I am not a nationalist, and I do not advocate a "one world government,"
either.
Instead, we should have voluntary organizations occasionally
engaging on an international level, and dealing with each other in peace.
To the extent that this cannot be done, we would
be isolationist.
The nation is perhaps the most destructive concept of all time.
Nations take hold of entire populations and use them against each other.
They should be abandoned as concepts.
Disagree? Explain.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Who would run these "voluntary organisations" and how would they be ratified? Who would organise these engagements, and who would set the terms? What do you foresee as being the benefits of isolationism? What would replace nationalism as a concept, do you think?
I don't see a big issue with a one world government.... because if that one government screws up or tries to oppress, they have the entire human population to answer to, which would be even harder to control..... they'd be out numbered.
But in the end, divisions will still arise, just as it currently does between states and provinces, and it would probably revert right back to where we are now.
Until the entire population agrees to live in a paticular manner, nations and borders will remain to protect each society's way of life from other's.
Nations destructive? Yes
Nations required? Yes
Even with voluntary organization of peoples all roads eventually lead to divisions of power and handing of responsibility to singular individuals. The current nation concept at the very least protects us from the warlords of the world.
For a possible future of nations, Europe seems to be instructive. In Europe nations that, less than a lifetime ago were, at war with each other are now involved in what amounts to an experiment in "one world government." It is easier, for example, for a Brit to work in Germany (two countries that waged bloody war) than for a Canadian to work in the US, two countries that have never warred (expect during the British colonial period before Canada existed) and are each others largest trading partners.
Of course, all is not perfect in the EU, but it functions better than most countries and with less internal divisiveness than exists in countries like Canada and the United States.
Europe is doing something very interesting and unprecedented in human history. It's worth monitoring and understanding.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
Those are all questions that have been posed before, but no one seems to have any rational answers so they generally get avoided. I guess, based on some of the arguments I've seen, that people are just going to magically start agreeing on how things should be run, even though today most people can hardly agree on anything.Quote by: CruellaDeChaCha
No one ever said these ideas were rational, try talking to some of the anarcho-capitalists who think that with no government and no overarching authority, somehow the monetary supply is going to be universally valid.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.
I do find it interesting that Grandpa hasn't answered any of them, it must be said.
Nations are less destructive than anarchy. Anarchy is chaos (in reality, not theory) Look at Somalia. Nations were meant to bring order, justice, and security to a way of life, so people can live normally without watching behind thier back for theives every day.
I realize you are not talking about anarchy, but "voluntary organizations"--but honestly, how long will that stand? Which "organizations" will these be? Organizations like Amnesty International? What credibility or power do "organizations" have? How can they keep peace or order without a military, police, or justice system from a government?
I beleive a one-state-world is the only effective solution to the threats of war and dissent. So long as there is division, there will be conflict. Isolation never lasts, and it does not guarantee peace. A one-state-world, provided it was created right, is the future, as it can oversee and gaurd the entire world without worrying about international law or borders or anything. It would still have states or provinces with local governors, and there would initially be resistance and civil war, but eventually a solid, fair, and peaceful government would occur, very much in the same way the United States formed.
Somalia is governed by warlords. It is not a turn at all at anarchism.
By the way, I didn't answer these questions because I simply forgot about thsi thread after it's being buried. I'm not afraid to answer any of the questions you can throw at me.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
If they are to work, they would be ratified by consentual agreement, by ordinary people who set the terms as they see fit.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Frankly, you don't have a thing here. You assume everyone cannot be oppressed, that everyone in a corrupt government will be willing to rebel (rather than accepting some form of bribe), or that it would necessarily be harder to control people under one big state. I don't think international statism necessarily means any of these things. In some ways people might even be easier to control. If there are any upstarts, they have an entire world population to crush them, lest someone cause a rift in the supposedly peaceful international system of governance.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
...No. They are imposed, and lead populations to the slaughter. None of this is secret. There are obvious reasons to do away with nations.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks