Doing away with nation states and imposing a one world society could be dangerous. Either way, I certainly wouldn't want to live in a 'one world society' myself. Sovereign nation-states just make the world a more interesting place. I don't know how else to articulate this, but one world government is not the solution.

But in either case, what does "outdated" even mean? Are print newspapers, LPs, and other sorts of physical media truly outdated or did the corporations simply impose digital forms of distribution upon us for the sake of their own economic convenience? Have the people themselves ever actually rejected print? Did they ever have a say? Was the internet forced upon the people against their will or did they ask for it? Give the people what they want and need, not what's most convenient or cost-efficient for you to give them.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Baby boomers will never accept a world order that is built on realist principles and doctrines. Treaties are usually nothing more than toilet paper; they should be negotiated only to provide tactical relief for a nation. Only Restorationism is capable of realizing this distinction between the moral world and the real world. It was an embarrassment to seek to win "hearts and minds" since 9/11, that muslims ran toward our troops when we entered their cities. Terrorists easily took advantage of that fact to shoot our troops when their backs were turned. Instead, in a future scenario, the report of the approach of a Restorationist American army; would provoke a wave of refugees by the millions. The choice between shooting or sparing enemy POWs, or shooting enemy noncombatants is not a choice between morality or barbarism. It is a choice between sparing future enemy soldiers who would no compunction about killing our troops or children, or eliminating the potential threat before it could emerge.

Whereas Millies, such as myself, pretty much take a world built on realist principlies and doctrines for granted. ;-)

Originally Posted by Remy Renault

Doing away with nation states and imposing a one world society could be dangerous. Either way, I certainly wouldn't want to live in a 'one world society' myself. Sovereign nation-states just make the world a more interesting place. I don't know how else to articulate this, but one world government is not the solution.

We DO live in a one world society. That is already the fact. It's a question of adjusting to it.

What will happen is a world federation, looser than the USA, but still overseeing international order. An enhanced UN. Nationalism is outdated, even if a one world government is not "forced" upon us.

I don't see how sovereign nations make the world more interesting, unless you think wars and conflicts are interesting. Different cultures, that I can see. But what we need is to learn to embrace unity within diversity; more local control when it serves the people, and more world unity when it serves the peace.

But local units of government cannot really serve to provide people with identities. Identity comes from the culture and values you hold dear, and the abilities you have to contribute. Your personal identity is a delusion if separated in your mind from the whole, or the divine, as your deepest identity.

But in either case, what does "outdated" even mean? Are print newspapers, LPs, and other sorts of physical media truly outdated or did the corporations simply impose digital forms of distribution upon us for the sake of their own economic convenience? Have the people themselves ever actually rejected print? Did they ever have a say? Was the internet forced upon the people against their will or did they ask for it? Give the people what they want and need, not what's most convenient or cost-efficient for you to give them.

Mostly that's what we get from the corporate world-- what's convenient or cost effective for them.

"Outdated" in the case of war and nationalism means it serve no purpose anymore, for anyone-- except maybe corporations who make money off of war and weapons; it's just something left over from earlier times.