Which of these “futures” do you see as the most viable for nation-states?
+1 (443) 805-1059:
Since the dawn of humanity, people have relied on some form of political organization to construct a relationship between individual freedom and collective equality. For the past few centuries, modern states have been the dominant expression of that relationship. Thus, we might conclude that states now represent the “end point” in human intellectual and organizational evolution. But this may not be true. States replaced empires, city-states, and other forms of governmental organizations. Perhaps something else will develop that will replace the State.
It has been speculated by both proponents of globalization and various future fiction writers that the concept of a nation-state may disappear with the ever-increasingly interconnected nature of the world. Such ideas are sometimes expressed around concepts of a world government. Globalization especially has helped to bring about the discussion about the disappearance of nation states, as global trade and the rise of the concepts of a ‘global citizen’ and a common identity have helped to reduce differences and ‘distances’ between individual nation states, especially with regards to the internet.
Another possibility is a societal collapse and move into communal anarchy or zero world government, in which nation-states no longer exist and government is done on the local level based on a global ethic of human rights.
Still others say that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the future and people will line up according to those concepts rather than loyalty to a “state”.
Finally, some say that the concept of “The State” is so deeply ingrained in our lives that it will always be around as it is now.
Which of these “futures” do you see as the most viable for nation-states? Or, do you see another possibility? Explain.