• What is you/i?
• What is life/death? 

If you define death as the fact of you giving up existing. Nothing else can happen related to you.

Some could say that "you" is your physical body. Everybody has an idea of what happens to it.

Another approach: if you define "you" as "something" that is alive. You can only consider that things can happen to you if you are alive. The answer would be nothing. If you don't agree on that, then the definition of "you" or "being alive" necessarily must be wider.

The only thing I can say is very few:

 "i/you" is something that is unique and that cannot be perceived externally. It is the only property of a human being that cannot be perceived by another human being.

So I have added another characteristic, "i/you" is a property human beings have. But I am not saying that it can uniquely exist as a property of a human being. I am not  saying the contrary either.

Life can be defined in several ways. But I doubt if everything that is considered to be alive has necessarily to have a "you/i" property.

I think that there is no point on answering the question itself. It would be the same case, if I created a question that asked "What are you seeing around yourself?" trying to find a common agreement. It would be impossible because each one would have its own meanings for the concepts in the questions.

The existence of states is mostly based on historic and cultural foundations. It is linked to a geographical condition. Nowadays, history and culture are increasingly being built internationally.

Resources and human beings "belong" to a state. Consequently, the organisms required to manage them have been created in a per state basis.

The more these resources and human beings interact with other resources and human beings in other states, the more “conflicts” have to be solved to harmonize different management system among states. These affect to every aspect of human life. This turns out to be inefficient.

It is easier to operate (live) within your state than in a wider scope, because of the fact that the framework of our activities is closely related to the political unit: the state. This is very related to the "Cost of transactions" theory of Ronald Coase.

Several states have already realized that this could be true and the European Union is an example of this fact.

However, other movements exist right in the opposite (independentist) direction arguing national identities. Does it make sense to continue tying nationalities to management bodies?