All of us, with the exception of a certain friend of mine, owe allegiance to our country. Of all the reasons for doing so, I am convinced of the superiority of one in particular: The principles of the nation I support are those which I find most agreeable. In fact, for this very reason, I think that a multitude of nations is a wonderful thing. I want and support neither a World Government (assuming that it is not a federation of independent states) nor a stateless world (I believe, admittedly without much study, this to be inefficient). However, while many nations is a good thing, and while I do believe that the sovereignty of any nation is a good thing, I do believe that these things are not good as of themselves but only when subject to certain rules that ensure their continued existence and the continued existence of their systems.
Of these, I find the following important: (to be frank, I was thinking of them while in an argument with my parents on this very topic, and now I've forgotten most)
- A citizen of a nation must have the right and the ability to leave a nation at any point of time.
- A nation must allow for its own system to be replaced without violence or gunfire.
- A nation must ensure that its own populace is capable of exercising its right to reform the nation.
- A nation must not attempt to spread its own system by force (either through exercise of its armed forces or through economic warfare).
The idea is, if one were to assume that each set of people has a right to choose their own government, and if one were to assume that they have a right to live together in a contiguous piece of land, what is the most consistent manner in which this might be achieved? I don't think all that I've written above is a solution to this question. But any help is welcome.
2 comments
Why do you owe allegiance to the country? Because you like some principles they've written down in some book that might as well be imaginary? Do you realise that nations exist that have implemented these principles and more on a far greater scale and met with incredible success and grown into a powerful mature meaningful society?
I have no obligations. My share of the taxes are paid so I owe nothing on my end. The nation is in my debt for failing to keep up its end of the deal. Why should I perform my fundamental duties when the nation does not bother to uphold my fundamental rights?
> A citizen of a nation must have the right and the ability to leave a nation at any point of time.
Since this isn't Hotel California, you can leave at any time. The problem is with another country letting you in.
> A nation must allow for its own system to be replaced without violence or gunfire.
Violence and gunfire is way of life here.
> A nation must ensure that its own populace is capable of exercising its right to reform the nation.
The majority of the populace does not want to reform anything! Take a survey. People are happy with the state of affairs here.
> A nation must not attempt to spread its own system by force (either through exercise of its armed forces or through economic warfare).
The government is too spineless to drive out aggressors that have occupied its land and has a foreign policy that makes absolutely no sense. Is this a better alternative?
Oh I know how you feel. I wasn't talking about India at all. The whole point of the post was in the last paragraph.
Is it possible to create a system of nations whereby individual freedom as to choice of society is preserved, and which is capable of preserving the system itself? That is the question. It's more of a thought, rather than a comment on anything.