Has Anyone Considered How Silly Nation-States Are?
If the tragedy in Boston yesterday has taught us anything (like 9/11, like Hurricane Sandy, etc), it's this; that people and private aid groups, in times of dire need, will help other people, without the need for the government to step in and tell them to.
Which leads me to ask the question, why do we need nation-states?
Don't get me wrong, I understand why they were useful early in the development of organized society. The people needed an easy way to organize and divide resources and the easiest way to do this was to develop a strictly structured society, with a few trained leaders who knew where said resources were needed and could get them there quickly.
Of course, power corrupts and in time, societies generally developed the various classes, leaders wanted more and more resources from other leaders which led to wars, and so on. Still, it was the most effective way.
But how about now? With major advances in communications and transportation, do we still need said leaders? As I said earlier, in times of crisis, people, without government intervention, have helped others.
It seems that nowadays, the disconnect between the leaders of nation-states and the people is near-total. While leaders have gone to war against other leaders, it's the people who suffer.
So what's the alternative? I propose one global community. No, not an NWO style government that's nothing more than another layer of government. No, I'm talking about people, living their day-to-day lives as they choose, while helping those who need it in that spontaneous sort of way.
Is it idealistic? Sure. Is it realistic? I hope so, for all our sake.
I don't believe in putting a political label on myself, but if I had to, I'd be a liberal-libertarian. Want to honestly know what that means? Ask me sometime.
Rainbows are more then a reminder of a promise made by a god, or the symbol of a movement; they are a reminder that despite the dark clouds you see, somewhere nearby the sun is shinning.