If we deduct the "nation" from "nation-state". . .

[Donnadogsoth]

. . . Why not roll the whole group of null-set States into a single World Empire?

 

Isn't that the natural conclusion to the denationalisation of nation-states?

[Fashus Maximus]

What do you mean by:

- deducing a nation? 

- denationalisation?

- null-set states?

[Donnadogsoth]

I mean that there is a term "nation-state" which refers to a nation, or people with a common heritage, typically by blood, language, culture, and the like, which has a state or government which exists, theoretically, for the nation's benefit.  Another term for a nation-state is a country.

 

If we devalue nations, as seen in the widespread hostility to and vituperative denunciation of nationalism, then we are saying that nations are illegitimate and should not be considered when constituting a country.  This is denationalisation, saying the wishes of the majority of a nation-state don't matter and that the state does not exist to cater to those wishes, but rather for some other purpose.

 

If nations are illegitimate, then there's no sense talking about nation-states, now is there?  We must deduct nation from state.  This leaves only a random population and the state ruling over it.  This sort of nationless state I call a null-set state.

 

Another word for a state ruling over multiple nations is an empire.  So it seems there is only a political barrier to all null-set states becoming a single empire.  There is no natural barrier to it if nations have no claim to sovereignty and the use of their own respective states.

[Fashus Maximus]

I agree with the conclusion reached. But it hinges on the assumption that nations are illegitimate.

Are you arguing in favor of devaluing nations?

Peoples do have collective group interests...

[M.2]

11 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

. . . Why not roll the whole group of null-set States into a single World Empire?

Isn't that the natural conclusion to the denationalisation of nation-states?

I don't know... How do you plan on convincing San Marino. If there is a book titled "The art of Independence", it was written by San Marino.

[Donnadogsoth]

9 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I don't know... How do you plan on convincing San Marino. If there is a book titled "The art of Independence", it was written by San Marino.

Do you notice every mustard seed being crushed by your teeth when you eat a sandwich?

[Donnadogsoth]

11 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

I agree with the conclusion reached. But it hinges on the assumption that nations are illegitimate.

Are you arguing in favor of devaluing nations?

Peoples do have collective group interests...

No, quite the contrary.  Nations are our best defense against world government.  We have been taught from the earliest ages of comprehension, to believe that nationality, nations, and nationalism are illegitimate, supported by the stupid and wicked.

And, of course, this issue revolves around whites, because they constitute the majorities in the Western countries and therefore are the biggest impediment to dissolving the nation-state.  The only allowed collective interest for whites is seen in something like the grotesque "We Day" cult.  Whites do not have a place at the table.  Whites, it is said, do not even exist, except when it is convenient for them to menstruate once more for their historical crimes.

Save white people and we save the nation-state.  Save the nation-state and we stop world government.

[M.2]

16 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Do you notice every mustard seed being crushed by your teeth when you eat a sandwich?

I was trying to make a profound point with a bit of tongue and cheek. Could have been clearer I suppose. 

In principio was the tribe, which eventually and inevitably evolved into a settlement. A settlement always has a government, and normally, the bigger the settlement, the bigger the government. Out of these settlements, came the first city states, of which San Marino is an old relic. The city states eventually combined into a nation state, building on commonalities, such as religion, language, ethnicity, etc. Then came the era of empires, which in my opinion had ended in the aftermath of the second world war. The last real empire died 1947, although nominally the Empire of Japan still exists. We are living the era of federalism, of which the USA was the forerunner, with the EU being the newest attempt. It seems this trend will continue, and this is your proposition.

My answer is: Today there are many federations, even more nation states, and a considerable number of city states. If you deduct "nation", then you will most likely end up with city states, or one federal state.

My question is: Isn't there enough reason to suppose that federations are far too unstable to expand, and that city states are popping up at far faster rates, and in addition are far more stable anyway? Personally, I see an interesting trend of fragmentation in the world, especially where federalism is being propagated.

[Donnadogsoth]

6 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I was trying to make a profound point with a bit of tongue and cheek. Could have been clearer I suppose. 

In principio was the tribe, which eventually and inevitably evolved into a settlement. A settlement always has a government, and normally, the bigger the settlement, the bigger the government. Out of these settlements, came the first city states, of which San Marino is an old relic. The city states eventually combined into a nation state, building on commonalities, such as religion, language, ethnicity, etc. Then came the era of empires, which in my opinion had ended in the aftermath of the second world war. The last real empire died 1947, although nominally the Empire of Japan still exists. We are living the era of federalism, of which the USA was the forerunner, with the EU being the newest attempt. It seems this trend will continue, and this is your proposition.

My answer is: Today there are many federations, even more nation states, and a considerable number of city states. If you deduct "nation", then you will most likely end up with city states, or one federal state.

My question is: Isn't there enough reason to suppose that federations are far too unstable to expand, and that city states are popping up at far faster rates, and in addition are far more stable anyway? Personally, I see an interesting trend of fragmentation in the world, especially where federalism is being propagated.

I'm not aware of city states "popping up" though there seems to be more regions like Scotland, Catalonia, Basque seeking independence.

Do you see fragmentation as helping the West survive, or is fragmentation a nonevent with regards to the Third World colonisation program currently underway?

Why can't nation-states be tiny?

Isn't federalism empire by another name?

Why couldn't a world empire easily vacuum up tiny nation-states, if no big ones exist to oppose it?

 

[M.2]

12 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

1. I'm not aware of city states "popping up" though there seems to be more regions like Scotland, Catalonia, Basque seeking independence.
2. Do you see fragmentation as helping the West survive, or is fragmentation a nonevent with regards to the Third World colonisation program currently underway?
3. Why can't nation-states be tiny?
4. Isn't federalism empire by another name?
5. Why couldn't a world empire easily vacuum up tiny nation-states, if no big ones exist to oppose it?

1. The ones you listed are obviously nation states. I do indeed mean city states. 200 years ago, there was no Luxembourg, no Liechtensetein, no Vatican, no Brunei, no Quatar, no Bahrain, no Singapore... We haven't had this many city states since the early middle ages. A good 10% of all countries in the world could be considered city states, and I'm not even including the island nations and small countries. Some are debatable, of course, but the tendency is clear.
2. Well, consider this: Had the German states been independent, and not under the federal state of Germany, some states such as bavaria and saxony may not have had to deal with demographic replacement.
3. There are tiny nation states, naturally. The distinction we make between city state and tiny nation is that the city state is concentrated in a city, and has no particular distinct identity of its own, such as Monaco, where they are essentially french, whereas a nation state is not based on a city, and has a distinct culture. In fact, Luxembourg is very close to transforming into a tiny nation state, as they are beginning to develop an identity distinct from surrounding nations.
4. They are close in appearance, but definitely different in essence. 
5. The beauty of city states is that they very often tend to outplay large empires. It hardly makes sense in theory, but we have seen it many times throughout history. I am not saying the debate has been settled in favour of city statehood, I think there is a case to be made based on evidence.

[luxfelix]

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 8:05 AM, Mishi2 said:

5. The beauty of city states is that they very often tend to outplay large empires. It hardly makes sense in theory, but we have seen it many times throughout history. I am not saying the debate has been settled in favour of city statehood, I think there is a case to be made based on evidence.

As in the Greek city-states versus the Persian empire? The Swiss cantons against Habsburgs (later Napoleon)? The Italian and German city-states when compared to their larger neighbors? The United Provinces of the Netherlands and their competition with the other great naval powers?

(Some of those may be more tiny nation states than city-states based on your description...)

[barn]

This is a deviation from the main topic, skip it if uninterested...

 

On 11/27/2017 at 6:07 PM, Mishi2 said:

My question is: Isn't there enough reason to suppose that federations are far too unstable to expand, and that city states are popping up at far faster rates, and in addition are far more stable anyway? Personally, I see an interesting trend of fragmentation in the world, especially where federalism is being propagated.

My observation the same.

Would you say, just as how ethnographic-suburbs self-organise in metropolises, (or wild animals keep to water sources) there's a repeating pattern that will be the initiator of free-trade, free will at a larger scope and an increase at which cycles of amalgamated interests(security, unity, self-actualisation) create new forms of social organisations...GIVEN THERE'S NO INVASION, NATURAL CATASTROPHE or regression to the previous tech era? (eradication of/falling by the wayside of certain cultures in the process by lack of strength, virtue)

Sorry for putting it so convoluted, long. I hope you get my asking.

Barnsley

[M.2]

5 hours ago, luxfelix said:

As in the Greek city-states versus the Persian empire? The Swiss cantons against Habsburgs (later Napoleon)? The Italian and German city-states when compared to their larger neighbors? The United Provinces of the Netherlands and their competition with the other great naval powers?

The Greek one is an excellent example, since although it ended with an athenian empire, they did well in the moment. I wouldn't count Switzerland, because they were always a confederation.
The best examples I can think of are: Vatican against Italy, Andorra against France and Spain, Malta against the Ottomans, Venice and Genoa against the world, San Marino against everyone throughout history. Are they all merely exceptions to the rule? Maybe. But how many exceptions does it take to show a trend?

4 hours ago, barn said:

My observation the same. Would you say, just as how ethnographic-suburbs self-organise in metropolises, (or wild animals keep to water sources) there's a repeating pattern that will be the initiator of free-trade, free will at a larger scope and an increase at which cycles of amalgamated interests(security, unity, self-actualisation) create new forms of social organisations...GIVEN THERE'S NO INVASION, NATURAL CATASTROPHE or regression to the previous tech era? (eradication of/falling by the wayside of certain cultures in the process by lack of strength, virtue) Sorry for putting it so convoluted, long. I hope you get my asking.

The largest of the federations have become so large, that they have become a geopolitical ecosystem by themselves. I am specifically talking about Russia, EU, USA. Just like it happened in the Holy Roman Empire, we are seeing cities and communities going rogue. Just look at any election map of any sizeable country and you will see that large settlements are always differently coloured than their surrounding area. In the US there is already an extremely large divide between city folk and country folk, and in the EU, cities don't even speak the same language as the country anymore. Supposing the trend will continue, this can't go on forever.

[barn]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

The largest of the federations have become so large, that they have become a geopolitical ecosystem by themselves. I am specifically talking about Russia, EU, USA. Just like it happened in the Holy Roman Empire, we are seeing cities and communities going rogue. Just look at any election map of any sizeable country and you will see that large settlements are always differently coloured than their surrounding area. In the US there is already an extremely large divide between city folk and country folk, and in the EU, cities don't even speak the same language as the country anymore. Supposing the trend will continue, this can't go on forever.

Thanks for a response, true my question was rather broad.