RE: A Constitution for the N.ew W.orld O.rder

RE: A Constitution for the N.ew W.orld O.rder (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwynn -> RE: A Constitution for the N.ew W.orld O.rder (8/20/2013 3:47:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne dont duck the point, make your argument IF you have one. Does the absurdity of the OP count as an argument ? [emphasis added] Yeah, that too.

twolfhound -> RE: A Constitution for the N.ew W.orld O.rder (8/20/2013 4:06:52 AM)
And the one thing we see here is, no matter what the idea is, good or not (and I'm not saying one way or another about the OP), it will have it's detractors. We, as individuals, can not agree on anything in our country. We have no solidarity. We have no national identity. Go to some place like Germany, where they have Germans (not like our 'Americans' from every part of the world, eg, 'African America', 'Latino American', 'Asian American', etc) and where the general public, for the most part, agree on how the country should be run. (Though, even that is starting to shift as they're seeing an increase in immigration.) Point is, when we as individuals can't agree on ANYTHING (I could propose a plan that would balance out everything and everyone in our country, and half the country would oppose it), how can we really expect our politicians that represent us to agree on a single thing? But, I digress. Moving from the primary point, here... We've tied our own hands. A man (like OP) can stand behind an idea that he truly believes in, and it could be a very good plan, indeed. But, it will always have it's naysayers. Hell, most people just like to shit on other people's ideas because that's just the kind of attitude we breed, these days. Easier to be a skeptic, a cynic, than a believer or an optimist. Rather than helping you along, working to make your idea better, to improve it (as the OP was looking for), people have an easier time just saying 'Nope, that won't work and you're both crazy and stupid for thinking it would'. Real helpful. I'd say regardless, keep your head up and push forth on your idea. As many people here believe it is a terrible idea, you'll also start to find those that believe this world does need some kind of change. Yes, the idea needs some refinement. But, it takes one person to start a positive movement. One person to get people to stand behind him. And the more that stand behind you, the more that will continue to. Do you think people agreed with Washington that taking on the British was a good idea? I highly doubt it. I'm certain he had many people tell him he was an idiot. Half (most) of the people on this board would have told him to sit down, put his tin foil hat back on, and shut up. But, they sure as shit will take advantage of the work he did, that they never would've believed in. Sorry... I see so much negativity on these forums, and of course in our society in general. It just gets frustrating. Drive on, OP. If we want anything in our world to change, you gotta start somewhere.

Zonie63 -> RE: A Constitution for the N.ew W.orld O.rder (8/20/2013 5:07:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Lets lay out the foundation for a world government constitution! We are going to create the democracy of your dreams! I have a deal for you that you simply cant turn down! Ok the stile of this constitution will be "United People of the World". Its incorporation will include all inhabitants and persons on the planet earth jointly, severally, and individually will be subject to UPW jurisdiction. The UPW will incorporate 3 departments that are completely independent of each other, no strings what so ever, to insure your rights are completely protected! It will consist of the representatives to plead for the people and senators to plead for the corporations so all people will be represented and the executive to enforce its laws, and you get to vote for your new leaders. Finally the third and most important branch, the judicial, which will be granted the sole power to determine and judge the meaning of all the terms of this contract. [constitution] This constitution will also incorporate and stipulate to all rights found in the US bill of rights and there will be free drinks and Hors d'œuvres every friday nite for its citizens and taxpaying inhabitants. So, how would it be? Each country would be analogous to the way each state in the United States is now? Or would it more like the Confederate States with states' rights being the emphasis? Or would it be a totalitarian centralized state (which is what I think most people fear when they talk about the "New World Order")? Having a unified planet, on its face, doesn't really seem like it's such a bad idea. After all, it worked for the United Federation of Planets, so why not here? Free replicators and holodecks for everyone. What could go wrong?

Zonie63 -> RE: A Constitution for the N.ew W.orld O.rder (8/20/2013 5:47:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: twolfhound And the one thing we see here is, no matter what the idea is, good or not (and I'm not saying one way or another about the OP), it will have it's detractors. We, as individuals, can not agree on anything in our country. We have no solidarity. We have no national identity. Go to some place like Germany, where they have Germans (not like our 'Americans' from every part of the world, eg, 'African America', 'Latino American', 'Asian American', etc) and where the general public, for the most part, agree on how the country should be run. (Though, even that is starting to shift as they're seeing an increase in immigration.) Point is, when we as individuals can't agree on ANYTHING (I could propose a plan that would balance out everything and everyone in our country, and half the country would oppose it), how can we really expect our politicians that represent us to agree on a single thing? I think that people tend to agree on lofty goals and whatever finished product they expect to see, but where they disagree is on how to get there and what needs to be done to achieve whatever goal they seek. For example, both major parties seemingly agree that a balanced budget would be a good thing, but they disagree on how to do it, so it doesn't get done. Both parties agree that more jobs would be good, a better economy, more opportunities for prosperity, and a higher standard of living, but they just can't agree on how to do it. If one side makes a proposal, the other side projects that it would lead to a slippery slope disaster and should be avoided at all costs. The lack of agreement you mention seems due to fear of ideas, and that fear may be due to ignorance or paranoia. There's also a tendency for both sides to accuse each other of being the "worst thing in the world." Liberals view conservatives as "fascists," while conservatives view liberals as "communists." Every proposal from either side is viewed with suspicion and distrust, and as both sides mistrust each other, there is widespread mistrust of both parties all across the country. This may be due to the lack of unity you mentioned. When people have no common bond or sense of unity with their neighbors, then mistrust and fear will dominate the political landscape. I don't think there's any sense of common cause anymore. There are a bunch of little individual pet causes, each with their own splintered groups of followers. This may be a result of different factors. Specialization, for one thing, gives us a lot of specialists but few jacks-of-all-trades. We have very few thinkers who look at the big picture and the long-term. We have bunches and bunches of short-term, little picture thinkers in this country, along with those who narrowly adhere to their own chosen ideology and march in lockstep with their factional hierarchy. People don't really have very many principles anymore in this country. We just have teams that we root for.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625