I find it interesting and ironic that after I pointed out that many people argue for the naturalness of the nation only because it’s what we’re most familiar with, you turn around and make that exact argument — even after agreeing with my historical synopsis that demonstrates it’s but a recent historical stage. The more globalized the world becomes, the less and less the very idea of a nation makes any sense.

I use terms like “classical liberal” and “libertarian” for lack of a better word for the world view I hold — but there’s little question in my mind that the days are numbered on the nation as a political entity. There are going to be people who will revolt against any social change.

If I’m taking an American perspective, it’s because I’m writing this talking about America to Americans, arguing for a particular change for America, and against a wrongheaded move toward nationalism. I use the EU as an example, knowing it has its problems and is still evolving. Good. It should still be evolving. We aren’t certain yet about this new structure.

I see absolute patterns in world history. There are patterns of evolution that recur based on the complexity of given societies. Increasing complexity through increasing population density and greater connectedness around the world will cause further evolution. I see a pattern in how that evolution has occurred, and I have extrapolated based on what I see happening around us now. People will fight against those changes as they occur. If they succeed, there will be economic damage and untold deaths. And they will only succeed for a short time, as they always have, and we will evolve anyway to the next level of psychosocial complexity anyway, and become wealthier, freer, and more peaceful as a result. Again. I personally look forward to that new world. This one has grown too oppressive.