A0124956 GEM1004 TUT [W2]

In this essay, I argue that the removal of the nation is a favourable

pursuit, not in the practical sense, but in the idealistic sense. Practically,

the removal of the nation will never be realistic due to several issues

which I will cover on later in the essay. However, I will make several points

on why the removal of the nation is necessary to achieve peace, freedom

and universal equality (egalitarianism). Due to the word limitations of the

essay, I will not be covering in detail regarding the various institutions

governing the world today.

For the purpose of this essay, the nation shall be defined as an extremely

large community, with strong bonds of identity via geographical, cultural,

religion, history, language and ethnicity. The nation as defined, are

divided geographically, and are governed by the domestic political,

economic and social institutions.

The first argument I will present in favour of the removal of the nation, is

that by abolishing the concept of nation in the idealistic sense, it will lead

to the eradication of wars in the global scale. Nations have engaged in

conflict and went to war over differences between nation states. These

differences all boils down to the fundamental reason of the nation being

formed as an institution of its own. As defined earlier, each nation has

their own geography, and their people bonded by cultural, religion,

history, language and ethnicity which is the basis of their identity, which

can be deemed as their national identity. Taking World War 2 (WW2) as

example, it happened primarily due to the rise of Nazi Germany. How did

that happen? It all boiled down to Hitler and his partys ability to exploit

1
A0124956 GEM1004 TUT [W2]

the resentment and injustice towards Allied Powers that was felt across

Germany after World War 1 (WW1) with the perceived unfairness of the

Treaty of Versailles, which imposed steep reparations to punish Germany

for their actions during (WW1). With the conception of nation as a formal

institution, nation identity is a natural by-product, and with nation identity

comes nationalism. By arousing feelings of nationalism in Nazi Germany,

Hitler and the Nazi party managed to convince and motivate Germany to

engage in armed conflict, and also commit atrocities to those deemed not

of Aryan blood Jews. This brings us back to the concept of Circles, in

which the nation can be defined as a circle. There is a natural human

tendency to side ones own circle in times when moral character is tested

or during hard times, regardless whether ones own circle is right or not,

which is evident in the rise of Nazi Germany as mentioned earlier. Hence,

by abolishing the nation in the idealistic sense, it ensures homogeneity

across all humans, and thus remove points of contention (differences) and

thus minimizes the need for war.

The second argument is if we eliminate the circle of nation, we can then

achieve egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is defined as all humans are equal

in fundamental worth or social status according to the Stanford

Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. As evident from the differences in income

levels and socioeconomic status of humans across nations over the world,

I can therefore propose this argument that ones fate, economic fortunes

are decided by where he or she is born. This is proven by the global

inequality being across rather than within nations (Bourguignon and

Morrisson 2002). If we are to subscribe to the notion that all humans are

2
A0124956 GEM1004 TUT [W2]

equal in fundamental worth or social status, then it isnt fair at all that we

humans have differing socioeconomic status simply due to the fact that

one may be born in a first world country where all basic needs are met,

and another being born in a third world society. This can only be achieved

by the removal of the nation itself, and unifying the world under a central

government with political, social and economic institutes that addresses

and enforces the homogeneity of humankind itself, to achieve the ideal

state of the removal of the nation itself.

The third argument I propose, to support the pursuit of the removal of the

nation, is that we cant enjoy freedom until the concept of nation is

removed. What is freedom? Freedom is defined as the state of not being

imprisoned or enslaved, and having the power or right to act, speak or

think as one wants. (Google 2016) By this definition, we are all imprisoned

(not literally), simply by our geographical location, and travel or migration

across nations currently isnt free flowing look at the bureaucratic

process one has to go through to travel to another country eg. Flight

visas, immigration checks. We are also bound by the political institutions

governing us, the nation ideology that we are encouraged to subscribe to,

or one shall say propaganda, in which we do not have the freedom to act,

speak or think as one wants without self-policing with fear of

repercussions. Just look at any political dissidents in a country which are

met with governmental resistance, and this proves a point that freedom to

act, speak or think is currently a mere faade as you only have the

freedom if you act, speak or think what the government or society desires

you to. Hence by these points, one can say hes enslaved by the notion of

3
A0124956 GEM1004 TUT [W2]

the nation itself, and it goes against the idea of freedom itself. So only by

the removal of nation states one can enjoy freedom at its idealistic and

purest form.

The main counterargument against removal of the nation state, is the

fact that the nation state does preserve heterogeneity and diversity

across humans in the world. Due to our differences in view of what

constitutes our well-being, and differing opinions of economic, social and

political issues, there is no one size fits all solution, and to construct

relevant institutions for the entire unified world is a futile endeavour at

best. Take present-day examples, that banks pushing for global rules were

met with resistance from domestic legislatures and policymakers, simply

due to the fact that there is no way in satisfying everybody. However, for

the sake of this essay, since we are arguing for the removal of the nation

state in the ideal state, we must assume that anything is possible, and

thus we can safely make the assumption that us humans will set aside our

differences in the name of peace, egalitarianism and freedom to move

towards a unified world without the concept of nation. Hence, despite the

differences, the removal of nation state ideally will be able to resolve

these differences and move towards homogeneity of mankind.

In conclusion, it is only possible to achieve freedom, peace and universal

equality (egalitarianism) if we eradicate the concept of nation entirely.

[1121 words]

4
A0124956 GEM1004 TUT [W2]

References

Lets abolish national borders entirely. (2017).

Methodicalinsanity.wordpress.com. Retrieved 18 February 2017, from
https://methodicalinsanity.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/lets-abolish-
national-borders-entirely/

Online Debate: National Borders should be abolished | Debate.org. (2017).

Debate.org. Retrieved 18 February 2017, from
http://www.debate.org/debates/National-Borders-should-be-abolished/1/

Rodrik, D. (2012). Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography - Who Needs

the Nation State? (1st ed.). Clark University.

The global philosopher: Should borders be abolished? - BBC News. (2017).

BBC News. Retrieved 18 February 2017, from
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35834178

Why destroy the nation-state?. (2017). Web.inter.nl.net. Retrieved 18

February 2017, from
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nationstate.html