It’s interesting you bring this up. Most of the people who kind of jive with this "Oneness" philosophy often get mistaken for wanting a “one government”, etc. Totally not the case. Socialism/communism usually means that a government will FORCE people to give to others. That's not the idea.
The philosophy laid out in the OP will only truly work if people are completely free and find it in themselves to be unselfishly loving and caring. They can’t be “forced” to come to this conclusion; they instead must be free and allowed to reach this conclusion on their own.
Unfortunately, I donÂ’t know if Libertarianism will work with a group of selfish individuals and societal structures.
.
Kevin, I love you for this post.
I am nearly diametrically opposed to your philosophy, mind you, but I love that you have a religious mindset that doesn't condone the use of force to perpetuate itself. I simply can't explain how refreshing it is to come across your like, -and- presumably hailing from the Western hemisphere!
Now, enough gushing. Onto a more substantive response.
I do agree that selfishness can be looked at as one of the key ingredients in nearly every crime one human commits against another. Also key is the use of oxygen. I've never heard of anyone who doesn't breathe oxygen committing a crime against anyone else. Water drinking, as well. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who doesn't drink water, ever does anything fucked up to anybody on this planet.
Essentially, what I'm getting at is that selfishness is a given. Whether you believe in a universal one'ness, as in your case, or aren't sure what to believe, as in my case, you must acknowledge that the fact of the matter, as according to the physical reality we can observe via basic sensory input, is that man is not a hive-minded creature. That is, we don't seem to act via a communal consciousness, but rather each human seems to have its own individual ideas and experiences. We all look at the world through our own window and no other.
Given that this is undeniably the natural state of man, selfishness is a conundrum that can no more be escaped than the need to breathe. Every single decision that any human being makes is an act of selfishness. Every single decision satisfies a value constructed by the decider's individual consciousness. Even "unselfish" acts.
Every time you've ever given anyone anything, you were still acting selfishly. You gave what you gave because you -wanted- to give it. Whatever it was that you gave, you valued the results of giving it to its recipient more than you valued what it cost you to do so. Every single action you initiate is geared toward manipulating your environment to more fully represent your individual values at any given moment. Period. This is inescapable.
Now, let's logic our way along, here. . . If selfishness is an inescapable reality, -and- you say that selfishness is the root of all evil, then essentially what you're saying is that the root of all evil is the very nature of reality. This is simply not a useful observation. I'm moved to say something along the lines of, "And if frogs had wings. . . "
Even if one is to buy into your religious view of one'ness, the elimination of selfish'ness is still the -holy shit- long route to solving anything. If Jesus is an example of someone who achieved enlightened selflessness, and so is the Buddha. . . How many Buddha's and Christs have come along in the entire history of man? Half a dozen? A dozen? A hundred? There's over 6 billion people alive -right now-.
The love of money is just as useless of a response. Money is simply a tool to simplify trading so that, if you grow apples for instance, you don't have to find someone who grows greens AND needs apples in particular in order to get your greens, or someone who has access to drinking water AND needs apples in order to quench your thirst. Money is simply a universal conversion rate for the fruit of your labor.
Thus, if you say that the love of money is the root of all evil, you're saying that it's evil to love the fruit of your labor. Anyone who doesn't love the fruit of their labor is either in the wrong line of work or has no pride.
Personally, I accept that I am selfish. I help the people I care to help when I care to help them which, thankfully for the people in my life, is pretty often. Also, I -love- money. First off, I love the concept of it: I love that societies past were wise enough to come up with a system that allowed for people to provide highly specialized services that don't directly produce any physical product and -still- live well via that labor. I love that societies past came up with an economic system that saved us all insane amounts of time in terms of how much of it we have to spend simply fulfilling our own physical upkeep (cuz if we all had to farm and trade our wares at a bazaar, holy shit there goes all our free time).
I also love wealth. I love having it. I'd love to have more of it, and it has nothing to do with wanting to take it from others, or wanting them to have less of it. I simply love to be able to acquire what I want when I want it (the fun thing about that property is, again, it's something we all share. Everybody wants to be able to acquire or achieve what they want, when they want it, period. The only difference is in -what- is wanted). Also, the love of wealth is often spurred by what your philosophy would consider some level of selflessness. One of the things I love about having wealth is that, if someone I care about is in need, I have the means of helping them. Believing that we're all one and deferring the wealth to the world as a whole isn't going to cause the world to pay my mother's rent if she's short one month. If I got that money on hand, tho? Mom's got a roof over her head. In short, being the individual in control of the wealth allows one to channel that wealth toward the purposes that they consider worthy as opposed to standing idly by and letting the chips fall where they may. If you seek to better the world via any means that is realistically plausible, love of wealth is almost inevitable.
Personally, I say that the primary roots of evil (at least those ones that can reasonably be combatted) are dishonesty and the desire to subjugate one another. Even if your religion is true, history is populated by a lot more honest, live-and-let-live types than it is by people who've achieved the level of selflessness of Jesus or the Buddha. This leads me to believe that, even if true selflessness is possible, achieving a mindset of honesty and losing the desire to force everyone else to obey your values are sure as **** a shorter route than messianic detachment.
Think about it, though. . . if the lovers of wealth only acquired said wealth via honest trade and didn't use it to subjugate the initiative of others, selfishness wouldn't be a problem.
Mind you, I'm not saying my fixes are particularly realistic, simply a higher-probability option. Dishonesty and subjugation are things society can realistically combat. Acts of dishonesty (theft, fraud, etc) can be punished and deterred, as can acts that subjugate the initiative of others (theft, murder, kidnapping, assault, etc) via the most basic of societal laws and standards. The life-view of every individual, on the other hand, isn't something that can be controlled at all. When humans decided to travel overseas, it was more realistic to build a vessel to deal with the realities of maritime travel than to wish for the continents to be closer together.
Lastly, minor point. You seem to misunderstand the basic premise of Libertarianism, which is individualism. Not only would Libertarianism not conflict with the existence of selfish individuals, it's actually a system that embraces and facilitates the selfishness of the individual. The whole idea of Libertarianism is that government should exert limited control over the people so that each individual has the liberty to pursue the values of their -own- conscience. Libertarianism -is- selfishness in action.
Please don't take that as a criticism of Libertarianism. Personally, I'm proud to say that I'm generally libertarian, and equally proud to say that I have accepted that I am a selfish individualist who stoutly refuses to adhere to any morals but my own, and who stoutly refuses to try and force you to adhere to mine.
