Has history ever happened?

[Laufknoten]

According to this book:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
 
The historical process ends with liberal democracy, so there is only economical and technological development afterwards. It might look like an intimidating book, but it is actually very easy to read. Fukuyama mostly quotes other authors, and makes some theoretical assumptions regarding future political development.
Nothing shocking or groundbreaking there, and, in my opinion, is worth the reading for someone like me, who is interested in this subject, but finds the sources too heavy to read.

tl;dr version of this book:
liberals = masterrace, democracy 4 teh win, we r all one.
In other words just another piece of new world order, destroy all nations, liberal bullcrap.

"I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU's attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a "post-historical" world than the Americans' continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military."

Lol. Well, good night then...

[Knife]

There's of course physical evidence of actual history, but the deeper you go, this question might start haunting you indeed. You never know weather these writings 'made' more than 2000 years ago are actually made at that time, someone might have faked them. Monks and the likes are known for doing things like these, as they were bored, sitting in their empty monasteries most of the time. And of course, you never know weather it's all crap or actually true, only speculation.

[Oberyn]

Fukuyama himself has repudiated the ridiculously idealistic sentiments in End of History. You realize that book is a couple of decades old, right? Did ANY of his claims come through?

[Kafein]

The thing with "End of History" is that it has been published at the start of a decade that in the Western world made it seem like it was about to actually happen.

Also what exactly is wrong with seeking the end of nations ? Even if it takes hundreds of years or just doesn't work ?

[kinngrimm]

...
Also what exactly is wrong with seeking the end of nations ? Even if it takes hundreds of years or just doesn't work ?

In theory nothing wrong with that, but i would make it more dependend with what nations would be replaced afterwards with, to be able to judge the change in the end, if it was an improvement for the people.

[Turkhammer]

One simple question.

You can talk about history as much as you want, but can you prove it really has happend? Does any proof really exist?

Sententia ergo eram.

I've thought, therefore I was.

It was good enough for Descartes, it's good enough proof for you.

[Turkhammer]

Also what exactly is wrong with seeking the end of nations ? Even if it takes hundreds of years or just doesn't work ?

It won't bring the utopia you may suppose.  There will still be groups of haves and have nots.  There will still be government.  And most irreducibly, there will still be human nature.

[Taser]

It won't bring the utopia you may suppose.  There will still be groups of haves and have nots.  There will still be government.  And most irreducibly, there will still be human nature.

So kill all humans.

Problem solved.

[Laufknoten]

It won't bring the utopia you may suppose.  There will still be groups of haves and have nots.  There will still be government.  And most irreducibly, there will still be human nature.

The nations/states we currently have really are the best all things considered, not in their current state but the concept is right. If we don't preserve them our future won't look bright. Leftists don't seem to understand that what follows the "classical nations" are superstates and nothing else. If it comes to that you can wave goodbye to individualism, privacy and freedom. Just read 1984.

[larlek]

History, especially the history of wars, is decided by the victors and those with power. Has history happened exactly like how it's described in our text books? I'd have to say probably not.

[Xant]

History, especially the history of wars, is decided by the victors and those with power. Has history happened exactly like how it's described in our text books? I'd have to say probably not.

Such novel thoughts. I'm sure nobody has heard these exact sentiments ever before.

[Kafein]

The nations/states we currently have really are the best all things considered, not in their current state but the concept is right. If we don't preserve them our future won't look bright. Leftists don't seem to understand that what follows the "classical nations" are superstates and nothing else. If it comes to that you can wave goodbye to individualism, privacy and freedom. Just read 1984.

I don't see how 1984 cannot happen in a nationstate today. Neither can I find reasons why it would be more likely with a world government.

It won't bring the utopia you may suppose.  There will still be groups of haves and have nots.  There will still be government.  And most irreducibly, there will still be human nature.

Yes, but eliminating one problem does make it easier to solve the others (those that are possible to solve anyway). Your argument would be appliable to feodalism, or anything really. Why are we not serfs under lords under lords under lords ? Because people obviously didn't like it (of course it's more complicated than just that but you get the picture).

Nationstates can by definition not deal with problems that are bigger than nations, and we do have that kind of problems today. Right now nobody has the power to effectively do damage control on climate change. Rather, we are hundreds of nations each with their own goals that are all interested in letting others solve that problem instead because it is from their point of view more rational. It's natural to be selfish, and we need political structures to avoid selfishness when it leads to ruin for everybody. Similarly, no nationstate can deal with a financial crisis or tax evasion or trafficking of drugs, weapons or humans even though it hurts all nations. People that cling on the idea that independent nations are an effective power structure today are simply being delusional. The only reason to maintain that mascarade is selfishness or a romantic attachment to your own nation.

In order to make efficient decisions, we need organizations that are not defined by their enemies.

[Dooz]

Such novel thoughts. I'm sure nobody has heard these exact sentiments ever before.

nor has anyone ever been a snarky cunt before

[Turkhammer]

I did not put forth an argument.  I made a statement.

Now for the argument.  I agree that history shows a record of continual improvement of the human condition.  That is cause for hope.  But my reading of human nature, which has not changed over the course of history of the species, persuades me that even a "one world" government would not make decisions based on what's good for the planet or for the greatest good or for whatever other metric, other than self interest. 

Just look at whatever political subdivision you happen to live in.  I'm sure in the city government (no national groups involved) decisions are based on cutting up the political pie, steering contracts to friends, increasing personal wealth, etc, etc. 

It's human nature that you want to change.  That is a sisyphean task.

And I agree with Laufknoten.  I'm not so sure I'm ready to subsume into the "borg" called "one world" government.

[Xant]

nor has anyone ever been a snarky cunt before

"History is written by the winners" came as news to you, then? Not heard that a thousand times before? I see.