Nations and Human Conflict

I have heard the opinion that nation-states are evil. Sure, they can be. A nation is an aggregate of humans, and it seems reasonable that there would be some evil in that ball of wax. I have also heard the opinion that nation-states create conflict and erasing boundaries between nation-states would go far in solving the problem of human conflict. Kumbaya, my lord, no more wars.

I disagree.

There is confusion between means and ends here. The desire is a world without conflict, not a world without boundaries. A conflict-free world may or may not be achieved through the means of a boundary-free world. The end is the invariant, not the means. I would for example find it acceptable to live in a world with boundaries which achieves semi-durable peace through n-way nuclear (or conventional) deterrence.

Humans are territorial and human conflict is a biological problem. The problem is paradoxically amplified by the native intelligence and resourcefulness of the species. Nation-states don't contribute to territoriality. It is the other way around. Confusion of cause and effect is not nice since we tend to treat symptoms rather than cause. Nation-states are a symptom and eliminating them will solve precisely squat.

It is not always true that boundaries create conflicts. Here is empirical evidence. India and Nepal share a boundary but have largely managed to co-exist peacefully. On the other hand, there is no boundary that I see between the neighborhood where my parents live in Calcutta and the Muslim neighborhood that is a few blocks away, but I still wouldn't recommend that my parents take a casual evening stroll in the Muslim neighborhood after, oh...say, sunset.