Summary

Argues “national interest” is incoherent aggregation treating nation as agent with unified preferences. Nations are pluralities of agents with non-composable values; “national interest” rhetoric masks whose interests actually being served. Similar to civilizational optimization critique: attempting to optimize for aggregate obscures sacrifice patterns. Politicians/institutions claiming to act “in national interest” are either: (1) arbitrarily weighting some agents over others without admission, (2) imposing their own preferences under aggregate cover, or (3) enforcing outcomes benefiting power-holders while claiming broad representation. Axio alternative: explicit jurisdictional boundaries with consent-based coordination rather than presumed unified national will. Legitimate governance coordinates without aggregating into false unity. Makes explicit: no nation has interests—only people have interests, and treating collections as agents enables coercion.

Key Concepts

  • Aggregation fallacy – Nations aren’t agents with preferences; rhetoric masks whose interests served
  • False unity – “National interest” obscures sacrifice patterns and arbitrary weighting
  • Jurisdictional alternative – Explicit boundaries and consent vs presumed unified will
  • Agency category error – Treating collections as agents enables coercion under unity rhetoric

Tags

Cross-References

Open Questions

  • Can nations coordinate on existential risks without “national interest” rhetoric?
  • What replaces national interest as coordination mechanism?