A Critique of the Nation-State Derived from a Belief in Humanity’s Equal Right to the Use of The Earth

Contention #1: Land as Common Heritage:
Every person on Earth has an inalienable right to the occupancy and use of nature. This right is primal and universal, rooted in the principle that all humans are created equal.

To deny this right is to reject the equality of persons and to endorse a system where the few expropriate the soil, enslaving the labor of the many. Such a system cannot be humanity’s natural mode of social-relation.

To affirm this right is to affirm that humanity’s natural-and-social-relations are based on the freedom of all, not the enslavement by few. From this inalienable right flows the freedom to access the commons and labor upon them. Any restriction of this right is a gross violation of natural-law.

To deny this right is to accept poverty as an inevitable condition for a disenfranchised portion of the population.

To affirm it is to recognize that poverty is not natural but the result of artificial systems of exclusion and enclosure.

Therefore, enclosing any part of the world and denying access to the rest of humanity is a violation of this inalienable right.

It is no different from a local encloser barring access to stolen land. The nation-state, by enclosing territory and resources, commits the same injustice on a global scale.

Contention #2: Exclusion from Benefits:
By its common definition, the nation-state necessarily excludes those outside its borders from accessing natural opportunities within, as well as some residents from public goods, services, and those same opportunities.

This exclusion is fundamentally at odds with the primal and inalienable right to access nature and labor upon it.

To deny this right is to affirm the nation-state as a just institution; to affirm this right is to concede that the nation-state is unjust.

By enclosing parts of the world and excluding others, the nation-state perpetuates poverty and enslavement on a global scale. Conversely, to reject the nation-state is to affirm a world of plenty, abundance, and freedom for all.

Contention #3: Migration Controls on Labor:
That the nation-state, by its imposition of migration controls, denies persons the freedom to labor where their labor is most needed, is to deny persons the freedom to access nature where natural-opportunities are most abundant.

To deny such a freedom is to deny the inalienable right of persons to the use of the Earth; to deny such a freedom is to chain labor to the soil of its birth, as if the accident of one’s birthplace is a justification for their enslavement.

To affirm such a freedom is to affirm that labor, like land, is a common heritage of humanity, and that no person should be barred from the opportunity to labor and thrive upon the Earth.

Thus, it can be said: that to restrict the movement of labor is to create artificial scarcity of opportunity; to restrict the movement of labor is to inflate the value of land in one place while depressing it in another; to restrict the movement of labor is to enrich the few who control access to land, while impoverishing the many who are denied access to it.

Therefore, to affirm migration controls is to affirm the enslavement of labor to the soil; to affirm migration controls is to deny the abundance that freedom of movement would bring.

Whereas to deny migration controls is to affirm the freedom of labor to flow where it is most needed; to deny migration controls is to affirm the plenty that comes when all persons are free to access the Earth and labor upon it.

In this way, the nation-state, by its enforcement of migration controls, commits a double injustice: it denies persons the freedom to access nature, and it denies persons the freedom to labor where their labor is most valued.

To abolish such controls is to affirm the belief that the Earth belongs to all, and that no person should be excluded from its bounty.

Contention #4: Global Commons and Cooperation:
That the Earth, in it’s abundance, is the common heritage of all humanity, is a truth as old as the soil itself.

To deny this truth is to fracture the world into fragments, each fragment enclosed by the walls of the nation-state, each wall a barrier to the unity of humankind.
To affirm this truth is to affirm that the Earth’s riches—it’s land, it’s waters, it’s skies—are not the property of the few, but the birthright of the many. To affirm this truth is to affirm that the natural world is a global commons, to be shared and stewarded by all, for the benefit of all.

Thus, it can be said: that the nation-state, by its very nature, denies this truth. By enclosing the Earth’s riches within its borders, the nation-state declares that the commons are not common; by excluding the world’s people from its resources, the nation-state declares that the birthright of the many is the privilege of the few.

To affirm the nation-state is to affirm the fragmentation of the Earth; to affirm the nation-state is to deny the unity of humankind. Whereas to deny the nation-state is to affirm the global commons; to deny the nation-state is to affirm the belief that the Earth belongs to all, and that all must share in its stewardship.

Therefore, the abolition of the nation-state is not merely the abolition of borders, but the affirmation of a new mode of social-relation: one based on cooperation, not competition; on shared abundance, not artificial scarcity; on the unity of humankind, not the division of it.

In this way, the global commons demand global cooperation. They demand that the Earth’s riches be managed not for the benefit of the few, but for the benefit of the many; they demand that the natural world be preserved not for the profit of the present, but for the prosperity of the future.

To affirm the global commons is to affirm the belief that the Earth is not a commodity to be bought and sold, but a legacy to be cherished and shared.

To affirm the global commons is to affirm the belief that the unity of humankind is not a distant dream, but a present necessity.

Contention #5: Other Forms of States:
That the nation-state, by its exclusionary nature, stands in violation of the natural-law, does not mean that all forms of political organization must do the same.

For there exist other forms of states—forms not built upon the enclosure of land, nor the exclusion of persons, nor the denial of the Earth’s bounty to the many for the benefit of the few.

To affirm such forms of states is to affirm that political organization need not be at odds with the natural-law; to affirm such forms of states is to affirm that governance can exist in harmony with the inalienable right of all persons to access nature and labor upon it.

Thus, it can be said: that a state which does not exclude, which does not enclose, which does not deny, is not a state in the image of the nation-state.

It is a state in the image of the global commons; it is a state in the image of humanity’s shared heritage.

To affirm such a state is to affirm that the Earth’s riches are not the property of the privileged, but the birthright to the common; to affirm such a state is to affirm that public goods and natural opportunities are not the rewards of citizenship, but the rights of personhood.

In this way, such a state would affirm the belief that the Earth belongs to all, and that all must share in its stewardship. It would affirm the belief that the natural-law is not a constraint upon governance, but it’s foundation.

To affirm such a state is to affirm the possibility of a world without exclusion; to affirm such a state is to affirm the possibility of a world without poverty, without enslavement, without the artificial scarcity that the nation-state imposes.
In this way, the natural-law demands not the absence of states, but the presence of states that uphold the freedom of all, and the enslavement of none.