I think this is good. except for the common defense part. of course if we don't need to protect ourselves from ourselves that would be even better.

Great Britain. The United States. Canada. Italy. Belgium. These are nation states. And their future is unclear.

No, they are not nation states, except Italy.

The United States have been founded on the basis of an ideology, not a nation, and many Europeans fled European nationalism in the 19th century to live in a country that is not a nation state.

Great Britain is a union of four distinct nations, England, Wales, Scotland, and (Northern) Ireland. Its unification was never on the basis of the nation but on the basis of a common history, interests, common philosophy and the common plain successful winning the war over Scotland.

Canada was founded as a British colony and has never been a nation state either. Belgium is a federation of two nations (and a German minority).

Italy is a nation state (although one with a substantial German minority).

Nation states were an invention of cardinal Richelieu and I myself consider them largely a failure, although some work.

Israel is a nation state (although a special one since the nation in question is not defined solely by common descent), Germany is a nation state, Russia is a nation state (with lots and lots of minorities with their own individual republics and provinces). The Soviet Union was not a nation state (although individual "republics" were). The Arab countries are not nation states (although there have been attempts to unite them into a nation state, luckily unsuccessful). China is a nation state (by force, if necessary).

nation state: "a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent."

That is true for Germany, but it isn't true for the US or Great Britain.

The difference is crucial.

I personally find non-nation states superior to nation states (the exception being Israel because its nation is not defined by common descent). A common culture/philosophy/ideology/economy etc. is a better basis than common descent, because it is something substantial and man-created rather than a biological fact forced upon us and regarded as more or less important depending on whom you ask.

(Why do I sometimes need to insert br tags to get newlines and sometimes not?)

Not quite accurate - it's only in the last 150 years or so that states and provinces in most nation-states have had their rights to charge tax on goods limited or removed. In many nation-states there are still a number of different markets, each geographically located and separated by import tax borders or, in a few special cases, quarantine.

But yeah, common defence and freer internal markets are some of the defining factors of the nation-state. I would argue though that the common ideology and the shared myth of history is more important. While you can have a state without a nation, you can't have a nation without a shared myth.

That artificially induced myth - whether it's pan-Judaism, Germanic tribes or 'unified' England - is the key binding force, far more so than mere economic convenience or fear of outsiders.

In the current world it hasn't eroded overly much. Some states have dissipated, sure, but I don't think Americans are going to start thinking of themselves as Texans in opposition to say Canadians rather than Americans. Myths of the same level butt against each other or the unifying one slightly above (eg US versus Canada, Texas vs Minnesota, Texas vs US) but that's natural - identity happens in layers, not on a single level. No one is just one thing. Unless the world disappears national identity is still going to be more important than state or province identity.

Unless the world disappears national identity is still going to be more important than state or province identity.

That statement doesn't make sense. I think what you mean is that people associate more with their country than with its subdivisions. But that is also not true.

Many people in Germany identify more with their state than with the federation. In fact, that is why Austria, Luxemburg, and Liechstenstein happened to be their own countries. But Arabs often identify more with the "Arab nation" than with their specific country (like Morocco or Jordan).

"National identity" means nothing given that some countries are nation states, while others represent two ore more nations or only part of a nation. Some countries represent no specific nation at all. There is no "American nation" in the same sense as there is a "German nation" or an "Arab nation".

And what is pan-Judaism?

Pan-Slavism is the idea of uniting all Slavs in one country, pan-Germanism is the same for Germans, pan-Arabism for Arabs. But those philosophies usually include the conquest and subsequent control of countries where those populations live. Jews have never shown any interest in uniting all countries where Jews live; the only Jewish nationalism there ever was was about getting Jews to _leave_ those countries and go back to Israel.

There is also no "artificially induced myth". The history of the Jewish people, as of the Germanic peoples are well-recorded, and while their histories might be myths, they are hardly "artificially induced".

Americans used to think of themselves as citizens of their states first and America second. That is why general Lee fought for the south (for Virginia). Germans are still trying to feel more "German" than "Bavarian" (with the exception of the unfortunate instance when they all felt Germanic for a few years). Perhaps at some point Europeans will think of themselves as EU rather than French citizens.

The "nation state" is not getting weaker, it's just that the make up of countries keeps changing.

Scotland might well become an independent nation state. But that would be a sign of nation states getting stronger rather than weaker.

It seems to me that nationalism is on the rise in the world and that nation states are getting stronger while states defined as something other than "nation" are getting weaker.

There was no time in history where the Germans were a united people. They were grouped together by outsiders, but they were never united in the way that early Germans were portrayed in the artificial histories of the unification days (clearly a Prussian effort) and the Hitler years (the mythos had practically no basis in fact by that stage, but it didn't matter; the people accepted they were unified now even if the ideology behind that unity was ludicrous or grossly inaccurate).



It's missing a significant 'outside'. Without other countries to contrast against, a person's broadest identity is going to make an us and them out of their province-level neighbours rather than other states. But with other states in the world it's only natural to hold your highest allegiance to your state over others. So long as a need is perceived for maintaining that distinction, and so long as the state you live in is moderately competent, there's no good reason to regress to being a Texan over an American, to use the example.

There are forces trying to completely irraticate the nation state.  Nations have a distinctness unique to themselves.  There are people who appreciate that and enjoy travelling to different areas to experience what each nation has to offer.  However, there are others who cringe at the very thought that some people might live differently than others, and work hard to make everywhere the same as anywhere else.

It isn't just a global thing.  The last 40 years have seen our cities become more hemogenous... It's beginnig to happen to States also. 

It's not always sinister... just watch how people are when they move from one place to another. As often as not, they want to drag where they lived before to where they are. It's usually resented a lot by the people in the city they moved to.

 

Enemies of freedom have always resented differences in people... it makes us harder to pacify into robots.

an example of this. is salt lake city, people move there because they like how nice things seem to be when they visit. like not a lot of drunks on the streets. because of the liqueur laws in Utah. but when they move there then they want to change the liqueur laws to the ones that they are used to.

There was no time in history where the Germans were a united people.

Hence the entire German history is bunk? That doesn't make a lot of sense. There is clearly a true history that binds all Germans together. A common language alone is a strong hint. And what is "pan-Judaism"?

There are forces trying to completely irraticate the nation state.

And good riddance.

Nation states have been unmitigated disasters, with non-nation states, like the US and Britain beating the hell out of them.

Nations have a distinctness unique to themselves, that is true. But I have yet to find a "national distinctness" that is a very attractive feature outside of Judaism, where most traditions are national as well as religious.

When I visit Germany, I enjoy the local state distinctness, but there is little "German" (as opposed to "Bavarian" or "Saxon") that I find is worth preserving, apart from the language itself and a few poets of centuries past.

It's not always sinister... just watch how people are when they move from one place to another. As often as not, they want to drag where they lived before to where they are. It's usually resented a lot by the people in the city they moved to.

There are three ways to handle this. One is the "nation state" way, where you expect the immigrants to assimilate completely. The other is the "other nation state" way, where the immigrants expect you to assimilate completely. The first is usually attempted and the second happens. And then there is the "non-nation state" way where the two cultures mix and the best features of both survive. That is what happened in the US in the past (and to a smaller extent in Israel today).

If you advocate the nation state, you will go for the first, and the second will happen. But both are not as good as the third.

Leauki: Why does everywhere have to be the same as everywhere else? Since the US is a nation states, so you're entire premise is flawed.

They've only had a common language since the first unification. Even today the elderly from opposite sides of the country can experience difficulties understanding each other's dialects. Modern education has largely eradicated that, but there were a number of languages for most of what could be called 'German' history. They could communicate of course, and if you moved slowly enough from town to town you could travel without consciously changing your language, but you can do that today pretty much from coast to coast in Europe today despite officially different languages.



The idea that Jews share more with each other than with their immediate neighbours - that there is a Jewish race which is unique and wholly separate from its cousins. That this was false was quickly discovered as Israel was first forming - the differences between the views of European, Russian, American and African Jews caused a small amount of conflict which may have caused trouble if it wasn't for the huge problems the country faced purely for its own survival.

Their 'common heritage' - ie the belief they had a common history/culture despite the evidence that really only one factor was common to all - was the uniting force.



Americans are too multicultural to be a nation. They're culturally heterogenous. The Lakota, for example, are a nation - a culturally homogenous group. But the US as a whole contains too many separate and culturally different groups to ever be a nation for the precise meaning of the word. You can call a sheep a cow but that won't make it moo.

Cacto:

So we have to define ourselves by arbitrary "group think" to be a nation? Sorry, that's rediculous. Do you really think all Lakota think alike? Or all of anything you would recognize as a "nation"?

the united states is supposed to be 50 nations working together for common defense.


this does not count the Indian nations of course.


but since world war 2 we have become one nation working for the common defense of non.


I should qualify this statement. we as a nation are not working for the common defense from internal enemies. we are still working for the common defense from outside forces. but some are trying to do away with that too.

Nope Daniel. We are sovereign states working as a common nation. At least that is what we are supposed to be. Too many federalist impositions are clouding that fact.

OK you might be right.


but I still say that the federal government has taken to much power on itself.

Absolutely.