The idea that a person is looked at as a nation, or country, etc. was given to me by a friend. At first I dismissed it, but then started to think about the parallels between the two ideas. I saw a way that could work as a really abstract metaphor, but was more curious about what others think about it. What do you guys make of it?

(Yes, this is me just pondering about an abstract concept for lack of a better thing to do)

A few movies that use people as basis for political and social allegory:

War Of The Roses (book)

Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (play)

Lord Of The Flies (book)

The Paul Street Boys (book)

The Day The Earth Stood Still (original screenplay; more of a stretch seeing as the story is based on the life of Christ, but you're free to draw your parallels from there)

The idea isn't always obvious and in many cases provides a number of ways to be interpreted, but then again that's the whole point of allegory.

Yes, it is possible, but groups of like-minded individuals are more effective, more industrious, safer, and specialized than their singular counterparts. They are also somewhat stupider.

I was talking specifically of the idea of describing a person the way a nation is described. Any other thoughts?

describing a person the way a nation is described

There's lots of ways that nations are described - many of which are just derogatory stereotypes of the people that make them up...

I'm guessing you mean more along the lines of sovereignty?

In our lives, besides gods and ideals, a nation is the highest authority that we can submit to. From birth, we implicitly submit to the will of the nation, and never have a say about it. The nation has the monopoly on force, it alone as the right to wield violent power. The nation is a system through which the forces of coercion can flow. Inside the nation, every single law that we follow is always backed by the coercive force of the threat of violence.

Externally, between nations, there are treaties and laws, but there is no monopoly on violence. If one nation defies the rules (which as always, are backed by violence), then they have their own violent forces to resist the punishment. There is no greater power that the nation must submit to. They are free to express their own will.

Every man is sovereign. He has the power to enforce his will upon his own body, and he also has the power to defy the will of others. However, the nation exists to mediate our individual wills, wielding greater force than any individual in order to do so. The fact that we are coerced into following the will of the nation does not change the fact that every man is sovereign - we play a game where we give up our sovereignty to a nation, but it's just a shared hallucination. At the end of the day, the only rule that actually exists is that we follow our will (or God's will, if you like).

I was talking specifically of the idea of describing a person the way a nation is described. Any other thoughts?

Given that many descriptions of nations at some point include "A group of people", then you can set yourself up for some slightly awkward jokes.

Just how many personalities must one have before they can call themselves a nation? Should they all agree, or does having at least a few directly oppose the opinions of the others add additional flavour and character to this nation?

describing a person the way a nation is described

There's lots of ways that nations are described - many of which are just derogatory stereotypes of the people that make them up...

I'm guessing you mean more along the lines of sovereignty?

In our lives, besides gods and ideals, a nation is the highest authority that we can submit to. From birth, we implicitly submit to the will of the nation, and never have a say about it. The nation has the monopoly on force, it alone as the right to wield violent power. The nation is a system through which the forces of coercion can flow. Inside the nation, every single law that we follow is always backed by the coercive force of the threat of violence.

Externally, between nations, there are treaties and laws, but there is no monopoly on violence. If one nation defies the rules (which as always, are backed by violence), then they have their own violent forces to resist the punishment. There is no greater power that the nation must submit to. They are free to express their own will.

Every man is sovereign. He has the power to enforce his will upon his own body, and he also has the power to defy the will of others. However, the nation exists to mediate our individual wills, wielding greater force than any individual in order to do so. The fact that we are coerced into following the will of the nation does not change the fact that every man is sovereign - we play a game where we give up our sovereignty to a nation, but it's just a shared hallucination. At the end of the day, the only rule that actually exists is that we follow our will (or God's will, if you like).

Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking of, like a man as a sovereign. If we really went very far, stereotypes could be applied, output could be measured, etc.

Seems pretty straightforward, although kind of backwards in my mind. I think it's pretty obvious that an organization will reflect the traits of its components, and therefore vice versa.