Not really. Laws come from what that group of people thinks.
See Arab countries having the death penalty for gay people, for instance. It's not the State that does that, but the group of people that want it done that way and the State passes laws.
> Could you tell me why elites want to destroy nations?
Elites mess with the nations all the time in their own benefit but aren't a monolithic group
They could want to distroy nations by money and/or power displacement and control, and decens of cases are registered in history. They do it all the time.
Financed Coups d'etat in Latinoamerica or Borgias killing popes in the ancien Italy are just two examples
Some elites ( globalists ) want to destroy nations today for the same reason elites in the past destroyed tribes to form nations. They create a bigger "slave and land base" on which to enrich themselves.
Think about what nations limit. It sections off resources (human,mineral,energy,etc) from the elites who want access to them. Under globalism, nation-states would exist in name only as they are superceded by a globalist political structure. Then these elites would have access to and control over all the world's human and natural resources.
Under a global political structure, an "american" CEO doesn't need to negotiate with Chinese government to gain access to and exploit its resources. And a "chinese" CEO wouldn't need to negotiate with an american government to gain access to and exploit its resources. Under globalism, the entire world and its people are freely available to the elites to exploit.
In a perverse way, globalism is communism for the elites. Whilest communists wanted to destroy nations to unite the workers, globalists want to destroy the nations to unite the elites. To a communist, a factory worker in china or germany or brazil has more commonality with each other than a chinese factory worker does to a chinese factory owner. To a globalist, an elite in china or germany or brazil has more commonality with each other than they do to their national commoners.
Of course some of the elites stand lose a lot while others will gain under globalism. That's why we are having a nationalist vs globalist struggle right now.
I think that those are separate issues: nations/states as currently instituted might stop some of the bad effects you are referring to, but if we really cared about those, we should work on solving them independently.
Eg. movement of people is not a negative for the people. While it does benefit wealthy corporations and their operators (cheap labour is easier to come by), we should look into ensuring that it does not play into their hands like that instead. However, that pretty much happens organically, just over a longer period (eg. 20-30 years for salaries to catch up in a poorer state).
I am also not a fan of the term "elites". While I dislike any sort of elitism, I would hope that the term is at least used for intellectual or cultural "elites," those able to define and deploy smart and empowering agendas.
I believe you two have different definitions of "elite". I am guessing that you define "elite" as the powerful (and therefore rich) and he defines it as the cosmopolitan-intellectual, the anti-nationalist and liberal minded (but not necessarily the top level of power or wealth).
I'm also guessing there's a difference of opinion as to whether nation-hood is a transitory social construct or an intrinsic unalterable eternal reality.
