[fnrslvr]

I'm not sure I see where objects enter into this. I mean, you seem to be asking for something like this,

  public unit Util {
      public void foo() {
          // do things
      }
  }

which would compile down into a bytecode-containing artifact which we could call a unit file, which the JVM would load at runtime using some sort of unit loader. Callers could import the Util unit and then invoke foo with the statement

  Util.foo();

But then, I don't see the diffence between the above and the following,

  public class Util {
      public static void foo() {
          // do things
      }
      // If we're really pedantic, we can ban construction of Util instances
      private Util() {}
  }

which compiles down into a bytecode-containing artifact called a class file, which the JVM loads at runtime using a class loader. Callers can import the Util class and then invoke foo with the statement

  Util.foo();

What's this downside you speak of? Is there something a different kind of translation unit would do that a class currently doesn't?