NEED A PERFECT PAPER? PLACE YOUR FIRST ORDER AND SAVE 15% USING COUPON:

4.8/5

The Case against National Governments Essay

In this case against national governments paper, I present the Case against National Governments. Why do we have national boundaries, limiting the flow of people and resources from one country to another? This is because tariffs charge on the commodities as they move from nation to nation. This means that the national boundaries are inefficient in the global economic system. One of the most relevant concepts to the impact of boundaries on the economy is globalization. Globalization is the increase in interconnectedness resulting in the global exchange of culture and trade. Get legit paper writing services on the case against national governments now!

The Case against National Governments

This indicates that national boundaries shall continue to be relevant. The internet has played a critical role in facilitating globalization by bringing cultures and people together. This has helped neutralize the negative effects of boundaries in the free flow of commodities across countries. This paper shall attempt to argue that national boundaries are a source of inefficiency in the economic system, thus putting forth the idea of transnationalism.

A boundary is an abstract or physical boundary that acts as a separation between properties or political jurisdiction. On the other hand, a country is a geographical location that has a permanent population that is under a government or political structures that govern it. However, it is important to note that for a country to be legitimate, it has to be recognized by the global community (Magalhães, 2018). Political boundaries are the imaginary line often agreed upon by the political authorities through negotiation or military conquest.

National boundaries tend to affect the economy, culture, and quality of life of the respective citizens. These boundaries play a critical role in helping understand the idea of a border. One of the most interesting aspects of the concept of borders is that the people living in the disputed territory tend to suffer the most, each of the National Governments using its power to control the region.

This harms the quality of life of these people. The fact that boundaries keep being formed, for example, with South Sudan’s emergence from the larger Sudan, indicates that boundaries are nothing but a human construct.

Fundamentally, they show the geographical limits of a government. For example, during the civil war, the boundary between the Union and the Confederate was the difference between the acceptability and the elimination of the civil war. The North had more military power than the South, which led to the abolition of the border between the two. They often dictate the government policy’s jurisdiction and are often the point of interaction between the people in different countries.

The respective administration in the countries tends to introduce policies to claim the country’s sovereignty. This is to guarantee the fact that there are no overlapping political authorities (Rani et al., 2021). This, however, introduces inertia, as they make geography a significant factor in commerce and the flow of capital. However, this may adversely affect the quality of life of the citizens in the countries. The boundaries, therefore, tend to serve the government granting it legitimacy and power at the expense of the citizenry.

Globalization is expected to reduce the significance of the political boundaries on the flow of capital and commodities. This is good for economic growth, as the advancement in the quality of life in a given country can freely flow into another country. Therefore, the disparity in the quality of life tends to reduce with the social, political, and economic significance of boundaries. Therefore, citizens in the countries can have ease of access to labor.

Therefore, all the nations get a greater pool of labor, as low skill labor flows towards the less developed countries while the high skill labor flows towards the most developed countries. Economically, reducing the significance of boundaries is beneficial to both the country’s economy and the suitable labor market. On the other hand, the citizens have access to job opportunities as the various countries can seamlessly outsource job opportunities.

By making the boundaries less significant, they facilitate the easy access of resources as the resources can freely flow from the countries with a surplus to the countries with a deficit. Therefore, the nation’s ability to specialize is significantly improved as they can focus on the most efficient production. The rest can then be outsourced to other countries that have efficiently produced the goods.

The Case against National Governments

Therefore the various nations are forced to cooperate in something that involves reducing the significance of the national boundaries. This cooperation also helps in the resolution of conflicts related to the boundaries. The citizens’ lives directly rely on the free flow of resources from jurisdictions of surplus to jurisdictions of deficit. Furthermore, cross-border investment increases as the capital can freely flow from one country to another.

Here a thought experiment is necessary to reduce the significance of the national boundaries to the extent the entire globe would be one country. This is with the consideration of the millions of species on the planet, and only human beings let the national boundaries dictate their way of life. Human beings’ free movement and interaction should at least be limited by physical barriers such as mountains, valleys, seas, and oceans.

Human beings are just socialized to believe that national boundaries are necessary for their safety. Therefore, the individual’s nationality does not have to be one of the most critical aspects of their identity. This is because national boundaries are an effect of human reasoning. One of the most hallowing thoughts is the impact of the boundary between North and South Korea has on the disparity in the quality of life in the two countries.

The idea of patriotism tends to intensify during times of political crisis like wars. Nationalism tends to grow during times of uncertainty and crisis. This helps the people, especially the soldiers, label their opponents and citizenry as the other. There is a human instinct to distinguish between the close relative and clan members and the others. This is because they tend to have fewer pathogens that may be harmful to them and have similar value systems. Furthermore, an increase in economic stability plays a critical role in building a national identity.

There is, therefore, a need for humanity to look beyond nationalism as one of the most important aspects of group identity. With the presence of the internet, the human being can seamlessly interact with each other across national boundaries. In terms of psychology, nationalism is irrelevant due to the nature of post-traumatic growth—people who have suffered trauma, for example recovering from cancer (Oramah & Dzene, 2019). Nationalism tends to limit authentic and intimate relationships among people living on different national boundaries.

An anarchist would argue that the problems do not lie in the existence of borders separating the countries but lies in the mere existence of National Governments. There would be world people based on the fact that no governments are fighting for territory. In this case, one would argue that countries and, consequently, National Governments are not a necessary evil. It is, however, essential to explore the idea of a global government. This shows that world peace is possible when no governments seek to extend their territory or siphon resources.

A thought experiment of one global government is necessary at this point. This idea claims that nations across the planet ought to align into one sovereign entity, the global government. The president may be selected through the rotation of the various geographical regions, like the case of the United Nations secretary-general. However, there can be a local government whose work would involve providing essential public goods or services without the need for a military to protect its sovereignty (Waluyo, 2018).

The essence of the global leader may not directly affect the quality of life of the individual, the members of the global community. Although the National Governments in most countries are democratic, the individual does not have the choice to choose their nationality.

In conclusion, it is evident that countries and national boundaries in an unnecessary evil. This is quite parallel with the idea that National Governments do more harm than good in general. The elimination of boundaries can play a critical role in guaranteeing the promotion of global unity. Humanity can view itself as a species rather than the basis of nationality.

The Case against National Governments

The Case against National Governments Essay References

  • Magalhães, D. T. D. Á. (2018). The globaliser dragon: how is China changing economic globalisation?. Third World Quarterly39(9), 1727-1749.
  • Oramah, B., & Dzene, R. (2019). Globalisation and the recent trade wars: Linkages and lessons. Global Policy10(3), 401-404.
  • Rani, N. I. A., Ismail, S., Mohamed, Z., & Mat Isa, C. M. (2021). Competitiveness framework of local contractors in the Malaysian construction industry towards globalisation and liberalisation. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-24.
  • Waluyo, D. B. (2018). Globalisation and deglobalisation: the Indonesian perspective. BIS Paper, (100k).

Calculate Price


Price (USD)
$

Calculate Price


Price (USD)
$

Calculate Price


Price (USD)
$