THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

Jesus' teachings regarded the state as something to be tolerated and obeyed as necessary--but subject, nevertheless, to the universal rule of one God over all people and every state.  And He was eventually executed for agitation and sedition--both crimes against the Roman state, to which His civil--though not His spiritual--loyalty was due.

In his City of God, St. Augustine affirmed (somewhat in keeping with what I have been stating in recent posts) that the earthly city constituted but a painful monument to mankind's fall from grace.  That is to say, the division of man into separate groups or tribes, divided by self-identity, and ever-seeking to preserve and expand their proclaimed boundaries, seemed but another burden that enlightened man bears the task of overcoming.

Disputes concerning boundary lines go back to ancient times; and thus appear to betray the primitive and backward "tribal mindset" from whence they originate.  Barbarian rulers often quarreled over lands touched by their common bounds.  Subsequently, the principle of boundary, and of territory within such being controlled by particular persons and groups, evolved into what would become known as "sovereignty."

We have become so long accustomed to the terms "sovereign" and "sovereignty," and to the ideals which they convey, that we take the concept not only for granted, but consider it a fundamental ingredient of life in the civilized world.  It is a consideration, sometimes guiding, more often binding, in every aspect of diplomacy, public policy, and ethics.

A perpetual danger and potential abuse inplicit in every instance of sovereignty is the theoretical capability of the "sovereign" ruling power to coerce and to abuse its population without fear of outside interference.  Indeed, many wrongs have been committed within nation-states by the governing power upon its people, via resort to the justification of exercise of sovereign right.  These often go unchallenged by the rest of the world, based upon the concept that they constitute exercise of attendance to that nation's private affairs.  But, if the acts of a world government are by their nature viewed upon a worldwide stage, and thereby always evaluated against the measuring rod of universal objective principles of civilized human right, such wrongful acts could never be sanctioned, and therefore ought not occur.

                                                           * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE,
OR VIA E-MAIL TO;  oneworld@tampabay.rr.com