Lawry deBivort wrote: > I am not impressed with the nation-state idea. It has allowed many countries > the appearance of legitimacy under state sovereignty principles to seize > land of others, to kill 'foreign' populations, to exploit the military > weakness of others economically and politically, etc. The nation-state, as I > see it, is no better than any other definition of the boundaries that people > use to separate themselves from others, thus promoting the emotional > distance that allows one group to mistreat another.
It seems you overlooked what I wrote in my previous message: >> The problems arise when control of nations slips out of the >> commons and into the hands of a particular group. All the wrongs that >> were mentioned in this thread, are the result of such a situation. So your argument against the nation-state concept is a strawman argument. You're confusing empires with nation-states -- a common confusion among people from an empire (or two). > I don't think it is a red-herring, because your original suggestion was that > people be able to protect "their" societies. So If we simply allow a theory > that any group can define itself and then 'protect' themselves by harming > others, we have only created a theory that 'might makes right'. What is wrong with protecting oneself in one's own domain ? You construct a harmfulness based on strawman examples where an empire, led by a particular group or junta, harmed others -- usually outside the empire and/or without these others having harmed the empire first. > What I am > looking for is a theory of human well-being that manages to address the > well-being of all, and does NOT allow particular groups to seize particular > advantages that enable them to exploit others, or at least not to let them > do so under cover of a theory that seems to make their behavior legitimate. I suggest that a world of self-determined nation-states (NOT empires), that are NOT hijacked by particular groups, would come very close to what you're looking for. > We have many instances of such particular groups arrogating to themselves > particular rights that operate to the detriment of others. It is time to put > a stop to the apparent and self-claimed legitimacy of theoretical constructs > that enable them to do so. It is time to put a stop to empires and to particular groups hijacking the control over even formally democratic, federalistic nation-states. > Boundaries between people are thus, as I see it, part of the contemporary > political problem, and perhaps the determining part. Is the door of your home left open night & day ? It's a boundary between people and thus bad, as is the line in the middle of the road -- away with it! OTOH, Saddam removed the national border between Iraq and Kuwait, and from then on everything was great between Iraqis and Kuwaitis -- it was that damn border that had been the problem! > Until we solve this, we will continue to see in the world these problems. > Embracing the nation-state definition of "their society" (or any other > definition) only postpones the day, I think, when the world achieves a > self-understanding that makes war, exploitation and oppression > unconditionally unacceptable. And until we achieve this, we will have war > and acts of 'terrorism', or 'liberation' -- as you prefer. You keep confusing empires with nation-states. Terror groups ONLY exist in reaction to empires. Wars are ONLY waged by empires or nation-states that got hijacked by particular groups. Cheers, Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
