The purpose of globalization is the free-flow of goods, capital, communication, ideas and innovations through national borders. Globalization is incomplete without the free-flow of labor. As someone who is part of the global workforce and has worked in Australia and the United States this is an unshocking and completely humdrum conclusion to come to.

The political borders of nationalism are what stops the flow of goods, capital, labor and services and worse; it is becoming harder and harder for labor to compete in the labor market they want to. People are artificially held at home, and artificially excluded from labor markets by nationalism.

Chris Berg argues that the liberal position on immigration is that it is moral to enable and promote the free-flow of immigration.

This is not merely apologetics. I suggest that not only is immigration practically beneficial, but we have a moral obligation to accept into our borders those who want to come. For individuals born in under-developed countries, simply crossing into the developed world can dramatically increase their potential salary, as well as allow them to experience the historically unprecedented living standards that we already enjoy.

The objections to expanded immigration seem nationalistic or economically illiterate at best, and immoral at worst.

There are real issues in the absorbing of large numbers of immigrants into a country in a short time period but not in the manner of 'Fortress Australia' which becomes the politics of isolationism, cultural weakness (Australian culture has to be protected politically through nationalism) and xenophobia.

If anything, Australia, is an outstanding example of the absorption of immigrants and the positives that an increasingly open labor market brings. (reply)
Peter Martin has an excerpt from the Garnuat Report on Climate Change. One of the problems with climate change is that it is a global, or planetary issue. Our major form of political organization currently is nationalism which is too small to establish a global response as the tragedy of the commons is almost ensured to occur short of some massive leap in human morality.

The alternative is to establish a global government. This is repugnant to nationalism but also the principle of limited government. Most of the modern democratic structures come out of the English fear of executive tyranny. A planetary government which could coerce climate change policies on the planet will not happen, and rightfully so.

Nationalism is a military form of political organization that came out of the 18th century European wars. The European states of the time were constantly warring in an environment that demanded increasing levels of capitalistic investment. The British established a political, social and economic form of organization that could sustain a dominating Navy. The French and Prussians took different organizational structures to establish powerful continental armies. In the case of the French their political and economic organization was sufficient to challenge, though never topple, the British Navy.

Even today the political legitimacy for a nation-state to establish a military is taken for granted. We also consider warfare between nation-states legitimate, if unacceptable and repugnant. Nationalism has arisen out of the European militaristic order.

One advantage to nationalism is that the capital intensive demands of a competitive military have meant that political, economic and social organization have achieved economies of scale. One of the American dares to the Soviet Union was an acceleration of military spending. While both were very large nations and powerful political units, the American ability to scale helped convince the Soviets that their system was inefficient and unsustainable.

It is possible that a nation-state response to climate change will achieve some positive outcomes. The Garnaut report argues for a market based approach which minimises the state involvement in the process and seeks to remove the "links between economic activity and greenhouse gas emissions" through a sustainable process. I suspect there will be first-adopter benefits as well that will mean Australian science, engineering and organisational technologies will become very exportable and in demand. (reply)
From an article exploring the modern hopelessness of things being outside of the individuals control and requiring a group action, ie political, to reign it back;

"All those periods [of low American national esteem] were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored," he said. "Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again."

Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House. This period has seen intense interest in the presidential primaries ... Records were shattered by voters showing up at polling places, yearning for a voice in who will next guide the country as it confronts the uncontrollable.

One of the reasons I wanted to gain American Citizenship before the Presidential election is because I think this is a very important election; both locally, nationally and globally. The world is kind of waiting with baited breath and hope that America won't elect another moron who can't govern.

Democracies tend to give governments one chance too many, it is the same in Australia with the several moribund governments, including Howard's and Carr/Iemma too many chances after it become obvious they lost the will to govern in the public interest. America is no different. The blood letting in the recent legislative elections shows the remorse for that bad decision to leave Bush in the executive. (more)
As someone who is considering naturalising as a US citizen stories like these make me dubious. It is seemingly arbitrary bureaucratism. I am often nervous crossing borders for the same reason, such as the Mexican border recently. I don't have the entitlement of nationalism any longer, I exist in a slightly post-national and trans-national legal form. (more)
One of the criticisms of signing the Kyoto Treaty is the loss of national sovereignty it entails. This argument has little weight as modern nation-states are a labrynth of treaties that are legally binding domestically. As an example Australia has 1852 treaties currently in force. They are a common component of international law and co-operation. (more)
Federations are defined by having a national character and a federal character. For instance the House of Representatives in Australia's parliament is organised with a national character while the Senate has a federal character. The House has equal sized electorates and single members, while the Senate has the states as its electoral boundaries and each state has an equal number of members. So the Senate represents the states, which are the federal components of the Federation, while the House represents the Australian people, which is the national character of the government.

One of the innovations of American constitutional design was to put the national and federal characters into tension so that the national government would not grow to consume the states, yet have enough national character that the states would not assert themselves over the national government. This vertical balance of powers in the federation was designed to protect liberty and cemented through constitutional limited government.

One of the blind spots in Australian politics is that federalism is ignored as a technology to ensure liberty and natural rights. Too often people assume the role of government is service delivery, not limited government, and seek to order the political structures accordingly. (more)
Robert McCloskey writes on the Marshall Supreme Court: "It is hardly surprising that the Supreme Court, an intrinsically national institution, should be drawn to the doctrine of nationalism."

Andrew Ingliss-Clark used the American experience of federalism by mixing the national and federal character together in the Australian Constitution to place checks and balances such that pure nationalism and absolutist state rights could not dominate the other. However, like the US system, the High Court in Australia is a purely national institution. It has no federal character. (more)

The Australian Citizenship Act was changed in 2002 so that Australia did not punish those who took citizenship in other countries by taking away their Australian citizenship. (more)

It is hard to view the speech for the second reading of the Citizenship Bill by Ian Campbell and not see it is as legislation which elevates the state above the individual.

(more)

A while ago I wrote about intrinsic and emergent properties in social organisation . The several recent discussions on the individual being the dominant discrete political entity in a system suggest hostility to nationalism and national culture, which is not true. These are emergent properties of the social organisation that appear as a result of individuals acting in maximum liberty; socially and culturally. (more)
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.