I know you think you made a valid point regarding corruption, but there is a great difference between “most” and “all.”

As long as you continue to anachronistically apply a modern term to historically different political structures, there’s no way possible forward. You are insisting on an absolute, essentialist category “nation” that I reject because I find it to be a historically contingent category. There is nothing whatsoever essential about nations.

Further, just because people buy into the current justification for an arbitrary group of self-appointed elites to rule them, that doesn’t mean those elites aren’t using those justifications to pacify the masses. That has nothing to do with my attitude toward government. It’s an observation of what elites have historically done to justify their rule.

Finally, you seem to think that just because different cultures are immiscible, that means we need to have treaties among nations. Of course, if they were in fact miscible, there would be but one culture. One neither needs to accept the utter inability for cultures to relate nor making everyone accept a single culture. It’s possible to have different cultures while also recognizing the deep universals across cultures, meaning they can communicate with each other, learn from each other, and continue to grow and develop in their own ways. One neither has to try to take over the world with a single culture nor insist that we all separate off into our own corners. The greatest cultural changes have come from cultural mixing, and will continue to be.