplier to take care of yourself, your family and maybe extended relatives?

Nation-state definition:

In the ideal nation-state, the population consists of the nation and only of the nation: the state not only houses it, but protects it and its national identity (i.e., they coincide exactly): every member of the nation is a permanent resident of the nation-state, and no member of the nation permanently resides outside it. There are no ideal nation-states, but examples of near ideal nation-states might include Japan and Iceland. This ideal has influenced almost all existing sovereign states, and they cannot be understood without reference to that model. It also explains how they are different from their predecessor states. Thus, the term nation-state is also used, imprecisely, for a state that attempts to promote a single national identity, often beginning with a single national language (e.g., France, Germany, and Italy). These nation-states did not always exist, and most of the present nation-states are located on territory that once belonged to other non-national states; for example, in the case of much of western Europe, the original state was the Carolingian Empire.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-...tion-states.3F (external - login to view)
 
LittleRunningGag
#2
Very few true "nation-states" exist. The majority of those are not in conflict with others, so I don't really understand your point.

The nation-state is the ideal method of creating states because it does away with a great amount of internal conflict. External conflict is another matter, however, but that is the same with all types of states. All states, regardless of make up, have external conflict. Pick a state, I guarantee you that a person could find external conflict.

As for the advocation of anarchy. I don't believe that humans have matured enough for it to work. If it were not for the state, we would simply revert back to feudal arrangements of warrior kings.
 
Said1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

What is a nation state??
I am proud of being Canadian but until fairly recently, around about 1500 or 1600 the world was based on a feudal or king, duke, royalty, one man or woman system to look after. Only recently have people been united by a nation-state, and in some places in Africa, and Asia, and even in Europe, this nation state just doesn't work. Brings too much conflict, hostility, and racism against people within and without the nations borders. And the central government will have to have a wide section of people to take care of and try to gain their support.
So wouldn't it be simplier to take care of yourself, your family and maybe extended relatives?
Nation-state definition:
In the ideal nation-state, the population consists of the nation and only of the nation: the state not only houses it, but protects it and its national identity (i.e., they coincide exactly): every member of the nation is a permanent resident of the nation-state, and no member of the nation permanently resides outside it. There are no ideal nation-states, but examples of near ideal nation-states might include Japan and Iceland. This ideal has influenced almost all existing sovereign states, and they cannot be understood without reference to that model. It also explains how they are different from their predecessor states. Thus, the term nation-state is also used, imprecisely, for a state that attempts to promote a single national...

Quote has been trimmed
Yep, nation-state building became the flavour de jour after the Treaty of Westphillia (sp?), creates a common bond, better for defending your territory. I know that's a simplified s'plaination, but je fatigue.
 
Jersay
#4
But why?

Why now why back then, and why does it seem so strong, and will it last?

Or is it a phase for several hundred years?

And which is stronger, tribalism, or nation-state worship or whatever you call it??
 
Said1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

But why?

Why now why back then, and why does it seem so strong, and will it last?

Or is it a phase for several hundred years?

And which is stronger, tribalism, or nation-state worship or whatever you call it??


I think it's largely because people like being part of a group, language, history etc provides a common bond and identity worth defending, or so the theory goes.

I think both nationalism and tribalism are equally as strong where they are practiced, but I would say kinship is much stronger. It's just not at the forefront in western nations - with the exception of aboriginal communities.

If given the choice, I would rather practice kinship and community than nations.
 
jimmoyer
#6
Whenever you complain about what you have NOW,
it is always important to consider alternative realities.

Let's consider one world government.
Will there be diversity ? Will there be innovation ?
Will there be a tendency of one mind think stamping
out alternative views ? Will we have the technology
to accomplish such a world government ? Will the
bureaucracy become even more dysfunctional ?

The EU is demanding its member states to embrace its
cultural values. Is this always acceptable ? Is it always
right ? Can it force such issues before people are
ready to accept them ?

The EU is a micro-cosmos example of what to expect
of a world government.

You can't even compare it to the individual provinces
of Canada nor of the individual states of America
because there is much more commonality of culture
than it is between all of the nations of the EU or of
new prospective members.

This issue of world unity will happen by a bottom-up
process if it is to happen at all because people will
not submit until they are ready, and so, in the meantime
we will have nation-states for a long time.

.
 
Jersay
#7
I am thinking about the other way than a world body, people taking people care of people.

Because a world government will also be a form of nation state.

However, I thought the U.N was more of a world government than the E.U in this process.
 
jimmoyer
#8
Jersay, you'll still need structure.

Without it good people go scared and get bad.

We are a species with good and bad impulses and this
dichotomy will always make us struggle. We are a part
of Nature, as brutal and as sublime as NATURE.
 
Jersay
#9
Good point.
 
LittleRunningGag
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

I am thinking about the other way than a world body, people taking people care of people.

Because a world government will also be a form of nation state.

A world government really wouldn't be a nation-state. The only possible nation you could have is the nation of humanity, but that is such a broad description that it wouldn't really apply.
 
Jersay
#11
So people need structure as Jim says. So structure would come from tribalism or monarchy or nation-state.

So would that mean that communism where you desend into nothingness wouldn't be practical?
 

Similar Threads

38
Failed states, rougue states, and America
by darkbeaver | Nov 21st, 2008
5
Reviewing Idea Of Nation-states
by jimmoyer | Dec 19th, 2007
91
nation states
by hermanntrude | Oct 29th, 2007
29
The United States a Nation of Laws?
by MikeyDB | Oct 23rd, 2006
no new posts