For the first time I may actually be sympathetic with the views that the nation state as they are today, are not going to be sustainable for much longer and are actually showing the signs of collapse . I really do think it is possible that some type of maor reconfiguration of society may happen, and any effort to prop up the nation state may be too little too late.
I don't say this as something that is apocolyptic or anything, they may exist as some type "in name only" form or something, either way I just see society reorganizing.
What are your opinions?
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Yes, because the state is an effective way of using force against others, and a nation state does this on a grander scale. Will all nation states be around in 50 years? No. Will some other nation states be around in 50 years? Absolutely.
I sure hope so!
In all seriousness, I think the writing is on the wall.
You know you are getting close when they start calling anarchists "terrorists" again!
It's always darkest before the dawn, though. Reaction is going to be brutal when the protests start getting out of hand.
Unfortunately, I think there will be nation states around. The current population is just too invested in the nation state concept to deal with a moral change of going from law being handed down through violence to law being negotiated by individuals.
K.C. Farmer,
Sigh, I hope you are wrong, but I guess you are right. It is really people's willingness to submit to authority that is the problem. If people decided they didn't want to be slaves anymore, the masters would have no way to control them.
That is why we need insurrection, rather than revolution!
No masters, no slaves!
Amendments:
1) I am really only talking about the West - I cant say much about China, Russia, Iran, etc
2) I am not saying their would not be an attempt to massively try to centralize (Ex United States of Europe / pan american federation or whatever) - I am saying that the current borders and tactics that have been relativley stable since the end of WWII can no longer sustain as they are - debt, inflation, fake money, banks, corporatism,and the problems of uber federalized democracy and beurocracy can not sustain as they are now.
I would not be surprised if the disease is terminal and society has to reconfigure
I know this isn't sharing my own thoughts on the issue, but could you please go into more detail about your thoughts, Vive? I'm honestly fascinated and would like to hear more.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
While it's true that several western nation states could go bankrupt, or really are and just haven't made it official, that doesn't mean they go away. They just reconstitute themselves, slap another name on it, and continue pretty much along the same course.
The real issue is the number of nation states that have so intertwined their financial fates together through the various mechanisms such as reserve currencies and creating money out of nothing. That means even the so-called stable nation states are at risk of being impacted, albeit on a slightly different scale.
We may see the math get so far out of hand that everyone just tries to cheat and push some sort of 'reset button' - or something to that effect. I can see a vicious cycle repeating over and over. Some nation states will come up on the short end - usually the so-called 3rd world states.
Question I have is how much wealth destruction is really going on?
I agree with the KC farmer. I would guess at least 1/8 of the planet will be stateless territory 50 years from now but I don't think there will be zero nation states within the next 50 years.
I don't think the U.S. Federal Constitution is going to last much longer, and I have enough faith in Americans to believe that enough of them won't want a state after the U.S. Federal Constitution collapses.
If I'm murdered due to consequences of the state collapsing, the state is still blameworthy. I'm probably not smart enough to live through a major correction, but I'll be glad that some people will.
, but could you please go into more detail about your thoughts, Vive?
To give my quick thoughts for now (i may go into some depth a little later) you could basically look at Ron Pauls big campaign issues and the way Western Europe is now, and the reasons for that.
I don't think there has been this much civil unrest since the late 60's / early when the institutions that were in place were much more fresh and able to handle. Furthermore, I think this civil unrest is caused more from bad policy than directly by concentrated left wing subversion - as in this case, aspects of the left (mixed with bankers and corporatism) are actually the mouthpeice for keeping the system propped up.
Yes, I think that.
I doubt many nation-states will disappear. Citizens will instead demand government to become more radical, similar to leaders we got just after the Great Depression. Similar to a Hitler, Nazi-like stance. During the next 10 years Americans will likely demand an end to free-trade, an agressive foreign policy that aims to attack any country that disagrees with the policy of the US, an end to immigration and emmigration, a curtail of freedom of speech, and programs to eradicate minorities.
@Vive
There are only three states (!) a nation state can have:
1) Somehow continue without collapsing
2) Turn into an oppressive regime
3) Head towards decentralization
These paths can take centuries. I don't believe that option 1 really is possible over the long run. We have yet to observe a nation state not heading towards more centralization (and therefore more oppression) or heading toward decentralization (have we actually even observed a nation state head towards decentralization?). So, I cannot say whether that nation states, as we know them today, will collapse in 50 or 100 years, but I can say with great confidence that they will either head towards more tyranny or decentralization. They will not remain in the same place. I hope this made some sense.
If I were a statist, and an outside anarchist society flourished for several years, why would I want to have anything to do with statism? The facts would be on the news day in and day out. "Ancap-land has the highest standard of living", "Libertopia has higher growth than any nation-state", etc, etc. At first, people would be very bitter about all this, but sooner or later people are going to get it through their heads that the government is and always will be a parasite. Why wouldn't this lead to a domino-style collapse of statism?
In 50 years, I predict that "Nationa States" will be in decline. Panfederated regional or continental states will be what replaces them.
All you have to notice is that history has always demonstrated that states grow. From city states to China.
The EU is the U.S. They either get rid of the EMU due to the fact that none of the nation states follow the rules of ratification (think AoC) and become independent nation states, or they sign the Constitution and create a pan-federal-European government with the power to enforce laws in all nation states. The African Union has taken steps, and the SCO & BRICS as well, to get out from under nation state dependancy by globalizing.
I highly doubt there will be any (or more) geographical space that is a non-statist entity. The only ones that exist are called "protected" because they are a living antiquity used for ethnographic and anthropolgical study. Or they are subjected such as the case with the North American Indian.
It is a race between power and time; the statists seek to wrest all power before time destroys their nation state. The thing is, the statists in the big nation states have seen thefuture of regional and eventually world government that they are trying to increase their influence before it becomes legally codified internationally. The nation state with the most influence at the end of the race will eternalize their influence over the world. With technology what it is today, and its increasing advancement, it is absurd to think that statism will not dominate the future. The best we can hope for really is that collective conscious theory, short of that...a benevolent bureaucracy...
I don't believe that option 1 really is possible over the long run.
-I agree, and the interesting thing is - the nation state is fairly young. I think you could probably date it with the French Revolution. And America may have become a de facto nation state after the civil war.
Furthermore, there may be a few major stages that have occured with their rise and increased federalization (such as Federal banks / fiat currency).
- What we have to do is look at the "Progressive Tenency" and ignore all Conservative (capital "C") concerns for a nation state.
What I mean by this is, the tendency to want to "globalize" and "homogonize" this central power via progressive liberalism. This is shown by the increasing federalization of the US and the EU.
Either way, to me - it looks like there are major cracks in the system and it is time for things to happen "at the margin" of equilibrium. There is either going to be a massive attempt to centralize, or the inability to do so and a complete fracture. I don't see the current homeostasis of Nation States (what" big C" conservatives worship) as a thing that will last much longer. The corporations, many of whom may back neocons probably only care about what type of major apparatus will subsidize their concerns and have no concern for a nation as such. Furthermore, the nation state may not only may have lost viability, but as an added bonus after decades of Progressive propaganda for centralization, elites, wanna-be elites, and their useful idiots find the notion out of vogue.
- Heading for decentralization may happen, just because even Progressive/ Social Democrat propaganda can not prop up peoples desire for fashionability because they lack money. But overall I really do think there would at least be an attempt at some form of radical federalization first. If I'm right, which I probably am not, this is actually the part I would fear the most.
Unless we provide a viable alternative, the world will continue forming societies predicated on socialist principles, namely majority rule.
If we are individualists, let us translate that principle into a viable individualist political system that can replace the current regimes.
Without an alternative, nothing changes.
It was the American Revolution and the invention of the Democratic Republic that reshaped the world and tossed out the kings and emperors.
Where is the invention of an individualist republic?
What we need is a new political invention designed to continue the revolution towards freedom to its logical extent. The US Constitution took us at most halfway. It was an improvement over kings, but it is still predicated on the socialist ethic.
Build a new nation, one founded on individualism--place the locus of control not with the group but with the individual--and show the world the standard of living and achievements of a truly free society.
The US has lost the freedom we once had, but what we did with it was produce the modern world. What glories could a permanently free society create?
To coin a new term, NINOs, nations in name only. In 50 years all real power will be concentrated in international authorities.
Maybe. But ultimately I am not stressing anything "someone has to do" (frankly I think any ones decisions one way or the other is highly irrelevant in anything that will play out). I am talking about looking at sustainability of the apparatus in place
I know this wasn't directed at me, but whatevs.
vive la insurrection: I am talking about looking at sustainability of the apparatus in place
I am talking about looking at sustainability of the apparatus in place
Well, the scary thing is that North Korea has lasted as long as it has, and the USSR lasted a long time too. So even some of the worst systems in the history of mankind can last for a really long time. All governments collapse eventually. The question is: what emerges afterward? But as I said earlier in the thread, states do not remain the same. They either move towards decentralization or towards centralization.
The USSR lasted one full generation and just a little longer afterwords. It was also a much more radical set up of any current Nation State. Good call on Korea, even though it has been around less than the USSR.
The two things that you point out that I try to keep central to anything I try to think about with things like this:
1: We simply can't predict
2: The side effects ar the interesting stuff
That said this is an emptry speculation thread. All I am saying is for the first time in my life (I am in my late 20'a) the established structure of society looks visably shaken, and actual factual radicalism seems to be in the air to at least some degree. That's what I am finding interesting as of now.
vive la insurrection: The USSR lasted one full generation and just a little longer afterwords. It was also a much more radical set up of any current Nation State. Good call on Korea, even though it has been around less than the USSR.
It's fortunate that the worst systems don't seem to last as long as the others.
I supose it's true, but maybe we can say that as a system gets more oppressive, that system also shortens its lifespan. Maybe we can't, though empirical evidence seems to indicate that it is the case. However, there is nothing necessarily stopping an oppressive system from being replaced by another oppressive system.
What side effects did you have in mind?
That said this is an emptry speculation thread. All I am saying is for the first time in my life (I am in my late 20'a) the established structure of society looks visably shaken, and actual factual radicalism seems to be in the air to at least somedegree. That's what I am finding interesting as of now.
Speculating is fun! It seems to me that more people are more willing to embrace social liberties than perhaps 50 years ago, but economic illiteracy is incredible, and that is a serious problem. I hope the internet changes that. But, not to be too much of a downer, if you look at American history over the last 200 years, you'll observe all sorts of ups and downs regarding social and civil liberties. It's almost like a cycle.
lol, specifically I was thinking of Fleming on the upside and the Assasination of the Arch Duke on the downside. And how nobody could predict such an event, and how so much of the more "interesting" world shaking events are blink of the eye radicalism that are fairly random / "dumb luck".
This goes in with the unseen / uninteded consequences aspect of economics. As well as the Austrian check on knowledge and calculation I suppose.
As Lachmann says "The Future is unknowable though not unimaginable"
I hope the internet changes that.
Lay people actually read Hayek and Mises for fun now, and with great interest. I doubt that is as true of people like Stigler or Samuelson.
I know a few people get stuffy about this, but I think it is awesome that people who live in society actually take a serious sociological outlook (i.e. Austrianism) seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the most excited people have been about a serious look at liberty in a long time, if not ever.