That's hard to argue with. But many, especially libertarians, will argue long and loud. Some have told me that nationalism is the problem. This while globalism is ripping traditional nations to pieces and removing what institutions we have left to protect us against things that transcend the nation, like Islam, which certainly knows no borders, and the likes of George Soros.
A post or two back, John Derbyshire explained at least one reason why nationalism is held in low regard [link], and I might as well reprint his quibcag quote here while I'm at it. Of course, the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) is always eager to assist in breaking down the nation-state, because it gets in the way of their big plans to dominate humanity with multinational corporations, a much more effective method than the feeble communist plan, and to cram ethnic groups together when they don't belong together and make them fight. If each group had its own nation, they might cooperate against the globalists, heaven forbid, instead of fighting one another within states.
Just imagine it. A world of great and small nation-states, each contributing to the beauty and creative urge of mankind. Enlightened nation-states, matured beyond the need to fight one another, but ready to cooperate against international destructive ideologies, like Islamism, communism, and globalism.
And, as Eli suggests, the freedom ethic that reaches its peak in the United States, but which is also valued in Britain somewhat less so (maybe), and in a slightly different way in France (hence the illustrations on the top quibcag), and to some extent throughout Europe and Russia and all Euro-derivitive nations, like Australia, Canada, Argentina, etc., is not a viable system outside the protection of a nation, hence the incontrovertible fact that a nation, therefore nationalism, is essential for the protection and propagation of freedom.
Now, I've been using "nation" here as synonymous with "nation-state," which may be somewhat confusing. A nation is a group of people that share ancestry, religion, culture, history, etc. A state is a group of people who share a government. The ideal is the nation-state, where an entire nations has a shared government, and that government governs only that nation. Obviously, it's an ideal that can only be approached. because there are little nations that find themselves under the jurisdiction of the government of a big nation. Both the US and Canada, for example, contain dozens of American Indian nations. France and Spain contain parts of the Basque nation. India, depending on how you look at it, contains a number of nations, none really dominant. Nation-states that come close to including only one nation, like Japan, are rare.
Well, I've gotten off-message here, as I often do. The most important thing to take away from this post is Eli's quote.
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by the Hetalia mascots for the US, France, and the UK, the three countries that, more than any other, include a freedom ethic in their self-image. The second is an illustration I found at http://hitlerparody.wikia.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler.