Topics Justice

Question I'm not too sure if you can help me out. Here goes. It seems to me that there is a general agreement on the necessity of the nation state. The whole war in Afghanistan is premised on the necessity of the state. Is civilization, whatever that is, premised on the state? Can humanity exist without the state? Are we living in a period in which humanity cannot be without the state?

Accepted:
June 28, 2010

Comments

This is a huge question about the philosophy of human nature and values. It is difficult to imagine anything like civilization (cities or some kind of coordinated form of life with surplus agriculture enabling there to be markets, safety, public gatherings, religion, and so on) without a system of goverance, whether it takes the form of a nation state, empire / kingdom or tribe. Some political philosophies seem to hold that a state of some kind is necessary (Hobbes), while others seem to allow that anarchy of some kind might not be impossible (Rousseau). A further question to consider is whether a globe of independent states needs an overall system of governance (United Nations? a world court?) to secure safety, fairness and justice between states. An interesting book that defends a minimal state that you might find engaging is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Modest point: I am not sure that "the whole war in Afghanistan is premised on the necessity of the state," though it does appear that in order to "defeat terrorism" or "deprive terrorism of a safe haven" (or some such objective) we are actively seeking to secure a central Afghanistan government. What I mean is that it seems to me (and I could be totally wrong) our aim at securing a central government is not our primary aim, but a secondary one.