<p>
</p>
<p>Why is it impractical? Is it because it’s something you never thought of before?</p>
<p>It’s a simply a reanalysis of duty and social relationships, and how law arises from them.</p>
<p>Again, if we use the techniques of the Austrian School, where we take into account the economic and social relationships of each individual to the one nearest him, and add up the effects of each individual accordingly (“social integral calculus” I like to call it, but apparently the formal term I discover is called “methodological individualism” – but whatever) you find many cultures and societies that overlap each other, even across borders. Some social contracts encompass many smaller social contracts. You have a continuum of social contractual relationships.</p>
<p>The Singaporean government prints on the back of our textbooks, “family as a basic unit of society” – while I don’t buy into my birth country’s propaganda of somehow using this to subjugate individual rights, the fact is that there is no real reason for why kibbutzim and families should not be thought of as nations on a smaller scale. You have different magnitudes of scope, duties and responsibilities, but the principle is the same.</p>
<p>To command social contract relationships to stop at political borders is impractical – the antinationalist argument is the one taking into account reality, not the nationalists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose you must be familiar with Milton Friedman’s “The World is Flat”… </p>
<p>Each individual acting in his self-interest, with the liberty to do any action as long as that action does not infringe upon others’ liberties to have the same action. Take the social integral of all the individuals in the world. That is the essence, for the most efficient outcome is a <em>continuum</em> of social relationships.</p>