I have had to throw my dreams for a united world and everyone seeing each other as fellow humans out the window many times. Is it truly possible to have a world without borders or country/state division except for utility purposes rather than as dividing and segregating factors. The internet has helped by letting people in various parts of the world communicate with each other and understand each other. But then again it has led to people living in one part of the world bashing and devaluing those in another and their countries for various reasons! Which leads to some more angry hateful people, like we don't have enough. So is a world without borders, universalism without any country, state, region possible? What are the roadblocks? Or is a world without borders - a united earth, a flawed and useless concept?
No, I don't believe so at all. The nation state as a constructed "reality" has only been around for a couple of hundred years, and it was ushered in on one paradigm, industrialization. There is nothing to say other paradigms will come along that make the notion of a "nation-state" as atavistic as the city-state was in its day. Great topic.
I wonder sometimes, what if either Genghis or Alexander had succeeded in conquering the whole world and keeping it that way till now. Would the world be a better, conflictless place ?
From a theological standpoint, universalism is not true at all. It sounds like you are just saying that people should be "naturally good". I don't believe in this either.
This thread is not about the universalism as regards bible. The one here http://www.carm.org/universalism.htm It is about the one in politics. National and state divides that pull people away from each other in many ways. I am tired of "stormy" threads. Maybe we could have some constructive and thought provoking [Not anger/violence provoking] discussions going. Very few might bite, but the potential for intellectual satisfaction is there.
Hmm. Very interesting question. I don't have a ready answer, except to approach it by comparing it to the Roman empire, and the Holy Roman Empire. In a way, these "supranationalisms" lived before the infrastructure was in place to "congeal" the supranational ideal. Peasants in Moravia still felt themselves vassals to their fief lord, before any allegiance to this far-off, ethereal concept called "the Holy Roman Empire." At least by my theory, it was industrialization that not only provided the push, but the pull, to nationalism. Mass literacy and printing made ideas cheap, and easily transportable; intellectuals across national boundaries - say, Prussian kleindeutschland ("Little Germany, under Prussian hegemony") nationalist theorists keenly felt their relative backwardness vis-a-vis their other European confreres. This was the "pull." The industrialization that allowed for the national railroad, and the Nationalverin it served, was the "push" to destroy more archaic systems of communication, allegiance, and so forth. I would say the same kind of lineup of political economic paradigm and social movement (i.e., "nationalism") can of course happen again. But the two things - the "hard" variables, like infrastructure, economic power, etc., and "soft variables," like comparative intellectual environment, must line up.
Well, to take the notion of the world moving from principalities to unified nation-states, when the truly cosmopolitan religious order, catholicism, had significant sway, the nation-states happened regardless, though not bloodlessly, obviously. Formerly "catholic" royal realms broke into smaller entities, or aggregated into larger entities, irrespective of the religious divisions at play. Seems to me the same thing can happen on any number of supra-national paradigms. What do you think?
I could be wrong on what you mean here. Are referencing the existence of nations? Or just states inside of a nation? Nations have been around for much longer. Some of our oldest greek documents will show how the Roman Empire was essentially a nation. They were concerned about themselves, they conquered areas to build up their nation, and provided care and protection through a military system. There really was no difference.
There are many things dividing men. Religions [or the lack of it], haves/have-nots and so on. Let's tackle the issue of geo-political divides in this edition. Like why should people in country A hate/judge people in country B. Would those hates/judgements be there if there were no country divisions on earth, say no Iraq or no Israel or no Kenya or no Nigeria.
I should provide my usage(s): A nation is a constructed ideal, around a group of people commonly thought to share some sort of social characteristic - language, ethnicity, a shared, history (relatively homogenously so), and so forth. There are nations that do not belong to one state (for a while, for instance, ethnic Germans living across the numerous principalities of pre-1871 Germany, or across Germany, Austria, and part of Switzerland). A state is a political economic entity that is seen to bound the nation, however that nation is defined. There are nations that span across several states (the ethnic German example above), and there are states that bound across several nations (any number of kingdoms of the "era of Kings" in Europe; I mentioned Rome - containing a vast array of ethnicities, language groups, and so forth - and the Holy Roman Empire; countless others). (You mention Rome as a "nation," but in fact it was a kingdom, built into an empire. Another one that came close, in this kind of proto-version, was Alfred the Great, who instituted mass literacy on a scale never seen until that time in England; he did so to ensure his orders - all to repel the norse invasions - were carried out across his kingdom. The end result was the development of a sense of "us" and "them." "English" and "Norse." The seed of true nationalism). Where the two things come together is the modern nation-state. We import some kind of primordial "reality" to it but fail to see it really was simply a constructed thing, and a mere 200 years or so ago, forward, at that.
I think the problems with it are practical. As a theory is sounds nice. But in practice what would it mean? One set of rules for everybody? I do currently see everyone as equals. I do not need to share a government with them to hold that view. I also want everyone to have the same liberties and opportunities I have. I hope they are able to find that in their small space on earth as I have in mine. What I like about The United States of America is that it is a marketplace. The Constitution sets a base of protections but the various states offer different mixes of rights and taxes and government involvement, etc. If I did not want pay state income tax, I could move from California. If I wanted to carry a pistol on my waste, I could move to Arizona, if I wanted to have a large homestead exemption, I could move to Florida or Texas. It is not perfect, but by having different and distinct governments they are able to offer people various options how one can chose to live. It is very difficult [for government] to make decisions that affect large groups of people - as people all have different desires - we are all unique in what give us pleasure and peace and fulfillment. The United States is by no means perfect, but I like that I have the right to move to any of the states and live according to their laws if I chose. I think the idea of a one world government would be like a Vonnegut novel where we are all brought down to the lowest common denominator. That being said, I know I was lucky to have been born an American, in California, in Los Angeles. I truly hope others have the same opportunities I have. But in all honesty I would not give up my liberties and freedoms so others may gain some at my expense. I hope others who aspire to live as I do will fight within their sphere to achieve that. I do think that America tries to support that notion, as imperfect as it sometimes turns out.
As pessimistic as it may sound, I think universalism is unattainable. I do not think the *idea* is flawed and useless, I just think it is impossible for humans to achieve it. Northpoint correctly states that the *modern* nation-state has only existed for approx. 200 years. However, I contend the modern nation-state is merely the logical extension of tribal tendencies established by our nomadic ancestors prior to written history. Throughout history, humans have consistently shown two traits. 1. Humans are social creatures, and survive by contributing to the group as a whole for personal benefit. We didn't truly start to flourish as a species until division of labor was established. 2. Humans are territorial and prone to violent confrontations regarding land and resources. The modern nation-state has set borders for our respective tribes, but the underlying source of conflict remains - the desire for more land and resources to ensure the survival of one's tribe. Due to our propensity for violence, I think it is much more likely we destroy ourselves in war than learn how to peacefully co-exist...
Lots of food for thought. Humans may never achieve it. But at least by discussing the notion, we could get some valuable insights on ourselves and humanity. Humans are territorial and sometimes violent alright, but couldn't that "primitive" tendency/instinct be overcome by an intelligent, discerning being like human. Might such a tendency disappear in future due to humans advancing or "evolving" [if you believe in evolution] themselves?
Good questions... I do believe in evolution, and would like to believe humans, as a species, will eventually overcome these genetic proclivities. But this behavior is not limited to humans; it is evident in every ecological niche. Since conflict for survival seems to be so ingrained in life, I think it will be one of the most difficult for any species to overcome. I have every confidence these tendencies can be overcome by individuals...the key is getting enough individuals to overcome them to effect an actual change in society at large. Not an easy thing to accomplish.