The following is the precursor that lead to this thread about Libertarianism and Socialism and any other  form of government others wish to add to the discussion. 

Views: 5711

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Dee,

The UN, despite its imperfections, is the best game at the moment. 

Says who? You say so, but I don't. You think 3000 people should be allowed to dictate to the planet how it's resources are to be used, how people are to act? You are only ok with the UN because UN culture is the same as your culture. 

I understand that your problem is that the UN didn't ask all the adults on the planet before they started.

Correct. And this is how all conquerors behave. When we set out to conquer another people, we don't ask for their permission. Your ancestors never asked the American Indians for permission to take over and destroy their cultures and countries. Same with Australia, Canada, Brazil. 

The killing of women for rape is wrong whether the culture says it is OK or not. Genital mutilation is wrong whether the culture says it is OK or not. Killing homosexuals is wrong whether the culture says it is OK or not. Killing is wrong. Torture is wrong.  

I agree, and so do lots of other people around the world.

The existence of the UN is not going to stop the above.  In our culture all of the above exists. So even if the whole world does become homogeneous under the UN, there is still going to be all the above. And regardless of whether the UN exists or doesn't exist, all the above will still exist. 

But the existence of those crimes doesn't mean the UN has any right to exist. The UN's existence is solely based on a few people taking control of everything. 

Can I stop the UN. Nope. It's just going to get stronger and stronger. Until it takes over the world. But all those crimes you mentioned above, they are never going to stop occuring.

 

Says who? You say so, but I don't.

What other viable option do you suggest? What organization or process do you propose to bring the people of the world together?

You are only ok with the UN because UN culture is the same as your culture.

My support of the UN has nothing to do with my culture. My support of the UN is because the UN serves a great purpose. It is the only mechanism for the people of the world, or their representatives, to attempt to solve larger problems.

Correct. And this is how all conquerors behave. When we set out to conquer another people, we don't ask for their permission.


Tell me how we are supposed to poll every adult on the planet to see what they think about this and decide what to do. The UN is an evolving mechanism of democratic processes. I am interested to know what your suggestion is to solve global problems.


But all those crimes you mentioned above, they are never going to stop occuring.


I am sorry, but that is a massive logical fallacy which you are using. The argument Appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam) in which things will be this way because things have been this way. It completely ignores the evidence that these things are becoming less and less common. It is the same argument which says we will have violence because we have always had violence when the level of global violence is on a steady decrease and has been since paleolithic times. It denies that humans have the capacity to evolve past these things because we haven't yet or haven't completely yet.


I think you should watch this speech by Steven Pinker. It might help you understand some of the changes which are occurring in humanity.

leveni - Congress can propose an amendment by a 2/3 majority and the States must vote to ratify.  It has been changed many times and most amendments provided more rights to citizens including ending slavery, voting rights for women, voting rights for blacks etc.  It is a document that is continuously changed, but it is not easy to change.

This is true. However, it doesn't represent the reality of modern politics anymore. The country is just too big with too many people and manipulated by too many PACs with too much money to be workable now.

The last constitutional amendment was 40 years ago. I just don't see any amendments getting passed again.

Term limits need to be set for Republican and Senate positions just like for the presidency.

Limitations on campaign funding needs to be installed.

Protections for LGBT people and their right to marry needs to be installed.

The "Corporations are People" mess needs to be halted with an amendment.

27th Amendment, proposed in 1789, ratified in 1992: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United...

 

See? Only takes 203 year to get these Amendments in place.

Hi John,

See? Only takes 203 year to get these Amendments in place.

Wow, regardless of time, as long as it's a 3/4 majority. 

That's the way it is, but I don't know what to make of it. 

Hi John,

Congress can propose an amendment by a 2/3 majority and the States must vote to ratify.  It has been changed many times and most amendments provided more rights to citizens including ending slavery, voting rights for women, voting rights for blacks etc.  It is a document that is continuously changed, but it is not easy to change.

I guess giving rights to people is easier than taking them away. Look what happened when the right to own a slave was taken away. Ouch.

In any case, there are so many guns here it is pretty pointless to try to make ownership illegal.  It would be similar to when we tried to ban alcohol.  People passed an amendment to ban alcohol, but it just drove all the drinking underground.  Americans, despite our puritan past, love to drink (and shoot guns).

25% of Americans own a gun and 50% live in a dwelling which has a gun. I see your point.

 

I'm not really for or against gun ownership, I was just using the second amendment as an example of a right that was once necessary in many parts of America but is now seen as a threat by many Americans. The gun free school zone act. Was this act brought in because of a minority of concerned citizens. Or is there still a large percentage of the population that still has real concern about gun ownership?

What I like about referendums, is that they show the whole populations opinion on something. If only congress votes on something, they may be voting a particular way because of a particular lobby group rather than voting as a representative of the people. 

 

What I like about referendums, is that they show the whole populations opinion on something. If only congress votes on something, they may be voting a particular way because of a particular lobby group rather than voting as a representative of the people.

And risk have certain rights taken away?

Dee Neely,
That does not interfere with 'my' epistemology. It fits quite nicely. As long as multiverse then takes on the essential characteristic of 'everything that exists'.

MCT,

If there is a nexus between our universe and others your thoughts makes sense. On the other, if there is no nexus and physical laws and nature are different, multiverse is accurate.

There is one everything. Multiple expansions exist within it. This expansion, stems from a singularity, but this singularity did not appear out of nowhere. It must have come from somewhere else. To talk about a state of nothingness that is universal or to talk about anything outside of or existing before everything that has ever existed is irrational.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service