Time to abolish Nations and Religion

[Sledgehammer]

What's your defintion of a state?

Surely if the nation state were to go it would either be replaced by one world government or no government at all.

Probably a one world government, split into many regions with their own administrative privileges. Somewhat like the UN, but more powerful.

 

[gFrohman]

Abolish nations? Just think about that one for a minute. Really think about it.

How can democracy possibly work on a global scale? It's woefully substandard as it is on a national scale.

How will there ever be checks and balances on state power when there is only one state and it rules the entire world? It can't be challenged from within, as it would be or become far too powerful, and it can't be brought down by external forces as there are none. You have far too much faith in government - a self-perpetuating, self-serving power structure - where none is deserved.

Isn't it arrogant to presume that one system of government is going to work for all the diverse cultures of the earth, let alone represent them properly?

And all for some vague idealistic notion of "unity". People always split into groups, it's human nature. It doesn't matter if they're divided by nations or not. Just look at the political and cultural divides within nations around the world. As it stands, nations work relatively well at being a representation of the culture and belief system of the people within that nation. If you abolished them the divisions would only return in another form.

Being divided is not a bad thing. Unity only has meaning when there is something to unite against. The only people to profit from one world government would be the rich, powerful and well connected.

I agree with you on a lot of your points - especially about how we think that "our system of government works so well for us, so it should work for everyone else, right?" Not so; some forms of government work only for smaller societies and some work better for larger societies (true communism might work for a village of 1,000 people, but on a national scale it's hopeless). Right now what we've got has become a sort of corporate feudalism: the rich and elite are protected by laws and tax codes, manipulating the legislators and keeping the poor man down.
Being separate nationally isn't so much the problem imo, it's the tribalistic thinking that seems to cause a lot of the violence ("My God has a bigger dick than your God" "My government is cooler than your government" "My dictator has bigger guns than your dictator"). If this type of thinking was put aside and we just saw each other for who we are (humans), then maybe some of our problems would go away - we all affect each other a lot more than we think we do.

 

[Sledgehammer]

I agree with you on a lot of your points - especially about how we think that "our system of government works so well for us, so it should work for everyone else, right?" Not so; some forms of government work only for smaller societies and some work better for larger societies (true communism might work for a village of 1,000 people, but on a national scale it's hopeless). Right now what we've got has become a sort of corporate feudalism: the rich and elite are protected by laws and tax codes, manipulating the legislators and keeping the poor man down.
Being separate nationally isn't so much the problem imo, it's the tribalistic thinking that seems to cause a lot of the violence ("My God has a bigger dick than your God" "My government is cooler than your government" "My dictator has bigger guns than your dictator"). If this type of thinking was put aside and we just saw each other for who we are (humans), then maybe some of our problems would go away - we all affect each other a lot more than we think we do.

Communism is probably the most effective form of government for a small village. Not sure how small exactly. However, today's society aren't isolated from each other, and thusly, it's outdated. Democracy isn't a flawless system, but it's a good one. Especially freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, is what makes it superior to every other system in a large society. Because it ensures that the society constantly renews itself.

On the other hand, look at democracy in the EU and India. It works. I'm fairly convinced that a (much larger scale) kind of democracy could work for the entire population of the world.

 

[Kadayi]

Eventually it would be nice to envisage that one day we might have progressed to some Star Trek style utopian secular global collective, however at this point in time we are so far removed from that position it really isn't worth discussing in depth. Even with religion on the decline (at least in the west), short of China going on a mad global rampage the idea that national identities are going to evaporate any time soon is absurd. Whilst men of power can wield power through the division of nations they shall. The only thing that will usurp them is men with greater ambitions.

 

[Sheepo]

Could some one clarify the specifics of "doing away with" religion?

 

[Mr Stabby]

No one is allowed to believe in God.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I see it more as a case of lack of desire to believe in God, rather than banning such beliefs.

 

[Sheepo]

"Doing away with" implies much more concrete action. I don't suppose we intend to gradually encourage people to stop believing in God, and are actually expecting that it would happen.

 

[Adabiviak]

I think they both cause more problems than they solve, but the human race isn't ready for that yet (or may ever be ready for it).

 

[Eejit]

Religion != Theism

It's obviously meaning organised religion.

 

[Wanted Bob]

The big problem I have with religion is when it is influencing the State. If that could be solved, then I wouldnt really have a problem with either.

 

[gFrohman]

Eventually it would be nice to envisage that one day we might have progressed to some Star Trek style utopian secular global collective [...]

The problem you run into with a pure utopia (as with an oppressive dictatorship) is that everyone will have their own viewpoint on what a utopia should comprise of, so therefore true utopia can never exist since someone will not be happy somewhere. In order for a utopia to exist, there has to be a decision about what that utopia consists of, then everyone else has to abide by it whether they are cool with it or not - you still end up oppressing people in the end.

 

[Kadayi]

The problem you run into with a pure utopia (as with an oppressive dictatorship) is that everyone will have their own viewpoint on what a utopia should comprise of, so therefore true utopia can never exist since someone will not be happy somewhere. In order for a utopia to exist, there has to be a decision about what that utopia consists of, then everyone else has to abide by it whether they are cool with it or not - you still end up oppressing people in the end.

Exactly my point. The only way your going to get 'rid' of religion & nationalism is through the application of some heavyweight 'Year Zero' totalitarianism. People aren't going to meekly give up their beliefs of ideologies, or will they 'disappear' of their own accord (People still believe in Witchcraft even today). That's the large Elephant standing in this thread. The liberators would be the oppressors :dozey:

 

[The Monkey]

Charlemagne was a brutal warlord. Hitler and Napoleon also did it. I still think the current arrangement is better.

Romantacism is itself a product of the enlightenment. I wasn't arguing that it's enlightenment roots necessarily legitimises nationalism, I was just pointing out why nationalism is a fairly recent invention.

How about the UK and Ireland they even speak the same language, surely that's the place to start in joining nations togethor.

The relationship between the Enlightenment and Romanticism is very complex and very interesting. Romanticism was in many ways a reaction against Enlightenment. It thought Enlightenment was replacing one god, Jehovah, with an other, logic. Many thought it held exaggerated trust in the natural sciences and reduced all the beauty of the world to numbers. The art of Romanticism wasn't bound to realism or logic, but rather enabled the full capacity of the mind to produce products of atheistic beauty.

Many of the romantic music and literature disliked the contemporary urbanisation and wanted a return to the countryside, which they increasingly idolized. "The Home" became a mythical abstraction and ave rise which the movement that arrived in the mid-1800s, romantic nationalism, whose artistic output increasingly gave a perception of common language, history, culture and ethnicity within the states of Europe (and elsewhere). In that sense, romanticism created the nation-state.

But then of course, the scientific mindset brought by the Enlightenment enabled technical improvements, not the least on the transportation sector, which brought with a further sense of community for the people within the rising nation-state. The Enlightenment and Romanticism wasn't always opposing forces, however, but I think I've dwelled far enough from the topic as it is

 

[15357]

I don't care much for religion, but I care deeply about my country. I don't care if the entire world has the proverbial shit hit the fan, as long as my country is fine. Therefore, I'd rather abolish religion and all nations except one (mine).

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Well, the evil root is democracy and the money system. Democracy needs a new alternative, because it sucks. The dream of one people ruling for million is unachievable. However, other systems are bad too. Communism was a would-be replacement, but it turned out that real communism could be never achieved, as long as there still is money. So **** it, nothing will change for another 1000 years and humans will slowly devolve into a stupid whores of big companies.

 

[repiV]

I'm fairly certain that the nation-state will be gone within 50 years, and it's not a moment too soon. People try to stop the process, but thankfully it is (according to most political scientists I know) a more or less inevitable process, where the people will identify primarily on a regional, continental and/or global level rather than on a national.

I think you're incredibly deluded (I don't mean that in an insulting way). It's not going to happen - and if in Europe it does, it won't be by the consent of the people, but by the dictatorial attitude of the EU behemoth. As we see with their contemptible attitude towards the EU constitution, seeing public opinion as something to be overcome rather than respected.

For that matter, why is it even desirable for people to identify on a regional or continental level, rather than a national one? So you have fewer, larger nations. How this benefits anyone except the politicians and big business is utterly beyond me.

The individual is everything. Supra-national superstates are not exactly condusive to the individual or their liberty.

Are many people in the thread suggesting the total eradication of all divides and boundaries? Or, for that matter, a world government? The thread is specifically about two forms of social organisation: the religion, and the nation-state. The question of 'abolishment' should be addressed specifically to these constructs/organisations, with their concommitant ideals of arbitrary boundary and groundless faith.

I mean personally I think that like anarchism it's desirable but not currently attainable.

For a start, nations are not arbitrary. Far from it. They exist to protect and represent the values and ideals of their citizens, and the way of life therein, and not merely the landmass which they occupy. Come on now, you're far too intelligent to make comments like that.

Other than that, to have a discussion about the abolition of the nation-state is a pointless exercise unless you consider what would replace it. As someone else already pointed out, the only options are one world government or total anarchy.

Total anarchy may be desirable if you're willing to sacrifice every single benefit of modern living standards and technological civilisation in exchange for absolute freedom. I would suggest the vast majority of people would not like to make such a sacrifice, although personally it holds a sort of base appeal. But probably more in small doses on the weekend...

One world government is inevitably dystopian, and there's really nothing more to it than that.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that modern civilisation requires vast power structures in order to sustain itself. We need corporations and other large, expensive, powerful organisations to innovate, create and develop. We need government and government agencies to keep civil society running and provide defence against outside threats. Modern society cannot function without sacrificing a level of individuality and freedom because all the things we accomplish require many people working in harmony. But as much liberty and individuality as possible should always be the aim. That's accomplished by leaning towards smaller, more representative states and smaller power structures, not huge collectivist superstates which, however benign in intent, will always oppress the individual.

I agree with you on a lot of your points - especially about how we think that "our system of government works so well for us, so it should work for everyone else, right?" Not so; some forms of government work only for smaller societies and some work better for larger societies (true communism might work for a village of 1,000 people, but on a national scale it's hopeless).

Well that's very true, and it's a very cultural thing too. The way a country is governed is a reflection, to one extent or another, of the citizens of that country.

How many people here would be happy with everyone having the right to bear arms in their country, or with capital punishment for tax evasion, or Sharia law? Noone?

Well, unless your idea of a one world government is your personal ideals imposed on the rest of the world, that's what you're going to have to live with. And everyone else on the planet is going to have to live with aspects of your culture that they don't want.

Quite frankly, one world government is a retarded idea.

On the other hand, look at democracy in the EU and India. It works.

The EU is democratic in name only. It does whatever it wants and we are powerless to stop it. The vast majority of us don't even want further integration with the EU, but it doesn't stop them from trying to find new and ever more devious ways of forcing it to happen. Or us having to adopt thousands of EU laws that we don't want. Just one example being the new EU standard motorcycle test, which since its adoption here a month ago has caused lots of crashes and some serious injuries including one trainee who broke four ribs, a shoulder and punctured a lung trying to do their ridiculous maneuvre, and another who broke their arm in three places.

I can't say for India because I don't know enough about it. Needless to say, there are degrees of democracy, and the EU is about as far from democratic as any supposedly democratic institution can actually be.

I'm fairly convinced that a (much larger scale) kind of democracy could work for the entire population of the world.

What's the point? What would it accomplish?

The problem you run into with a pure utopia (as with an oppressive dictatorship) is that everyone will have their own viewpoint on what a utopia should comprise of, so therefore true utopia can never exist since someone will not be happy somewhere. In order for a utopia to exist, there has to be a decision about what that utopia consists of, then everyone else has to abide by it whether they are cool with it or not - you still end up oppressing people in the end.

Very well said. To reiterate, well-intentioned idea but utterly stupid. The worst oppression is that which is for your own good, as the oppressors and their agents will always have a clear conscience.

Well, the evil root is democracy and the money system. Democracy needs a new alternative, because it sucks. The dream of one people ruling for million is unachievable. However, other systems are bad too. Communism was a would-be replacement, but it turned out that real communism could be never achieved, as long as there still is money. So **** it, nothing will change for another 1000 years and humans will slowly devolve into a stupid whores of big companies.

This planet has finite resources. To allocate and trade those resources requires money. Fact of life.

If you had to actually experience life in a time before currency and trade, I think you would realise just how good we all have it.

 

[Sledgehammer]

Well, the evil root is democracy and the money system. Democracy needs a new alternative, because it sucks. The dream of one people ruling for million is unachievable. However, other systems are bad too. Communism was a would-be replacement, but it turned out that real communism could be never achieved, as long as there still is money. So **** it, nothing will change for another 1000 years and humans will slowly devolve into a stupid whores of big companies.

Money is only a simpler way of trading stuff. So you claim to be an enemy of trading items. On the other hand, you also dislike giving items to each other, as communism did. Do you just want every human to live by itself and only meet on rare occasions to breed?

 

[gFrohman]

I agree.
You can't get rid of money unless you want no form of trade & barter at all. As Sledgehammer said, money simplifies the trade & barter system. Instead of trading 3 pigs for a cow or what have you, you give the farmer $300 for the cow. If we get rid of money, people will just horde and obsess over whatever is used next to trade for items.