Is the nation-state still a viable institution?

Question

The modern nation-state is the successor of the ancient city-state. Is the global system of competing nation-states viable in the long run for stability prosperity? Are nation-states still the dominant players in international politics or are international organtizations becoming more influential? Are there any viable alternatives?

so maybe corporate states like OCP in Robocop?

Answer 1

Nation-state design is viable only for tiny "postage stamp" countries or principalities. Luxembourg, Kuwait, Monaco. Basically the hangnail countries that have their own sovereign governments but are usually economically and culturally tied to larger nations they border.

No, nation-states are not the dominate players in politics. Primary players are the strongest nations with the widest sphere-of-influence on global affairs, followed by coalitions of nations with shared-trade (EU, NAFTA, OPEC, etc.)

Alternatives, right now nations are usually connected or divided along social/cultural lines or geographic lines. (Arabs states, European west/east divisions). The next step would be for countries to converge and form groupings based on shared economics practices. (Capitalists, socialists, communists, unionized labor, etc.) During the cold war and during the 80s there were only loose affiliations based on economic ideology. The next step is basically for several countries that share philosophies to form syndicate nation-blocks.

Answer 2

A country that wishes to remain sovereign (control it's own affairs) needs to withdraw from foreign entanglements. This was the traditional foreign policy of the US until a century ago. Since that time, we have become embroiled in wars (most of which were not even declared, as required by the Constitution). Is this what the American people want?

We can trade with other nations, but should our trade be controlled by the Congress (as specified in the Constitution), or controlled by foreign entites (NAFTA, GATT)?

Should we make our own laws, or do we need to check with some supra-national authority like the European Union to see if they approve?

Do we have certain unalienable Rights as specified in our Bill of Rights, or should we look to the UN to decide what our "rights" are, at the moment?

To anser these questions, you need to understand why we have nations, in the first place. People have different beliefs, customs, languages and wishes. The American people traditionally wanted limited government, with maximum freedom. We are going the way of the rest of the world. As our government grows, personal freedom diminishes. We are becomming a carbon-copy of the rest of the world.

If we are to restore our freedom, we need to clean house in Washington. We need to throw out the criminals, and replace them with Constitutionalists. Furthermore, we need to withdraw from the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, NAFTA, GATT and a myriad of other globalist organizations.

Is this Isolationism? I don't think so. We can still trade with other countries. We can visit them, their people can visit us. But we don't want to get involved in their wars. We don't want our government making secret deals with their governments.

If is called Freedom.

Answer 3

Nope. Never was. Belief in them as well as their offspring, corporations, are dependent on epistemic relativism. Strength of proclaiming something does not make it real. Blinding oneself to something's lack of substance doesn't make it anymore real. There is only one possible institution that can sustain, our humanity. All others are not genuine. Ecology shall supplant economies or we destroy ourselves and this unique opportunity for the sake of fantasies.

Answer 4

I think the age of multinational cooperations is soon to rise.. we'll start to see more and more of it as companies are forced to higher their own protection in hostile countries.

Answer 5

YES