This whole scene shows the "tragic flaw" of the nation-state system: "Nations" have made a virtue of necessity by pretending that "diversity" is an asset, as they grow by conquest and accident. In the meantime, the sort of family spirit of ethnic identity, however flawed, is drained away. We're left with a rational response by the Rich: feather your "own" nest, which means , don't impoverish yourself and your family by making investments in the US, when you could make more money by gaming the system, elsewhere. I can remember when it was considered a disgrace for a "CEO " to lay anyone off; I believe my own grandfather ran afoul of this during the Depression. Bankruptcy was the result.

The fact is, National Sovereignty is a lethal metastable condition in the modern world, so the decline of nation-states is a healthy development. There is simply no way this setup can lead to anywhere but conflict and war, since there is no legal structure to settle disputes.

That Japanese classic "the 47 Ronin" shows the folly of trying to make an unstable system work. (It was magnificent: a dedicated group of super honorable men , who at great cost to themselves, tried to make the Feudal System work).

No matter what the Rich buy, they are not going to be able to save our "Nation". (I call it that from habit, actually the US is a polyglot empire, like Austria-Hungary) disigny

Although you put it in a way which is bound to offend some (maybe many) people, I have to say that I understand what you were driving at. In the far past, say in biblical times, the concept of a "nation" was a reference to a group of people of like ethnicity who seem to have thought of themselves as a sort of extended family. Thus, the Nation of Israel was often referred to as the Children of Israel, In its citation, Wikipedia refers to the term thusly: "The phrase 'Children of Israel' (or 'Sons of Israel') refers to the offspring of the Biblical patriarch Jacob, who was renamed 'Israel' after he triumphed in a wrestling match with a mysterious adversary. The name 'Israel' in English means 'Struggles with God'" It was subsequently extended to those who claimed further descent. It should be noted that it referred to a group of people and not a plot of land. Such is the case for many groups in history, including the "American Indians", who roamed the land and saw their cohesiveness in their ethnic similarity, associated with the members of a limited group (the tribe) which lived and traveled together. They did not designate some patch of land as their nation, although they might oppose intrusion in areas important to their welfare. Such is not the case in the present day world. Nations are defined by their boundaries and people "belong" to them. These people may be varied ethnically and may not even speak a common language, but are expected to exhibit fealty to some delineated area. In most, if not all, cases, this sort of separation makes as little sense as do the boundaries of counties layed out hundreds of years ago to define the extent of land grants to particular families or individuals, or even the states of the US, haphazardly and variously layed out in response to different, long forgotten stimuli. If one can understand that those boundaries don't make sense in the modern world, then one is equipped to ponder to what extent "national" boundaries make sense in that same world.

Both of you rally against the nation state, yet are conspicuously mute on the nature of the alternatives. One possibility is the resurgance of the paleo-empire or of feudalism, whereby the weak suffer what they must while the strong do what they can. This system fell at the end of the 30 years war (concurent with the dissolution of the Hapsburg empire) and was replaced with the modern nation-state system. As economics and finance developed into a liberal international economic order, Karl Marx decired the system's inequities, and proposed a state driven (command) economy. When implemented in the Soviet Union, it ironically descended into an exploitative brutality nastier than the one Marx rallied against.

But I'm honestly curious- what kind of utopian system do you think is going to rise in place of the nation state? Do you really think the resurgance of feudalistic systems is in anyone's interest?

Keep in mind that if the nation state were to fall (and it won't at any point in the near future) the wealthy people you criticize would only become more powerful.

in my experience, the phrase "nationstate" speaks to a desire to live in a fanciful universe where individual rights are paramount and if somebody violates them, and you can get a for fee bully service (i.e. private police force) to help you enforce your individual rights. Democracy sucks but it's far better than the alternatives.

One thing we are ignoring as a society is the fact that we do not live in a nationstate as much as a corporate nationstate. That corporations hold more sway over the legislative process then individual citizens. Part of this is because corporations are for all practical purposes, people. Concentrating on removing virtual personhood from corporations would give us a tremendous leeway on constraining their activities and allow individuals to have a freer more independent life from nanny corporations.

The term "nation-state" is interchangeable with state, country, nation, etc. The basic concept ties loyalty within national (geographic) boarders, and is rooted in a government that accepts responsibility for national defense and legal processes. Other forms of organization include an empire, where loyalty is tied to the emperor, or marxism, where loyalty is tied to an economic class.

Country mouse- your concept of "nation-state" sounds like Ayn Rand's objectivism.

As for corporations--don't ascribe corporate behavior to a faceless entity, recognize that they are run by individuals with their own interests and agendas. "Corporations are out to get us" makes you sound paranoid; "Mr. X outsourced 5000 job from company Y overseas, while making political donations to senator Z to maintain influence" is more likely to have an impact.

There are, of course, many alternatives, just as there are many alternatives to wearing the jersey of your favorite hockey team. Since nation-states are often multi-ethnic, they no longer follow the regimen which drove their origin. Thus, one might suggest that two or more adjacent nation-states could often be combined into one with, quite often, an increase in the efficiency with which both government and commerce could be delivered. That would not change the concept of the organization and thus your arguments do not apply. If this reorganization were to be repeated serially, then one would eventually end with a world government which still had the characteristics of a nation-state, but with the advantages that it no longer had an external enemy or an external competitor. That, of course, is only one of the many paths that change could take, but it is one which doesn't intrinsically offend your sense of rightness.

PhilfromCalifornia:

Since nation-states are often multi-ethnic, they no longer follow the regimen which drove their origin. Thus, one might suggest that two or more adjacent nation-states could often be combined into one with, quite often, an increase in the efficiency with which both government and commerce could be delivered.

This is a good description of European history, particularly that of Germany and Italy. It can also describe the integration of individual european states into the EU.

With a shared government and a common language, the eventual integration of dissimilar people into an integrated whole is inevitable... so long as the individual groups aren't activly trying to kill each other, as is the case in the Balkans.

If the state serves as the focal point if identity, racial identity is not necessary to unite a given population. Competition is arguably the central factor in driving such a national identity; state integration would then be a balance between individuals wanting to gain competative advantage through amalgamation and the desire to have a smaller state so that their individual influence has more of a chance of driving national policy.

Av8r:

You went where I was giving thought too. An alternative solution to a nation-state is a confederation of independent states dependent upon each other with one iconic ruler. I would have picked upon the Hapsburg Empire also as an example of a confederation of states or cultures under one ruler. The tie being the Hapsburgs.

What diiferentiates us from the confederation of the Hapsburg Empire is the assimilation of people into this nation state. The country almost from its beginning was created with that assimilation in mind taking into consideration the differention of peoples and cultures in Europe. With each successive wave of immigrants, the assimilation into this nation state was successful after a couple of generations. What remains to be seen is if we can assimilate a large population of Hispanics and a smaller population of religious Muslims. The next 50 years should be interesting watching the blend.

With the exception of Canada and Mexico; we are a nation with natural borders, which in many cases does not exisrt in Europe, the countries being more cultural and ethically derived, and borders looser as they intermingled. I don't think Phil is railing so much against a free economy in so much as against it being skewed to such a small minority. What was so readily apparent in a feudal society of inequity is being brought to bare through the manipulations of a few skewing the economy to their benefit at the expense of 98% of the populace. Perhaps, a return to a tax structure that existed pre-2000 would suffice?

Av8r:

kind of utopian system do you think is going to rise in place of the nation state?

World Theocracy.

If theocracy is religious rule, what does one call rule by the stupid?

Reading Gross' article and many of the responses to it, I foresee this as the system which will rise.

"With the exception of Canada and Mexico; we are a nation with natural borders"

Doesn't that only leave two?