What should be the primary objectives of nation states in today's modern world?

TransparencyWhat should be the primary objectives of nation states in today's modern world?
Is a pleasure to be at your service

Report Abuse

What should be the primary objectives of nation states in today's modern world?
To feed its population and to look after the taxpayer in both Heath and Safety!Any surplus!If any?Let selected African states receive a portion!Providing they have a very good Human Rights record!
To become self-sustainable through any means possible: and to adopt that survival of the fittest approach towards the third world.
they should coopererate with each other to make a better and saferer world..........instead of posturing for the demise of each other....
To secure the prosperity of there nation and it's people . An to stay out of peoples lives .
To dissolve themselves, and focus more on humanity as a whole.
Do no harm followed by Stay out of the peoples way.
to not recieve foreign aid and still maintain soveriegnty

free spyware

When this great, free and democratic nation of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA invades and conquers europe?

should we call it newamerica, or eastamerica?When this great, free and democratic nation of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA invades and conquers europe?
A more realistic question would be when other countries invade the USA, since O has been going around and apologizing to every country in the world, making us look like the pansy he is.


Other countries see this as a sign of weakness and laugh at this fool.When this great, free and democratic nation of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA invades and conquers europe?
When is the wonderful ACTUALLY free Europe going to invade the decadent, corrupted United States of America?


And what shall we call it? New Europe? There is already a new England there, we could name all the states New *insert European country name here*, at least the entire world would be happy that USA is gone.
It will all be called Eastasia.





De-industrialized nations are incapable of waging war. Kiss Western Civ classes goodbye. Europe and North America are going the way of Kodachrome.





Thanks to Queen Nancy and her court of fools...
Faggotland?


You can be head of state!


Or considering the state of your mind, you might prefer to be the Grand Lubricator of Hairbrushes or something equally as useless.
That will not happen; USA is not about global conquest.
democratic and free and great you make me puke!!





you invaded iraq and killed millions of innocents for oil so thats very democratic??
I sincerely hope this is a joke, because if there are people out there that actually think like this, the entire human race is doomed.
i like east america, we already have a north and south america. its like we are colecting! xD
its not gonna happen, there is very little conquering now days and nothing to that extent
What reality distortion field do you live in?
Man, would I ever love to meet your dealer; that is some wicked stuff.
and.. why, exactly, would we want it?

Which of the following is an example of a nation-state with whom the United States has diplomatic relations?

a) Great Britain


b) NATO


c) The United Nations


d)All of the aboveWhich of the following is an example of a nation-state with whom the United States has diplomatic relations?
Great Britain... NATO and UN are international organisations (leagues of states).Which of the following is an example of a nation-state with whom the United States has diplomatic relations?
A. Great Britain





NATO and United Nations are not a ';nation-state';, but rather International Organizations.
Definitely a, NATO and the UN are not nations..

Are there specific conditions that led to the rise of the nation state in western europe?

Look up the Peace of Westphalia. The modern day nation-state is known as the Westphalian system.

What is and should be the relationship of the individual to the nation-state according to Georg Hegel?

I can't do this question justice, but here goes nothin'. Hegel maintains that human freedom can only occur in relation to a state which acknowledges one's quasi-individuality. Thus a person must participate in the state and serve the state, but the state that one serves must work at least in part for the individual. That's all I got. Hope it helps.

David Hume's theory on the rise of a nation-state ?

What was David Hume's political theory????David Hume's theory on the rise of a nation-state ?
Many regard David Hume as a political conservative, sometimes calling him the first conservative philosopher. This is not strictly accurate, if the term conservative is understood in any modern sense. His thought contains elements that are, in modern terms, both conservative and liberal, as well as ones that are both contractarian and utilitarian, though these terms are all anachronistic. His central concern is to show the importance of the rule of law, and stresses throughout his political Essays the importance of moderation in politics. This outlook needs to be seen within the historical context of eighteenth century Scotland, where the legacy of religious civil war, combined with the relatively recent memory of the 1715 and 1748 Jacobite risings, fostered in a historian such as Hume a distaste for enthusiasm and factionalism that appeared to threaten the fragile and nascent political and social stability of a country that was deeply politically and religiously divided. He thinks that society is best governed by a general and impartial system of laws, based principally on the ';artifice'; of contract; he is less concerned about the form of government that administers these laws, so long as it does so fairly (though he thought that republics were more likely to do so than monarchies).Hume expressed suspicion of attempts to reform society in ways that departed from long-established custom, and he counselled people not to resist their governments except in cases of the most egregious tyranny. However, he resisted aligning himself with either of Britain's two political parties, the Whigs and the Tories, and he believed that we should try to balance our demands for liberty with the need for strong authority, without sacrificing either. He supported liberty of the press, and was sympathetic to democracy, when suitably constrained. It has been argued that he was a major inspiration for James Madison's writings, and the Federalist No. 10 in particular. He was also, in general, an optimist about social progress, believing that, thanks to the economic development that comes with the expansion of trade, societies progress from a state of ';barbarism'; to one of ';civilisation';. Civilised societies are open, peaceful and sociable, and their citizens are as a result much happier. It is therefore not fair to characterise him, as Leslie Stephen did, as favouring ';that stagnation which is the natural ideal of a skeptic';. (Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, 2 vols. (London: Smith, Elder and Co., 1876), vol. 2, 185.)





Though it has been suggested Hume had no positive vision of the best society, he in fact produced an essay titled Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, which lays out what he thought was the best form of government. His pragmatism shone through, however, in his caveat that we should only seek to implement such a system should an opportunity present itself, which would not upset established structures. He defended a strict separation of powers, decentralisation, extending the franchise to anyone who held property of value and limiting the power of the clergy. The Swiss militia system was proposed as the best form of protection. Elections were to take place on an annual basis and representatives were to be unpaid.

Why not get rid of the nation-state for a multi-cultural world?

free-trade has rendered nationalism obsolete....if we do not buy china goods, our standard of living goes down....if china does not sell her goods, their living standard goes down..





we are interdependent...if someone fails in their economy---it sends a domino effect that affects the other...





the only barriers now that are left, are those of culture, race and religion...





race is becoming less and less distinct as more and more countries become racially diverse, same with religions...religions are become more and more hedgemonic...not even close to the power it used to have....catholic political power is nothing (now with the age of science, literal doctrine is obsolete), the only religion by which peopel still feel furor over is islam...but even that is abiding now and over generations...we will learn to accept some muslim and arab culture worldwide in exchange for peace....





so the one left is culture...





why not destroy the nation state...and require this in school:Why not get rid of the nation-state for a multi-cultural world?
Read you Hobbes :)





International relations exist in the state of nature. Human beings figured out a long time ago that they needed to trade some of their absolute liberty (and accompanying vulnerability) for safety. Even the strongest recognized their vulnerability to groups of people determined to defeat them. As a result, we ended up with governments (and states). In order for the state system to be replaced, leaders of states would have to come to the same conclusion. Currently, there are enough states that feel secure as they are that they are unwilling to give up ultimate sovereignty. Look at the EU. States gave up a great deal of economic sovereignty, but when the time came to pass an EU constitution, even the biggest supporters of integration balked at the idea.Why not get rid of the nation-state for a multi-cultural world?
Pure fantasy drivel.


Diversity is the most divisive force in a nation's social fabric. That means diversity--racial, ethnic, religious--all of it, is bad for a country. What was once a powerful, monolithic society is now torn apart by multitudinous self-interests.





Interdependency is also bad. For example, America has been gutted of its industrial and manufacturing base. Our economy has been coasting on what we accomplished in the 30's - 60's and it is running out of steam.





The irony is that the Government and the New World Order tribe have convinced you deadheads to think these things are GOOD for society! Drooling idiots.
There will always be local warlords, either in the form of nations or tribes. Also, nations are the only politial entity that is providing any check to corporate domination of the world, especially in the form of monopolies which could easily lead to a one-world oligarchy. Gotta go slower. Corporations may win out anyway, but maybe not. If the nations fall, the corporations can only win, and I mean BIG!!!





Plus, believe it or not, the UN is far more crooked than anything in the US federal government. More power willl only corrupt more. We see our government as corrupt, but travel around the world a bit, especially poorer countries, and you will discover that corruption is far worse than in the U.S. It'll cost you in other words.





The nation-state still has its role. Maybe not forever, but certainly for now.
thats jus your point of view. the nation state could be prolifarating.
Although many things are as you say, there nevertheless remains a cultural and civic identity within the nation-state (at least in the USA) which is worth preserving. After seeing the anemic responses that most nations have had to obvious threats, to lay the polity in the hands of such would be perilous indeed.
Its a nice idea, however people will always clump together based on commonality. Even multinational countries are not truly multinational. People in these countries tend to group together on ethnic grounds. The trouble with trying to make everyone happy is that everything ends up becoming mediocre.
wonderful idea, who gets to be boss? There will always be someone who feels threatened, until there is an outside source that we as a world have to unite together with (the evil alien from space) will we ever give up our differences and accept each other for what we are.

free spyware