Nation vs. State:
The modern concept of the nation-state is only a few hundred years old. Nation: A group of people with a shared ethnicity and language, not necessarily homogeneous. State: An administrative entity, often defined by borders and a government.

Nation-States:
Intolerant by definition, leading to conflicts and minority problems. Homogeneity is difficult to achieve, as ethnicities and languages are constantly evolving. Nation-states often expand to include more of a specific ethnic group, rather than becoming more pure.

The Scale of Governance:
Smaller states tend to have fewer conflicts and better relationships between citizens. Examples: Yugoslavia’s breakup into smaller states, Switzerland’s cantons. City-states have historically flourished, with examples from the Phoenicians and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Empires vs. Nation-States:
Empires are more interested in collecting taxes and preventing wars than in controlling people’s lives. Empires can be more stable than nation-states if they don’t overcharge their subjects. City-states often thrived after the Bronze Age collapse due to their flexibility and adaptability.

Expansion of Nation-States:
Nation-states often expand to include more of a specific ethnic group, rather than becoming more pure. Examples: Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland, which had a large German population. This expansionist tendency can lead to conflicts and instability.

City-States and Commerce:
City-states prioritize commerce and making money over land conquest and geopolitics. City-states have a tolerance for diversity and different cultures due to their focus on trade.

Nation-States and Laws:
Nation-states are defined by a body of laws that individuals are subject to. The term “Medinat Israel” means “city-state” in Arabic, emphasizing the significance of laws in defining a state.

Modern Nation-States and Enforcement:
Modern nation-states have greater enforcement capabilities compared to historical states due to technological advancements. The reach of a nation-state’s laws may vary within its borders, leading to differing levels of control.

Size and Relationships:
Size plays a crucial role in understanding human relationships and interactions. Meeting a person a thousand times is more valuable than meeting a thousand people once. In large cities, individuals encounter different people daily, while in villages, they encounter the same people repeatedly.

Complexity and Linearity:
Large states are inherently more fragile due to the non-linearity of shocks, making them susceptible to catastrophic events. An elephant is more fragile than a mouse because falling from a small height can cause significant damage, unlike a mouse.

The Antifragile Rabbi’s Solution:
A rabbi presents a solution to the king’s dilemma of punishing his son by crushing him with a large stone: break the stone into pebbles, thus reducing the impact and harm. Non-linearity dictates that falling 10 meters once is worse than falling 1 meter 10 times, highlighting the fragility of large states.

Russia as a Case Study:
Russia has historically been a centralized, sprawling state, requiring aggressive behavior to maintain its identity and control. The czarist, communist, and current regimes have all employed similar apparatuses and strategies, indicating a deep-rooted system. Changing regimes does not significantly alter the underlying infrastructure, as seen in Trump’s experience in Washington and Iran’s use of the Shah’s monitoring system.

Quality vs. Quantity in Social Interactions:
Seeing one person a thousand times is qualitatively different from seeing a thousand people once. This idea applies to interactions with children, emphasizing the importance of quality over quantity.

New York City as a City-State:
New York City functions effectively as a city-state, with substantial local power and autonomy. The optimal size for these units is around 8 million, suggesting that city-states are a viable model.

Empires vs. Nations:
Empires like the Ottoman, Roman, and Habsburg Empires were multi-ethnic and distributed states that lasted for long periods. They focused on protecting their territories from external threats and maintaining military control, rather than policing internal affairs. NATO serves as a modern example of a self-protection mechanism among smaller states, addressing the vulnerability of being small.

Economies of Scale and Centralization:
The argument for economies of scale and centralization depends on the domain and context. In some cases, centralization is necessary, while in others, smaller units may be more robust and resilient.

Advantages of Smaller Government Units:
Smaller units allow for more skin in the game, as local leaders are more directly accountable to their constituents. Smaller units allow for better decision-making, as local leaders have a better understanding of local needs and priorities. Smaller units allow for more efficient use of resources, as local leaders are more likely to be aware of and address inefficiencies.

Examples of Successful Smaller Government Units:
Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have successfully implemented smaller government units. Switzerland has a long history of successful bottom-up governance. Germany has historically been a decentralized country, and this has contributed to its economic strength.

Potential Downsides of Smaller Government Units:
Smaller units may be less able to provide certain services that require economies of scale, such as national defense or pandemic response. Smaller units may be more vulnerable to corruption and special interests. Smaller units may be less able to address issues that require coordination across regions, such as environmental protection or infrastructure development.

Conclusion:
Smaller government units have a number of advantages, including increased accountability, better decision-making, and more efficient use of resources. However, there are also some potential downsides to smaller government units, and it is important to consider these carefully before making any changes to the structure of government.

Model of NATO:
NATO represents a new model where defense is ensured collectively, similar to empires like the Ottoman Empire or the Roman Empire. Under this model, individual states have the freedom to make their own decisions outside of defense matters.

Nation-State Pathologies:
The nation-state concept can lead to pathologies where the interests of the nation as a whole may conflict with the interests of individuals within that nation. This can result from poor scaling, where the nation-state model is applied to large and diverse populations.

Language and Cultural Identity:
Speaking a particular language or having a cultural connection to another country does not necessarily mean that individuals are part of that country politically. The example of Switzerland and France is given, where individuals can speak French and have cultural ties to France while still being Swiss citizens.

The Conflict Between NATO and Russia:
The conflict between NATO and Russia is not simply a war between two countries or between East and West. It is a conflict between two different models: the NATO model of shared defense and decision-making versus the Russian model of centralized power.

Taiwan’s Inclusion in the West:
The concept of the West should not be limited to a geographical region. Taiwan, despite its geographical location, is considered part of the West due to its shared values and commitment to democracy.

Globalization and Its Limits:
Globalization is the dominant trend, but people still disagree about its limits. Nobody wants autarky, but there are disagreements about the extent of globalization.

Challenges of Centralized States:
As states grow larger, it becomes more difficult to manage their identity and narrative. Centralized states require constant curation and management of their identity and symbols. The size of a state disproportionately increases the difficulty of maintaining a unified identity.

Russia’s Unique Identity:
Russia has a unique identity formed late in history, requiring significant effort to maintain. Orthodoxy played a role in unifying Russia, using Church Slavonic as a beacon of identity.

Western vs. Czarist Models:
The Western model emphasizes bottom-up governance and individual autonomy. The Czarist model prioritizes centralized administration and curating identity. Russia’s territorial expansion can be seen as a response to its late-formed identity.

Size and Centralization:
Large centralized states face communication and coordination challenges. Centralization often fails in practice beyond the issue of skin in the game. Communication networks grow non-linearly with size, making centralization difficult.

The United States as an Exception:
The US is a partial exception due to its federal system and emphasis on individual liberty. The US lacks a national narrative and language, with the Constitution serving as the common narrative. The US is the oldest functioning democracy, influencing models like the European Union.

Elephant vs. Mouse Metaphor:
Being a mouse (smaller entity) is often advantageous due to anti-fragility. However, in certain situations, being an elephant (larger entity) has advantages, such as protection from threats.

Resilience and Ruin:
Large animals, like mammoths, disappear quickly when facing environmental changes or human interference. Avoiding ruin, particularly for a species or humanity as a whole, should be a top priority. Ruin for one person is a tragedy, but the extinction of a species is a catastrophe.

Mice vs. Elephants:
Mice, as a species, are more resilient than elephants because they have a larger population and can survive in diverse environments.

Perception of Systems:
The United States’ structure of not needing to belong to another country works effectively because individuals feel a sense of belonging within the country. In contrast, in larger countries like Russia, individuals may feel a need to belong to a smaller, more specific region or group, leading to separatist tendencies.

Freedom and Perception:
In a free world, individuals may perceive a lack of freedom due to the very existence of freedom itself. Tocqueville’s idea of the perception of systems is extended to the modern world, where the perception of freedom can be influenced by various factors.

Transparency and Disinformation:
Transparency can reveal problems in society, but it can also make people more aware of negative events and lead to distrust of the government. Russia and China have exploited this by creating distrust of the government in Western countries by cherry-picking examples of malfunction and presenting them as the norm.

The Importance of Decentralized Policing:
A decentralized police system, like the one in the United States, allows for greater accountability and prevents the federal government from having too much power. A centralized police system would make it harder to hold police officers accountable for misconduct.

The Self-Correcting Mechanism of the West:
The West has a self-correcting mechanism where complaints lead to improvements. Examples like Snowden’s revelations about government surveillance have led to positive changes.

The Problem of Scale:
People tend to magnify small details and lose sight of the bigger picture. Disinformation campaigns exploit this by providing a lot of negative details to drown people in information and prevent them from seeing things in perspective.

The Importance of Perspective:
Focusing on the “life-to-date P&L” or the overall trajectory of one’s life can help put things in perspective and prevent people from getting caught up in negative news. People tend to overestimate the value of individual pieces of information and have difficulty understanding the law of large numbers.

The Connection to Food by Randomness:
The mechanisms of disinformation are similar to those of food by randomness, where people tend to focus on small details and lose sight of the overall picture. People have difficulty putting things in perspective and understanding the law of large numbers in various situations.

Scaling and Governance:
Scaling plays a crucial role in understanding political phenomena. Large-scale systems, such as nation-states, often exhibit different behaviors than smaller-scale systems, such as city-states. Randomness and uncertainty tend to wash out as systems scale up.

Nation-States and War:
Nation-states have a tendency to engage in more frequent and destructive wars compared to city-states. Nation-states often have a desire to expand their power and influence, leading to conflicts with other states. The invention of new technologies has exacerbated the lethality of warfare.

City-States and Conflict:
City-states are less likely to engage in large-scale wars and conflicts. Conflicts between city-states are usually limited in scope and do not result in significant loss of life. City-states tend to focus on commerce and trade rather than territorial expansion.

The Role of NATO:
NATO is a defensive confederation of nation-states that has never engaged in an aggressive war of aggression. NATO’s military power has been used to deter potential aggressors and maintain peace in Europe. Some argue that NATO is an extension of the United States, using its military power to advance its own interests.

The Importance of Scaling in Political Science:
Scaling is an essential concept in political science that is often overlooked. Understanding the non-linearity of scaling can help explain many phenomena in international relations. Political scientists should consider the role of scaling when analyzing political systems and behaviors.

Outro:
Russ Roberts ends the EconTalk podcast episode. He invites listeners to visit econtalk.org for more episodes, comments, links, and readings related to the conversation. Roberts acknowledges the sound engineer, Rich Goyette, and signs off, thanking the listeners and promising to talk to them on Monday.