Exactly! I think we are moving more to a secular system now - the only problem is that I think it is a Kantian based secularism - moral relativism, reality considered a falsehood and whatever you personally decide it is - rationality be damned.

I wish we could get an Objectivist secularism movement going in the schools as opposed to what we have now. What we have now is secularism moving towards mystics of muscle as opposed to mystics of the mind - when with all the strides made in the sciences - we should be moving in a directly of rational reason.

The Progressive movement has been at work to stop this for a long time though... :(

I stand corrected. I should have written "COERCIVE" nation states". Thank you.

No. "We can't" without the following statements in support is worthless.

There hasn't been an adequate level of punishment against those who initiate violence; therefore, we get more of it. For example, if ISIS is ever defeated, the ISIS soldiers will probably be allowed to return home. No punishment to fit the obvious crimes they're guilty of. An appropriate punishment for them would be to take no prisoners at all. Kill every one of them for their obvious wickedness. That's the only deterrent, and if that doesn't work, then arm up, because there is no cure.

Works for me...
The word cull might have been too strong for you.
You could kick them out and they would starve trying to fend for themselves.
That's about as close to force as I can get.

Depends on the secularism. The Green movement is considered secular. Although looking at their zealotry, it appears more a religion than secular.

You seem to have the misconception that peaceful conflict resolution is achievable by one party. If one of the participants in a conflict intends to use force, then the other has to concede or find another way to force a dialogue. Economic weapons can be effective, but only with the cooperation of other nation-states. Our own State Department has undermined the sanctions imposed on Iran by granting exemptions to various parties to conduct business as usual with Iran.

The United States is unique as a superpower in its ability to even consider non-violent means of resolving conflict, primarily because it has the ability to exercise extreme violence if all else fails. States like Liechtenstein have no recourse but to concede against force, being too small to oppose even slightly larger states. For a range of nation states, against a similar-sized opponent, non-violent solutions are possible, but violent means of defense remain as a requirement if other solutions are to remain credible.

Peaceful conflict resolution is only possible if both parties are willing to consider non-violent solutions.

Good point, and I almost did!

We wouldn't have to cull out the lazy - as that would entail us having to use force against them. They would inherently cull themselves so long as the rest of society would refuse to reward their laziness by redistributing someone else's stuff to them.

A secularist government would be great. But whoever is elected every 4 years would inherently not be a deity.
The concern would be weather society at that point adopt a Kantian type of philosophy vs. a Randian philosophy. So long as it is a Randian philosophy based on rational thinking, self interest, acknowledging reality, individualism ,etc... Then let's go!

It is legitimate to allow there to be nation states.
It ISN'T legitimate to create enemies and conflicts so that you can justify the establishment of a one-world government.

Allow people to separate into groups of like-minded individuals working toward a common goal.
Separate out those irrational individuals whose epistemology is that of a win/lose nature where the individual causes loss and conflict between others to gain.
Mind your own business and make education and entlightenment tantamount and ubiquitous.
Cull out the lazy and those prone to following the herd.
Reward achievement. Punish those who are destructive. Don't confuse the two.

Among individuals there will always be conflicts, some more peacefully resolved than others, but in practical terms none will have much impact on anyone other than those immediately involved.

The elites operating under color of nation states on the other hand are by their very nature violent and aggressive. The conflicts over political or territorial power between them also tend to effect countless numbers of people who have no part in their disputes. The only way to end that kind of violent conflict is to delegitimize the concept of nation states itself.
-

Well said, conflict only occurs when one person or group of people attempt to use force against others, most often to gain power.

Once one side ops for force you have two choices. Attempt to have rational negotiations with someone who has shown their rational is all about power, or retaliate with equal or grater force to eliminate the threat.

This question is indicative of the day we live in. It is in essence asking, what shades of freedom are willing to loose in order to keep from having to stoop to violence.

When Marquis de Lafayette said "When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties." it was a profound statement.

This sacred right and indispensable duty is disposed of when a question such as this is asked. If force is used against a people they have a right and duty to remove that force.

The root of the problem stems from allowing others to designate oneself as a "Citizen", thereby denying his very Right to Life!

So much for the fabled "Rule of Law"!

According to the media we only have a new deity chosen if a liberal wins.

We can achieve that only when each Man takes full charge and responsibility for his own life and well-being. That can mean only opting NOT to be RULED.

But instead what we see is Men forming GOVERNments of Force to negate their very own Right to Life. How "rational" is that?

http://no-ruler.net/11397/going-voluntar...

You are asking if there is a way to control the human mind. The answer is plain: not while maintaining liberty.

If all men were 100% logical and abstained from seeking power, you could see a world without significant cultural issues, governmental differences, or even differences of religions. Since that has never existed from the dawn of man and doesn't look to get any better as the human population increases, I can only logically deduce that unless there is some massive and incontrovertible external force to change our direction, the dream of peace is so far from reality as to render it under the heading "pure speculation".

A culture's values will determine a culture's success or failure. The values elucidated in the Declaration of Independence are being replaced by claims of "inequality exists; therefore we demand equality in wealth, status, achievement, happiness, property, etc. and we will sacrifice any individual to reach equality," Valuing individual rights and responsibilities denies the "reasons" to sacrifice the individual to collectivism ... and looters and moochers can't stand that.

I don't think it is possible to eliminate the ability of someone to initiate force against someone. That is a matter of their philosophy/education/metal state/etc... Unless they are locked in an inescapable bubble - they will always have the ability to initiate force.
That's the essence or the anti-gun argument. The guns are not to problem - it's the person using it. And if you take their gun, they can use a knife or a bomb - or a rock, or a club, or any practically unlimited number of other ways to initiate force.

There is just no way. The human race is socially still in its infancy. Some 2 year olds are easier to teach manners to than other 2 year olds. Eventually, as they grow older, they mature and learn to get along with one another. But even then, there are always some who never learn. Hopefully, as humanity matures it will learn to get along with itself. If not, no matter what wonders science produces, there will always be those who want power over others causing death and destruction. That is why a strong country dedicated to the freedom of the individual must set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Once that was the USA. If it cannot become that "shining city on a hill" again, then look elsewhere for leadership like China which is changing away from a totalitarian state into a looser, freer state. Still collectivist, but then-- who knows?

Mama,

you should have stopped at "we can't".