One nation is a solution for war

[Age]

I thought about this type of government and others.

You gave nothing more than a definition. What you need is an argument that will "educate" people into being Social Democrats. What reasons do you offer them?

The reason why I think that type of government is appropriate is within the definition. For example: "Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights.

But, who and/or what, exactly, decides on the 'certain rights', and then who and/or what decides on who gets those 'certain rights' and who does not?

These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers' compensation, public transportation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly."

Do you really believe this "bahman"?

How does a child of a continuously 'gambling drunk and/or drug affected parent', for example, get to access a public service like 'public transportation' to get to an 'educational facility', for example, who has no money because their parent/s have spend all the money, once again? And, let us not forget that the parent is only doing what it 'now' doing to just try to overcome the abuse that it had to suffer and live through and endure with, because of that already existing so-called 'social democratic society', which it was born into and brought up in. Now, how does this child access these so-called 'public services', which cost 'money' to use and/or obtain?

And: "Contemporary social democracy advocates freedom from discrimination based on differences of: ability/disability, age, ethnicity, sex, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social class."

As long as one has some sort of 'money' to access so-called 'public services'.

[Age]

It really doesn't matter what government I would prefer: I'm not the one who's trying to create the "one nation" solution, so I'm not on deck to force anybody to go along with anything. I can accept that different people have different cultures, languages, governments, and so forth...and I can accept that as the necessary price of letting people make up their own minds about how to live...even when I disagree with them.

But you can't. Not if you hope to make us all "one nation."

It's not as easy as you hoped, is it?

It is not easy!

I'll go one further: it's not possible.

Again, another example of the destructive power of 'belief', in and when believing False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect things.

It's not going to happen.

So, why for absolutely forever more you believe that 'it' is not going to happen?

Which, by the way, and hypocritically goes absolutely against what you claim God's plan is, for 'us'.

So long as people, cultures, governments, values, ways of life, languages, beliefs, geographies, ambitions, personalities, and so on are different, you're never going to make even one nation truly "one." You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

Oh, were you under some sort of illusion that "bahman" alone could have even made 'it' happen, and that is why you say 'it' is not possible and is not going to happen, forever more?

[Age]

You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

It might be possible when we stop looking for the different in others and focus on the common.

Great observation and great point you make here "nemos".

It is certainly not necessary to make all nations or peoples into one, because that is what divides us, but I say that we need to focus on what unites us. And that is not even God, because he also divides us and not unites us. So what is it that unites us, regardless of national identity or faith?

1. It is not God, Itself, which divides you human beings. you do this "yourselves".

2. So, what it is that 'unites' you all is your equal ability to learn, understand, and reason any and all things. Which, conversely, combined with your ability to retain, believe, and 'reason out', what is, essentially, Wrong and/or not good, in Life, is what has and is causing 'the division', in the days when this is being written.

In the end, if national borders are erased, then the very concept of nation will become meaningless, because it is defined by borders - it is why is impossible to create one nation.

Once those 'borders' are/were removed, then the next 'border' to get rid of was just the earth's natural and not human made border itself. But, until then, the 'One nation earth' society or world remained. But, at least, in 'this world' every one was/is living in peace and in harmony together, as One,

Not to mention the fact that as long as social, ethnic, religious, etc. inequalities(everything that separates us) exist within this united "nation" , conflicts and bloody conflicts will still exist.

The presumptions, beliefs, judgments, ridicules, and humiliation of "others" is what separates and keeps you human beings apart. In thinking alone separation and divide exists, and continues.

So, just change 'the thinking' and all else follows.

Look back at the USSR - an example of how the great "friendship" of nations fell apart.

But it was not the 'friendship', which fell apart. It was continual encroachment by, perceived, "others", which led to what happened, and is still occurring, in the days when this is being written. one is just wanting to take back what it Wrongly perceives was and is still 'theirs'.

Which is actually why human being made up 'borders' were designed and created, in the beginning. Wrong thinking leads to Wrong behaviors and Wrong creation/s.

[Age]

You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

It might be possible when we stop looking for the different in others and focus on the common.

Well, language is perhaps the biggest hurdle.

Not at all actually. Although different languages provide a somewhat perceived 'hurdle', but which when overcome showed how even within one same language the exact same 'hurdle' existed.

People who speak different languages, and not each other's, have almost no possibility of understanding each other.

Well here is another very defeatist attitude.

Have you not heard of 'translators'?

Certainly they can't come to harmony on any topic but the most rudimentary and superficial sort of arrangements, because they can rely on nothing but signals and gestures.

But, through seeing a peaceful body language this might just show and reveal a quicker way to creating, reaching and achieving a Truly peaceful and harmonious world, then seeing armed bodies around the world could ever create.

It is certainly not necessary to make all nations or peoples into one, because that is what divides us, but I say that we need to focus on what unites us. And that is not even God, because he also divides us and not unites us. So what is it that unites us, regardless of national identity or faith?

Does anything "unite" us, once all that is eliminated?

What is the 'that' word here referring to, exactly?

The ideology called "multiculturalism" tends to dismiss unity as being unimportant. Instead, it celebrates "diversity," which is the opposite characteristic. The problem, though, is that people only meet on common ground, not on their differences. In fact, it's the differences that often provoke the disputes.

Well obviously 'differences' provoke disputes. Surely, you do not presume 'sames' provoke disputes, do you?

Also, this is why that saying, 'I want to make 'a difference' in the world', can actually cause and create the opposite of what was originally intended.

So to be "diverse" means to be fragmented, factionalized, competing for public space and resources, and often, warring.

But just saying the words, 'to be diverse', which is an irrefutable Fact does not mean that competition for absolutely any thing has to exist.

'Being diverse' is just what all of you human beings are, exactly, naturally, and/or by Nature, Itself. As well as all of you are 'the same'.

you just have to discover, or learn, and understand how and why you are all 'different', and, 'the same'. That is; in what way/s and/or in what area/s.

How can we look to "diversity," the thing that creates the problems, to provide solutions?

Again, 'diversity', itself, never creates absolutely any problem at all.

Obviously, by definition 'every thing' has to be 'diverse' in one way or another, otherwise 'they' would not be 'different things'.

Not liking or not accepting 'diversity' is just another way of seeing within 'that one' a want of others to think and/or be like them.

In the end, if national borders are erased, then the very concept of nation will become meaningless, because it is defined by borders - it is why is impossible to create one nation.

But borders are not the cause of nationhood. They're its symptom.

Yes, very true.

Beliefs in that one owns 'things' is what caused those types of issues.

People don't fight because of borders; they put up borders because they fight.

And adult human beings only learned to fight, and to want to fight others, because of Wrong or abusive upbringings.

The stakes are often things like resources, territory, tribe, genetics, desire for power, access to water, cultural conflict...

Well there is obviously no 'fight gene'. There is also only one home, which human beings live within groups around so so-called 'tribes' exist, but in no way meaning that fighting/warring has to exist, and using resources for monetary gain is just another result of living in and experiencing a Wrong or abusive greedy environment, and as for wanting power of or over another, then this is just another Wrong learned behavior from living in and experiencing a Wrong and abusive selfish environment.

And a border is the thing they establish to say, "This is mine, and that is yours; don't come here."

Which, from an 'outside perspective', has been a Truly absurd, and at times a very difficult thing, to watch and observe.

In fact, what happens when the border is violated is not that one happy, peaceful nation forms, but rather that the two people-groups fight with each other to re-establish their functional boundaries.

Not always, but admitting was a very common occurrence, back in the days when this was being written.

Sometimes they fight until they kill off or enslave the other people-group.

"christians" were doing this very thing, for centuries and millennia for example.

So dissolving borders isn't a way to prevent war; sometimes, it's just the fastest way to provoke one.

Weill only if you adult human beings still want to continue 'protect' what you Falsely and Wrongly claim 'is yours', and still want to keep warring and/or fighting and killing each other.

But, if you do not, then peace will prevail, obviously.

[Age]

Does anything "unite" us, once all that is eliminated?

I didn't mean to say that we all have to be the same, or that we can't be different. What I meant was that we should not focus on these difereces. Not that our diversity is worthless, but that it cannot be the main value, because the main thing should unite us. Men will always be men and women will always be women - I mean in the biological sense - but should these differences really become an insurmountable obstacle to unity?

The Fact that creating and achieving a Truly peaceful and harmonious world for and with every one is just found in 'that' what we all can agree upon and accept, what you refer to as 'unites us', besides being 'blindingly' obvious, and I use the word 'blindingly' very purposely, is that finding the 'uniting thing/s' is a very, very simple and easy exercise, and happens almost instantaneously, that is; when one is looking at, and thus seeing, things from the Right way, in Life.

But borders are not the cause of nationhood. They're its symptom.

I did not mean to say that a social order without borders is impossible, I meant to say that in this case the concept of nation would become meaningless. Because national identity only makes sense to separate oneself from other nations.

Once one is able to see clearly, and that earth is human beings one and only home, than they can clearly see that 'nations' are nothing more than a human made up False and Wrong concept only, and which exists solely because of the greed and selfishness that has come-to-exist within you adult human beings, only.

So dissolving borders isn't a way to prevent war; sometimes, it's just the fastest way to provoke one.

Of course, people isolate themselves for a reason, and forcibly tearing down boundaries only exposes those reasons. That is why I am against revolutions, and accordingly for evolution. A bad peace is better than a good war.

A 'revolution', however, can also be looked at, and seen, as just a 'revolution' of just changing, and/or just 'going around' in 'another direction' of where human beings have been going along the 'evolution' line. The words 'revolution', like 'diversity', do not necessarily mean they contain a bad or negative connotation at all.

Learning, exactly, how and why all human beings are 'diverse' or 'different' from each other, for example, can lead to a 're-evolving' situation where people now know how and why to change, for the better, which, 'in turn', helps in creating and actually much 'better world', and one in which absolutely every one wants to Truly live in and be a part of any way.

But, exactly like you said, 'A bad peace sounds like much better than a good war'. Well to me anyway.

[Age]

Does anything "unite" us, once all that is eliminated?

I didn't mean to say that we all have to be the same, or that we can't be different. What I meant was that we should not focus on these difereces. Not that our diversity is worthless, but that it cannot be the main value, because the main thing should unite us. Men will always be men and women will always be women - I mean in the biological sense - but should these differences really become an insurmountable obstacle to unity?

If they're not going to be, then we need an awfully strong unifying factor. So far, in all of human history, no such factor has been discovered, obviously.

Well this is obviously False and Wrong. But then, these people back then, did continually think and/or believe that what they have experienced and learned and/or what they have not yet experienced nor learned, then this applies to all others as well.

We're more fragmented than ever...and no longer just internationally, but even within the nation state itself.

Well, again this is only because of what you have created.

And, this one has been, throughout this forum, providing prime examples and proof of what such 'fragmentation' existed, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

But borders are not the cause of nationhood. They're its symptom.

I did not mean to say that a social order without borders is impossible, I meant to say that in this case the concept of nation would become meaningless. Because national identity only makes sense to separate oneself from other nations.

That never happens. So long as language, culture, values, beliefs, objectives, race, tribe...etc. are diverse, we will make distinctions and reinforce them with borders of various kinds. It's what we do.

The absolutely negativity and defeatist attitude within some could not be seen more clearly than in this one here.

Consider something like BLM. How jealously is that "B" guarded? How happy would they be with the axiom, "All lives matter"?We don't have to speculate: they hate it.

Here we can see another example of having or holding a False belief leads directly to then obtain, having, or holding a False conclusion?

Also, what can be clearly seen here is one really does not have absolutely any 'empathy' at all for 'another' or 'others'.

They've made that very obvious.

See here how 'currently' held onto beliefs completely and utterly distort the way that person then looks at, and sees, things.

Or consider what would happen if we tried to deny that there was any such thing as "women's rights," and said everything from now on was just "human rights": how much would the Feminists love that?

Have you ever spoke with and conversed with any, to find out for sure and absolutely?

And, remember how many there are, and that each and every one of them has their own different views and perspectives.

Also, have you considered that your own 'conceptually' constructed 'groups' of human beings, and own 'labeling' of them into further and further 'diverse' groups is and what has been causing and creating the 'issues' or actual 'problem' here?

People love their distinctives, and yet despise difference in others.

So, why do you love your own self-made-up 'distinctiveness', but yet despise the 'differences' in others "immanual can"?

That's just how human nature is.

That is not 'human nature' at all.

you just love your own made up 'distinctiveness' and despise others being 'different' so much, and have been doing 'this' for so long now that it has become so habitual that this is the very reason why you want to claim this obviously very, very Wrong misbehaving as being 'human nature'.

And, because you love doing 'this' so much, you are here just trying to justify it as 'human nature'.

But, what you are actually doing and showing here "immanual can" is the very opposite of True 'human nature'.

This, however, was just the result of, and another example, of one who had to endure through a very abusive upbringing and environment.

A bad peace is better than a good war.

That's not so easy to say.

But it was, and is. As well as being very easy and very simple to write, and state, as well.

Lots of people think that if, say, your personal freedom, your family, your culture or your nation is threatened by an external force, you are legitimately allowed to defend it with war.

And here is the primest example and proof of distorted False and Wrong thinking, obtained through obviously distorted False and Wrong teachings, as well.

Peace wouldn't be good if it's "pacification," meaning the subduing of the weaker by the stronger to the point where they can no longer resist. And tyranny is very, very bad, even if it "pacifies" the nation.

Another example of attempting to say just about anything in the hope that it could and/or would somehow back up and support some 'currently' obviously unable to be substantiated belief or presumption.

[Walker]

You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

It might be possible when we stop looking for the different in others and focus on the common.
It is certainly not necessary to make all nations or peoples into one, because that is what divides us, but I say that we need to focus on what unites us. And that is not even God, because he also divides us and not unites us. So what is it that unites us, regardless of national identity or faith?

In the end, if national borders are erased, then the very concept of nation will become meaningless, because it is defined by borders - it is why is impossible to create one nation. Not to mention the fact that as long as social, ethnic, religious, etc. inequalities(everything that separates us) exist within this united "nation" , conflicts and bloody conflicts will still exist. Look back at the USSR - an example of how the great "friendship" of nations fell apart.

The focus ...

The pathway to peace is focusing attention on economic cooperation in the Middle East (ME) rather than on ideological differences. This is also known as the Abraham Accords.

[nemos]

But it was not the 'friendship', which fell apart. It was continual encroachment by, perceived, "others", which led to what happened, and is still occurring, in the days when this is being written. one is just wanting to take back what it Wrongly perceives was and is still 'theirs'.

Which is actually why human being made up 'borders' were designed and created, in the beginning. Wrong thinking leads to Wrong behaviors and Wrong creation/s.

I will not claim that it was the most important reason why this friendship of nations broke up, but it was definitely important: Title Nation.
As long as the Title Nation exists, satellite nations will inevitably exist, and this relationship will become an insurmountable obstacle to friendship - if only the satellite nations could unite in friendship against the title nation. As long as there is an idea of some kind of nation chosen by "god", be it pure-blooded Aryans or Great Russians or something else, there will be no friendship and peace. The big "brother", for some reason, always likes to emphasize his size. And it will certainly not be the thing that unites, although it can become a good reason to unite against.

The essence and purpose of nation-states is to defend the nation by delimiting it. However, with the current population density and closeness of cooperation, this becomes physically impossible or difficult to do, leading to internal contradictions. And people don't want to limit themselves anymore when they have the opportunity to move freely. So the current situation has made the nation-state an atavism. The next logical step could be economic zones and, accordingly, economic power, discrimination and dictatorship. I don't know about you, but to me it all paints in not very happy colors.
And the recent covid "pilot project" is a good demonstration - how people are turned into lawless cattle - by the way, using the lever of economic pressure.

[bahman]

It really doesn't matter what government I would prefer: I'm not the one who's trying to create the "one nation" solution, so I'm not on deck to force anybody to go along with anything. I can accept that different people have different cultures, languages, governments, and so forth...and I can accept that as the necessary price of letting people make up their own minds about how to live...even when I disagree with them.

But you can't. Not if you hope to make us all "one nation."

It's not as easy as you hoped, is it?

It is not easy!

I'll go one further: it's not possible. It's not going to happen. So long as people, cultures, governments, values, ways of life, languages, beliefs, geographies, ambitions, personalities, and so on are different, you're never going to make even one nation truly "one." You're certainly never going to make all nations one.

I don't think that it is impossible. It is an idea worth mentioning. All I can do is to defend it.

[bahman]

I informed you earlier, when you asked me more or less the exact same question, previously.

That is; a 'self-governing' one.

Can you see 'it', this time?

Seld-governing! What is that?

Finally. If I recall correctly I have used that term about three or four times, just in this thread alone, and only now you ask for clarity. But at least you are the first one.

The Self-governing society is one where absolutely every one is doing absolutely everything that they want and have chosen, and choose, to do, voluntarily. There is absolutely no judging of others, no ridicule, nor humiliation of others, and certainly no punishment. So, there are no need at all for human made up laws at all. It is 'a world' where absolutely every one is doing what helps, benefits, and supports absolutely every one, as ONE, on or in the goal of a One Nation Earth.

The words Self-governing came about because people have, finally, discovered, or learned, and understood the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' and with and through this realization they know what is True and Right, in Life, and thus 'now' know what to do in order to create, reach, and create 'the world' in which every one, once anyway, wanted to live in. The is; a Truly non-greedy, selfless, stress-free, pollution-free, war-less, peaceful, loving, and harmonious world, together, with every one, as One.

Now, how 'this world' is actually created, reached, and achieved is just a nine step process, which can be explained in full detail, very simply and very easily I will add, and thus also can be very simply and very easily understood also. But, again, that is to those who are Truly interested, thus Truly curios and Truly OPEN as well.

The idea of self-governing requires a very high level of maturity and education in individuals.

[henry quirk]

Here's one recipe for one nation...

A7D41109-94DC-40AE-99FA-99172D27F869.jpeg (84.26 KiB) Viewed 1730 times

...it hasn't worked so far, but: try & try again.

[nemos]

Here's one recipe for one nation...

I was inspired by this picture.
I wonder if you would agree with the idea of one nation if it was your nation that would remain the only one? This is not a question for any particular person.

[Age]

Seld-governing! What is that?

Finally. If I recall correctly I have used that term about three or four times, just in this thread alone, and only now you ask for clarity. But at least you are the first one.

The Self-governing society is one where absolutely every one is doing absolutely everything that they want and have chosen, and choose, to do, voluntarily. There is absolutely no judging of others, no ridicule, nor humiliation of others, and certainly no punishment. So, there are no need at all for human made up laws at all. It is 'a world' where absolutely every one is doing what helps, benefits, and supports absolutely every one, as ONE, on or in the goal of a One Nation Earth.

The words Self-governing came about because people have, finally, discovered, or learned, and understood the proper and Correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' and with and through this realization they know what is True and Right, in Life, and thus 'now' know what to do in order to create, reach, and create 'the world' in which every one, once anyway, wanted to live in. The is; a Truly non-greedy, selfless, stress-free, pollution-free, war-less, peaceful, loving, and harmonious world, together, with every one, as One.

Now, how 'this world' is actually created, reached, and achieved is just a nine step process, which can be explained in full detail, very simply and very easily I will add, and thus also can be very simply and very easily understood also. But, again, that is to those who are Truly interested, thus Truly curios and Truly OPEN as well.

The idea of self-governing requires a very high level of maturity and education in individuals.

Yes, but not necessarily of the type of 'maturity' nor of the type of 'education', which you are thinking of and talking about here.

After all the yet to be discovered by you people here, when this is being written, the greatest teachers, in Life, about 'life and living', itself, are the youngest among you.

And, it does take the highest level of 'maturity' to have the self-discipline to actually, really, listen and observe, in order to learn what is actually True, Right, and good, in Life, from them.

[henry quirk]

I wonder if you would agree with the idea of one nation if it was your nation that would remain the only one?

A constitutional republic is, by far, not the worst system a population can be saddled with but it's certainly not the best, so I say no.

[Age]

But it was not the 'friendship', which fell apart. It was continual encroachment by, perceived, "others", which led to what happened, and is still occurring, in the days when this is being written. one is just wanting to take back what it Wrongly perceives was and is still 'theirs'.

Which is actually why human being made up 'borders' were designed and created, in the beginning. Wrong thinking leads to Wrong behaviors and Wrong creation/s.

I will not claim that it was the most important reason why this friendship of nations broke up, but it was definitely important: Title Nation.
As long as the Title Nation exists, satellite nations will inevitably exist, and this relationship will become an insurmountable obstacle to friendship - if only the satellite nations could unite in friendship against the title nation. As long as there is an idea of some kind of nation chosen by "god", be it pure-blooded Aryans or Great Russians or something else, there will be no friendship and peace. The big "brother", for some reason, always likes to emphasize his size. And it will certainly not be the thing that unites, although it can become a good reason to unite against.

The essence and purpose of nation-states is to defend the nation by delimiting it. However, with the current population density and closeness of cooperation, this becomes physically impossible or difficult to do, leading to internal contradictions. And people don't want to limit themselves anymore when they have the opportunity to move freely. So the current situation has made the nation-state an atavism. The next logical step could be economic zones and, accordingly, economic power, discrimination and dictatorship. I don't know about you, but to me it all paints in not very happy colors.
And the recent covid "pilot project" is a good demonstration - how people are turned into lawless cattle - by the way, using the lever of economic pressure.

I am not sure why you quoted me, and then added these words in reply. To me, there does not appear to be any actual correspondence between the two.