Is It Time To Question The Modern Nation-State Model Of Governance?

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

I typically try to avoid news on Sundays, but I spent much of this weekend in complete awe of the extraordinary strength and fortitude of the Catalan people in the face of totalitarian violence from the Spanish state against citizens attempting to vote in a peaceful referendum.

Before you start telling me about how the vote is illegal and goes against the Spanish constitution, let me be perfectly clear. That line of thinking is entirely irrelevant to the point of this post.

Specifically, I believe humanity is reaching a point in its evolution, both from a consciousness perspective as well as a technological one, where we’ll begin to increasingly question many of our silly contemporary assumptions about how governance should work.  The primary one is this absurd notion that a nation-state should be seen as a permanent structure of political governance which only becomes dissolvable in the event of violent revolution or war.

When it comes to great leaps in human progress, a crucial component to lasting change is convincing enough people that a particular way of organizing human affairs is outdated and harmful. I think if we take a step back and look at how people are governed across the world, there are very few places where “the people” feel they live in societies in which they exert any sort of genuine political self-determination. When we look at the last few decades of political governance in the Western world, a march toward more and more centralized political power has been a facet of life in both the U.S and Europe. I believe this trend is being pushed to its breaking point, and groups of humans with common culture, language and interests will increasingly question whether massive nation-states (or wannabe super states like the EU) make sense. In the past five years alone, Scotland held a referendum on UK membership, Great Britain voted to leave the EU, and most recently, Catalonia took a major step toward independence with yesterday’s banned referendum.

Those who favor centralized power see these events and movements toward decentralized political power as inconvenient, intransigent outbursts from the ungrateful, unwashed masses. Movements which would best put down one way or the other in order to carry on with the business of further centralizing power. They view such burgeoning drives for political self-determination as temporary storms which the wise elders of centralization must merely ride out. Unfortunately for them, this is not the case.

If anything, we can expect many more movements for decentralized power in the decades ahead for two main reasons.

First, the current system is simply not working for most people.


Second, as we become more connected and conscious, we will invariably conclude that all human beings deserve to have a real choice in the type of governments they live under.

The prevailing assumption that we’re simply born into a particular nation-state and must accept this situation for the rest of our days irrespective of how brutal, oppressive and dysfunctional it may be, is an irrational, inhumane and outdated perspective.

As things stand today, humans essentially have two choices when it comes to political life. We either accept the nation-state we’re born into and play the game to the best of our advantage, or we try to become citizens of another country with values that more align with our own. The only way to really shatter existing political power structures and form new ones is through violent revolution or war, which is an insane way of reorganizing matters of human governance. One of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s key arguments in casting the Catalan referendum as illegal is that Spain is an indivisible nation under the 1978 constitution. Let’s think about what this means in practice.

Anyone who’s spent any time in Spain understands how culturally and linguistically distinct many of the regions are when compared to Madrid. These are differences that go back centuries and can’t be brushed off by a constitution created a few decades ago. The idea that these various regions must be part of a centralized Spain even if the people within the regions want political autonomy is ethically preposterous, as well as authoritarian and evil in every sense of the word. If done properly, human governance should always be a voluntary arrangement. If an overwhelming majority of culturally distinct people within any nation-state decide the super state is no longer working for them, they should have every right to leave. Anything else is bondage.

As the U.S. Declaration of Independence so eloquently states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

The key aspect of the above declaration is that governments instituted among humans derive their powers from the consent of the governed. If we take the U.S. as an example, how do we know that the people of Texas and California believe centralized power in Washington D.C. as it stands today is an appropriate form of governance unless there’s a periodic vote confirming it? Did any of the 50 states ever actually consent to an out of control centralized deep state-run oligarchy running things as they please? Likewise, how do we know that the people of Catalonia consent to being part of Spain unless you ask them? The truth is you don’t, and this presents a major dilemma we must confront going forward.

If we look at the world’s nation-states, they generally consist of large, centralized political entities comprised of a union of culturally distinct provinces, states or regions. In some cases these regions voluntarily came together over time, while in other cases they were forced together during a war or revolution. It’s crucial that we not view such nation-states as Rajoy views them, as eternal structures that can never be altered, but rather as voluntary political associations. Again, the only way to know such associations are truly voluntary is to periodically subject them to referendums. It seems to me that this should be an integral part of any nation-state. In contrast, we have a name for power relationships that aren’t voluntary. Slavery.

Indeed, the fact that we put up with this at all is downright perplexing. For example, although we accept children should be under the care of parents from birth up to a certain point, at a certain age we pretty much all agree that an adult should be free to make autonomous decisions. While a human becomes free at this micro level upon reaching a certain age, at the macro level most human beings never get to choose what sort of government they live under. Most of us are not at all governed by consent, and this feels very wrong to me.

Beyond the ethical implications of imposed political governance, we should also discuss the way our current system ends up functioning in practice. If power hungry authoritarians understand that the bond which unites the various regions of a nation-state can never be questioned, power dynamics become very lopsided and increasingly centralized over time. In contrast, lets imagine that every 25 years, every defined region of every nation-state gets to vote on whether they want to stay part of the current governing structure or create a new one. Power might be much more distributed in the interim period under such a system, since there’s always a threat that one or many of the various states or provinces might choose to sever ties in a few short years. Such a system would be much more akin to a free market for political governance versus what we have today, which appears more in-line with a “divine right of kings,” feudal type system. I think we can do much better than this.

That being said, I don’t want anyone to assume that the hypothetical system I described above is what I think should happen. I’m just providing an extremely simplistic example to get people thinking. The key point is human beings should not be forced to live their entire lives under systems of involuntary political governance which they never agreed to in the first place.

We must figure out a way for human beings to peacefully and periodically alter the forms of government they live under in a major way should they choose to. Right now, the main options for achieving this sort of change tends to involve violence, which often leads to situations that are worse than they were before.

We need to agree that political associations should always be voluntary, and that most such associations worldwide right now are not. Rather, they are most often maintained via state violence, as we just witnessed in Spain. Our goal should be to live in a world defined by peaceful voluntary political associations, but getting from here to there won’t be easy or quick.

I hope I live long enough to see such a world.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.


Ghordius Boris Alatovkrap Wed, 10/04/2017 - 05:24 Permalink

Boris forgot... foreignersbe them preparing a coordinated invasion or doing it individually, or just being obnoxious, "them" being often obnoxious, nasty, uncomprehensible, foreign, alien, speaking funny tongues, being shifty and you simply can't trust "them"the "Nation State" is still a "we" affair. making a difference between "we" and "them, foreigners". if you are lucky, it's a positive discrimination of "we", meaning doing good things for "we". also possible: a negative discrimination of "them", doing bad things to "them" (and don't they deserve it, they had it coming)profound principles that makes sense for the individual, to "me"... might not apply to "we". and even less to "them"and... you still have to define the boundaries, the "borders" between "we" and "them", and that can be tricky, at times

In reply to by Boris Alatovkrap

Chupacabra-322 Tue, 10/03/2017 - 21:55 Permalink

Self affirmed Anarchist here.

Decentralize the entire Criminal Fraud Global Corporate Systems of Economic, Debt, Bondage & Emslavement.

Peer to Peer economies.

Long Agorism.

Sun Rabbit Arrow4Truth Thu, 10/05/2017 - 00:09 Permalink

Not necessarily. In a grid-down situation that blockchain data can remain dormant indefinitely on CDs, harddrives, or memory sticks. If you had advanced foreknowledge of a grid-down event and made hard copies of all the blockchains, you could conceivably continue appending that chain using typewriters, carbon paper and postal mail. THEORETICALLY.

In reply to by Arrow4Truth

jmack Tue, 10/03/2017 - 21:55 Permalink

       Well past time to render them obsolescent,  but they will need to be replaced by something superior, will probably be block chain related, And the only way a decentralized digital nation state can compete with a bean and bullet super power is for there to be a singularity level AI involved.

Sun Rabbit Luc X. Ifer Thu, 10/05/2017 - 00:20 Permalink

Blockchain technology is a revolution in finance, and I think that with better technology we could be looking at using it to do global trade on a platform like eBay but decentralised, peer-to-peer, and using blockchains to perform functions like escrow, letters of credit, and feedback ratings. Once that can be pulled off, the whole internet, and access to it could be 100% peer-to-peer in which case all the giant telecommunist monopolies would be out the window.

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

Hail Spode jmack Tue, 10/03/2017 - 22:13 Permalink

Localism is something superior. Decentralize all government functions to where the "transaction costs" of escaping government which displeases you is very low. In the end it is going to be either Localism or Globalism, because no other philosophy of government is equipped to counter the 13 doorways through which government power is centralized. Why anarchy or the more extreme forms of libertarianism won't do it...see "Localism Defended".....…

In reply to by jmack

Chupacabra-322 Luc X. Ifer Tue, 10/03/2017 - 23:05 Permalink

Other examples of Decentralization.

-Stop paying Taxes.
-Stop buying their GMO Poison. Fast foods, sodas, Sucralose etc...
-Take your $ out of the Criminal TBTFBANKSTERS CIA drug money laundering Banks & transfer it to your Local Credit Union.
-Buy Local.
-Stop Voting or revoke your voters registration cards.
-Stay out of their Criminal Fraud Maritime / Admiralty Courts.
-Stop Contracting (CONSENT) via signature with the State.
-Educate, educate, educate.
-Home School. Stop the Indoctrination.

And, most importantly.

It's been proven time & time again on ZH the markets are manipulated. It's one huge Global Ponzi Scheme.

-Cash out. It's eventually going to collapse. Cripple the Criminal Fraud System as much as it's Crippled you.

-Store your wealth. Purchase food, precious metals, barter items. You'll need them.?Stop CONSENTING to a Criminal Fraud entity and

Tyrannical Lawlessness.

If we all did it the same TPTB would like it even less. Anyone in capable of decentralizing in their own creative ways.

That's the objective & Goal.

The ideas posted above just scratch the surface.

Former popular NY American politician Daniel Patrick "Pat" Moynihan (March 16, 1927 – March 26, 2003) was an American politician and sociologist...

Anyway, he had a popular saying that "all politics are local."

I believe "all economies are local."

James Corbett has done a few podcasts on "Peer to peer" economies.

James joins Neil Foster on Reality Bytes to discuss the peer-to-peer economy and the real potential for disruption of the global economic enslavement grid.…

As I mentioned, by my above post. Educate, educate, educate. It's the only way to break the Control Grid of Systems Debt, Bongade & Enslavement.

In reply to by Luc X. Ifer

khnum Tue, 10/03/2017 - 21:55 Permalink

All nation states will resort to overwhelming violence in response to any violence aimed their way I would advise all in Catalonia to not go to work for a week that will bring the King and his fascists  to the bargaining table quick smart

Blue Steel 309 Tue, 10/03/2017 - 22:09 Permalink

Countries become large for two main reasons

1)Security from foreign threats

b)To increase the wealth and power of the ruling class

If the security issue can be addressed, it is always better for the population under a government to be as small as possible.

When there was plenty of oxygen and heat available, the size of plants and animals on the planet skyrocketed.

Eventually an equilibrium was reached to where we are now. Human civilizations maybe in their Jurassic period.

Luc X. Ifer slipreedip Tue, 10/03/2017 - 23:42 Permalink

One can pay trough Blockchain for what shared community services one needs and actually due to the inherent nature of blockchain one can strictly control and track where one's money go and who's benefiting from them - obviously, that's not possible with the current system/government. So, Blockchain wins again - current system/government still 0.

In reply to by slipreedip

WTFUD Tue, 10/03/2017 - 22:19 Permalink

Been saying for years that these Political & Deep State Actors recruit from Harvard-Yale, other ivy leagues, forming their Secret Societies like Skull & Bones. Like the Council on Foreign Relations, if you're not part of this Club, similar, your face don't fit; you can't be trusted. Same goes for the OxBridge crew in England.

Disbar these recruiting grounds, much like some Mosques are recruiting grounds for Jihadis, from running for Office. That's the Battle, nip it in the bud.

sheikurbootie Tue, 10/03/2017 - 22:25 Permalink

It works until you get militarily invaded and all your shit stolen....We need more military invasions and it will stop secessionist.Soros funded Catalan secession, so be careful which side you choose.

Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 10/03/2017 - 22:41 Permalink

We need to repeal the 11th amendment, which would solve the problems of tyranny. The fucking monsters essentially nullified the first ten amendments, and rely on the 11th making them accountable to nobody!11th amendment:"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."Michael Krieger continues to argue for treasonous decentralization and the anhialation of the constitution, despite the overwhelming evidence that decentralization in absolutely no way guarantees benevolence, efficiency, or freedom. He has failed to provide a single example of success. It happened during the French revolution, and has resulted in absolute failure virtually everywhere else. In America we have a centralized federal government,  and decentralized state and local governments. In the decentralized process,:1.) 25 cities have committed to 100 % renewable energy.2.) California has decided  to imprison any healthcare worker for not referring to a patient by the patients gender orientation, whether it is a biological contradiction, or not, and for refusing to let a patient share a room with the sex of the gender of their gender identity choice.3.) Oregon, Colorado, and California have legalized marijuana, and other states have legalized some forms for medical purposes.4.) New York City has decided to offer free college to its residents.5) Vermont has a single payer health plan.6.) Rick Scott of Florida has decided to drug test all food stamp recipients, benefiting his friend's drug testing company.7.) Michigan governor Rick Schneider decided to place local communities under receivership and appoint politicians and remove elected officials from theirs, and decided to save money by poisoning residents with lead poisoned Flyby River water.8.) The Army Corps of engineers had warned the governor and mayor of New Orleans a decade prior to Katrina that the levees wouldn't hold. Louisiana received federal funding for repairing the levees, which they had decided to spend on other things.9.) Sherrif Joe Arpaio had a fetish for Mexican men in pink underwear, so he decided to imprison Mexican men clad in pink underwear to gratify  his kinky fetish.Let's just decentralize banking, war, corporations, education, and global governance.We can all acknowledge that the constitution currently exists in theory and not in practice, yet, it is still deemed the law of the land, and all who violate it are guilty of treason. I am absolutely sure that the overwhelming majority of Americans would like to see stronger enforcement of the constitution as opposed to completely abolishing it!Total decentralization would be the final coup de grace to any belief that we are entitled to the liberties afforded to us in the Bill of Rights. Korea decentralized. Germany decentralized. Charles Hugh Smith wrote an excellent essay on the Fall of Rome, and the consequences of Rome's decentralization. mayors were recently charged with pedophilia by the FBI.Decentralization could lead to enslavement by local governments, refusal by local governments to let their residents leave the city or state, civil war between local communities over natural resources, walling ports or cities off and preventing the transport of required items and matetials critical for survival or export.

slipreedip Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 10/03/2017 - 22:54 Permalink

Whereas currently you live in a country where:-The government and deep state are one-Your country is basically at war with one country or another almost permenantly-You are quite happy to misread ammendments to allow every idiot to own military grade assault rifles-Class warefare, racism and probably even sexism are rife.-People see political "service" as a way to make money and gain influence.Im not saying the guy who wrote the article is right but like corporations and any other monopolies Governments should be limted in power and scope and far too few of them are at the moment and something has to change.

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

Anonymous (not verified) slipreedip Tue, 10/03/2017 - 22:59 Permalink

Exactly why the 11th amendment should be repealed. There is no guarantee that decentralization will solve a single problem that you have mentioned, in fact, corruption would almost certainly increase since there would be no accountability.If you hate the government that has total power over you now, just wait until they are a few miles within your residence.Enjoy the assrape of that.

In reply to by slipreedip

MEFOBILLS Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 10/03/2017 - 23:35 Permalink

just wait until they are a few miles within your residence. Small, local governments are usually responsive to their local population.  The U.S. was originally set up such that States had a lot of power, and the central government was small.Washington originally was financed only by tariffs.  If you draw a trend line, there is an inflection point after 17'th ammendment.  Washington growth and centralization of power goes vertical.  Prior to progressive era reforms (16'th,17'th, Federal Reserve Act) Washington was held small.The problem is actually GOOD GOVERNENCE.  It is not a big vs small problem per se.  Krieger did not mention Russian Federation, which is enjoying good governance despite its size.  Usually small local governments are the way to go to get good governance.  Russia has seeds of destruction built in... .suppose somebody not as wise as Putin steps into power?

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)