The Zero State Solution

[Lev Lafayette]

To kick off the discussion on this part of the forum, I support a "Zero State" solution.

That is, one, two, three or thirteen states is a furphy. What is important is whether or not universal human rights are given to people who live within a country's borders. That all are treated equally before the law, regardless of nationality or religion. That the government is effectively agnostic, providing no boon or bane to any religion within the limits of secularism. That people have the right to democratic decision making, whether representative or participatory, that they have freedom of speech, freedom of movement & etc.

Again, the number of states isn't important. How people live and are treated is.

[nyweh]

Lev,
While I couldn’t agree more with you, we have to understand that there is something to be said for having a state to call your own. A matter of pride is understandable isn’t it? Wanting your own state doesn’t mean you don’t want peace, it just means you fought for something you believe in and you won. I for one don’t think that’s a bad thing. In your theory, there would be no more states and no more countries. We would all be one. While it’s a beautiful dream, lets work on the SMALLER task of peace in the Middle East.

[Lev Lafayette]

What I'm suggesting is that the quantity of states is a distraction to the wider issue of the standard of rights. Yes, the principle of national self-determination cannot be interpreted in any other way than to include the right of one's own state. But even if that is the case this does not transcend universal rights. So rather than say "x" states is better than "y", I'd suggest that concentrating on "a" rights are better than "b".

[Sponsored content]