I’m genuinely curious—what state do you believe still holds credibility in the international system?
Before anyone throws out examples like South Africa, let’s remember 2015, when they openly ignored an ICC warrant and refused to arrest Omar al-Bashir. That’s not a moral judgment—it’s just factual behavior. And I can dig up examples like …
I’m genuinely curious—what state do you believe still holds credibility in the international system?
Before anyone throws out examples like South Africa, let’s remember 2015, when they openly ignored an ICC warrant and refused to arrest Omar al-Bashir. That’s not a moral judgment—it’s just factual behavior. And I can dig up examples like this for any state you name. As Francesca Albanese said: there is no country that doesn’t violate international law in some form.
If you’re talking about consistent conduct on the world stage, probably the Nordic countries come closest—and they’re squarely part of “the West.”
At the end of the day, everyone wipes their ass with international law. So let’s stop pretending anyone has some kind of moral high ground.
I don’t have an issue with the idea of moving beyond nation-states. I lean toward European federalism, so the concept isn't foreign to me.
But let's not kid ourselves—whether you call it a nation, empire, tribe, or corporation, power structures are inevitable. Some entity will create rules, enforce them, and hold a monopoly on violence. That’s not ideology; that’s game theory and history.
The label—nation, religion, king, tribe, or market—is just branding. The structure remains: organized authority backed by force. You can dream of no countries, but unless you’ve figured out how to eliminate hierarchy and scarcity, someone’s still going to be in charge.
I’m genuinely curious—what state do you believe still holds credibility in the international system?
Before anyone throws out examples like South Africa, let’s remember 2015, when they openly ignored an ICC warrant and refused to arrest Omar al-Bashir. That’s not a moral judgment—it’s just factual behavior. And I can dig up examples like this for any state you name. As Francesca Albanese said: there is no country that doesn’t violate international law in some form.
If you’re talking about consistent conduct on the world stage, probably the Nordic countries come closest—and they’re squarely part of “the West.”
At the end of the day, everyone wipes their ass with international law. So let’s stop pretending anyone has some kind of moral high ground.
Nation States are a shitty idea. Imagine there're no countries. It's easy if you try.
I don’t have an issue with the idea of moving beyond nation-states. I lean toward European federalism, so the concept isn't foreign to me.
But let's not kid ourselves—whether you call it a nation, empire, tribe, or corporation, power structures are inevitable. Some entity will create rules, enforce them, and hold a monopoly on violence. That’s not ideology; that’s game theory and history.
The label—nation, religion, king, tribe, or market—is just branding. The structure remains: organized authority backed by force. You can dream of no countries, but unless you’ve figured out how to eliminate hierarchy and scarcity, someone’s still going to be in charge.