This basic mismatch between the scale of the problem and the scale of possible solutions is a source of many of today’s failures of global governance. Nation-states and the global governance institutions they have formed simply aren’t fit for the task of managing things such as viruses, greenhouse gases and biodiversity, which aren’t bound by political borders, but only by the Earth system.

a digital Nation today on a nation today is like way too big like we we don't have kinship with all the people

economies of scope

do you think there is some like limitation on the 00:17:34 size of the digital Nations

CoordiNations

“Inherent in the dynamics of capitalism is a powerful drive to earn profits, invest them, innovate and thus grow the economy….These features of capitalism, as they are constituted today, work together to produce an economic and political reality that is highly destructive of the environment.” (7) Much of the book explores this drive of capitalism toward unlimited quantitative growth, the role of the market in this drive, the centrality of the corporation in carrying out accumulation, the wastefulness of consumption under capitalism, and the domination of the corporations over governments.

On the one hand it encloses through its territorial borders, while on the other, through the subordination of people’s imaginaries to patriotic identities

The basis of imperialism is the division of the world into an “anarchic” system of independent nation-states. There is no larger structure of decision-making that regulates human society on a global scale. Nation-states are thus only constrained in their conduct on the world stage by fear of what other states can do to them. Competition between nation-states puts pressure on each state to maximize its power to avoid subordination to others. States that have little power will be under severe pressure to align themselves with more muscular states that have major military and economic forces at their disposal. The logic of the nation-state system is similar to that of competition in the sphere of production. The world’s productive forces are divided into competing business organizations where each can survive only as long as its sales revenue is greater than its costs. Competition forces companies to constantly seek innovations that lower their per unit costs, especially labor costs. A company with greater resources will be much more likely to survive in the constantly changing world of market forces and attempts by competitors to take away their market share. A company must pursue economic expansion to survive in such a world. Competition between nation-states has the same logic, leading inevitably to the “arms race,” that is, technological innovation to enhance the destructive power that a state can bring to bear on the world scene. “Dominate or be dominated” is as much the logic of competition between nation-states as between businesses. The imperialist tendency is inherent in every state. The formation of new nation-states can no more put an end to imperialism than the formation of new businesses can put an end to capitalism. The “defeat” of one empire in this or that region, or the long-term decline of a formerly dominant power, will not bring an end to the system of imperialism but merely facilitate the rise of a new empire, or the rise of numerous mini-imperialist tendencies, with all the dangers of military conflict that implies.

The State, therefore, is the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity. It shatters the universal solidarity of all men on the earth, and brings some of them into association only for the purpose of destroying, conquering, and enslaving all the rest. —Mikhail Bakunin[1]

Stalin’s famous, ‘nations have a common language, territory, economic life and culture’

Rupert Read has the best idea I have heard re international climate negotiations: countries that are serious should have their own conference where they collaborate on strong targets, plans, etc. Part of which should be recognising the dangers of remaining reliant on the petrostates, planning to transcend that reliance and sanctioning them

As you have read over to us several of the former Treaties with our Forefathers, We think itwould be better to come wholly upon a new Footing, for all those former

first day of October Yearly, so long as they shall Continue inFriendship, Receive Presents of Blankets, Tobacco, and some Powder & Shot; and the saidIndians promise once every Year, upon the first of October to come by themselves or theirDelegates and Receive the said Presents and Renew their Friendship and Submissions.7. That the Indians shall use their best Endeavours to save the lives and goods of any PeopleShipwrecked on this Coast, where they resort, and shall Conduct the People saved to Halifaxwith their Goods, & a Reward adequate to the Salvadge shall be given them.8. That all Disputes whatsoever that may happen to arise between the Indians now at Peace,and others His Majesty's Subjects in this Province shall be tryed in His Majesty's Courts of CivilJudicature, where the Indians shall have the same benefit, Advantages and Priviledges, as anyothers of His Majesty's Subjects.

and on the other hand if any of the Indians refusing to ratify this Peace, shall make Warupon the Tribe who have now confirmed the same; they shall upon Application have such aidand Assistance from the Government for their Defence, as the case may require.

My land which I received from God alone, my land of which no king nor foreign power hasbeen allowed or is allowed to dispose against my will

[But this made me much better when he inspired in your majesty these sentiments ofgreat compassion for me, that he seems well disposed to facilitate the enjoyment ofthis happiness in so many ways.

My king, my Father,

I am contentto have someone beside me with whom I am tightly united by religion and wholikewise supports me from afar with the strong hand of someone that I regard as thegrandest prince on earth and, who for me, takes the place of father.

Much of what they do can be done without eliciting the ire of nation-states. Bike shares, pedestrian zones, insulated buildings, renovated port facilities, congestion fees, car emission limits, furnace specifications, fuel upgrades (from oil to gas to alternative energy) and white paint roofs, for example, are only some of the innovations city officials can promote to effect significant reductions in emissions and pollutants.

here states have grown dysfunctional and sovereignty has become an obstacle to global democratic action—as when the United States (or China, France, or Canada) refuses to compromise its sovereignty by permitting the international monitoring of carbon emissions on its soil—cities have increasingly proven themselves capable of deliberative democratic action on behalf of sustainability, as they have actually done in intercity associations like the C-40 or ICLEI. If presidents and prime ministers cannot summon the will to work for a sustainable planet, mayors can. If citizens of the province and nation think ideologically and divisively, neighbors and citizens of the towns and cities think publicly and cooperatively.

Renan's definition of a nation has been extremely influential. This was given in his 1882 discourse Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? ("What is a Nation?"). Whereas German writers like Fichte had defined the nation by objective criteria such as a race or an ethnic group "sharing common characteristics" (language, etc.), Renan defined it by the desire of a people to live together, which he summarized by a famous phrase, "avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore" (having done great things together and wishing to do more).

Khelsilem Is Young, Squamish and Reshaping the Political Landscape How the kid they called Old Man Rivers is helping to change the future of his people and the region.

Mike: But I believe that if you're really, really dedicated, anything is possible, and I feel like that country made me realize it. That hope. That even though I'm here, if I made it out there I could make it out here. And I just love America. There's nowhere else that's the same as that spot. It taught me a lot of things and I feel like both of them are like my mother countries. They're just like my stepmother. But I love both countries to death.

Mike: I feel like I'm a Mexican American. You learn to love your country when you're young, because of your parents and your culture, but at the same time you see all these opportunities that are given to you by going to the United States. And a lot of things that people say in the United States is bullshit.

It is more to the point that Kalakaua’s reign was, in a material sense, the golden age of Hawaiian histor

nothing, more than education, adorning the prosperity, the power and the happiness of a nation

The remaining major factor underlying wealth and poverty is the state of the natural environment. All human populations depend to varying degrees on renewable natural resources—especially on forests, water, soils, and seafood. It’s tricky to manage such resources sustainably. Countries that excessively deplete their resources—whether inadvertently or intentionally—tend to impoverish themselves, although the difficulty of estimating accurately the costs of resource destruction causes economists to ignore it. It helps explain why notoriously deforested countries—such as Haiti, Rwanda, Burundi, Madagascar, and Nepal—tend to be notoriously poor and politically unstable.

Thus, geographical latitude acting independently of institutions is an important geographic factor affecting power, prosperity, and poverty. The other important geographic factor is whether an area is accessible to ocean-going ships because it lies either on the sea coast or on a navigable river. It costs roughly seven times more to ship a ton of cargo by land than by sea. That puts landlocked countries at an economic disadvantage, and helps explain why landlocked Bolivia and semilandlocked Paraguay are the poorest countries of South America. It also helps explain why Africa, with no river navigable to the sea for hundreds of miles except the Nile, and with fifteen landlocked nations, is the poorest continent. Eleven of those fifteen landlocked African nations have average incomes of $600 or less; only two countries outside Africa (Afghanistan and Nepal, both also landlocked) are as poor.

Two major factors contribute to the poverty of tropical countries compared to temperate countries: diseases and agricultural productivity. The tropics are notoriously unhealthy. Tropical diseases differ on average from temperate diseases, in several respects. First, there are far more parasitic diseases (such as elephantiasis and schistosomiasis) in tropical areas, because cold temperate winters kill parasite stages outside our bodies, but tropical parasites can thrive outside our bodies all year long. Second, disease vectors, such as mosquitoes and ticks, are far more diverse in tropical than in temperate areas.

The remaining factor contributing to good institutions, of which Acemoglu and Robinson mention some examples, involves another paradox, termed “the curse of natural resources.” One might naively expect countries generously endowed with natural resources (such as minerals, oil, and tropical hardwoods) to be richer than countries poorer in natural resources. In fact, the trend is opposite, the result of the many ways in which national dependence on certain types of natural resources (like diamonds and oil) tends to promote bad institutions, such as corruption, civil wars, inflation, and neglect of education.

The various durations of government around the world are linked to the various durations and productivities of farming that was the prerequisite for the rise of governments. For example, Europe began to acquire highly productive agriculture 9,000 years ago and state government by at least 4,000 years ago, but subequatorial Africa acquired less productive agriculture only between 2,000 and 1,800 years ago and state government even more recently. Those historical differences prove to have huge effects on the modern distribution of wealth. Ola Olsson and Douglas Hibbs showed that, on average, nations in which agriculture arose many millennia ago—e.g., European nations—tend to be richer today than nations with a shorter history of agriculture (e.g., subequatorial African nations), and that this factor explains about half of all the modern national variation in wealth. Valerie Bockstette, Areendam Chanda, and Louis Putterman showed further that, if one compares countries that were equally poor fifty years ago (e.g., South Korea and Ghana), the countries with a long history of state government (e.g., South Korea) have on the average been getting rich faster than those with a short history (e.g., Ghana).

There is no doubt that good institutions are important in determining a country’s wealth. But why have some countries ended up with good institutions, while others haven’t? The most important factor behind their emergence is the historical duration of centralized government. Until the rise of the world’s first states, beginning around 3400 BC, all human societies were bands or tribes or chiefdoms, without any of the complex economic institutions of governments. A long history of government doesn’t guarantee good institutions but at least permits them; a short history makes them very unlikely. One can’t just suddenly introduce government institutions and expect people to adopt them and to unlearn their long history of tribal organization.That cruel reality underlies the tragedy of modern nations, such as Papua New Guinea, whose societies were until recently tribal. Oil and mining companies there pay royalties intended for local landowners through village leaders, but the leaders often keep the royalties for themselves. That’s because they have internalized their society’s practice by which clan leaders pursue their personal interests and their own clan’s interests, rather than representing everyone’s interests.

Three people died

studies indicate that a text needs to be about 98% comprehensible in order for it to help the reader acquire new vocabulary