repeat of USE...do not view

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Who should hold primary leadership in a democratic society?

  • politicians
  • scientists
  • clergy
  • artists
  • philosophers
0 voters

Sorry, but this is my slogan for the day:

The United States of Earth…Love It Or Leave It.

Does this make me an evil imperialist? Today, after a vodka, I think world govt. makes sense. And I’m no nationalist. I’d say this if I were from Mars.

Let the countries of the world be states. Meaning France would be like Texas, etc., it can have its own “state” flag and song, (obviously frere a jaque, or some shit, but whatever, they can have their culture in spades) Let them be a state though, with reps, senators, the works. This way, ALL states (formerly countries) will have a chance to benefit from our constitution, in theory, and get all the individualistic, humanitarian, free-market democratic perks that we know to make more sense than anything else as of yet. Freedom of religion, press, speech, race, gender…heck, I take a no-nonsense stance on this stuff. Say it with me…U.S.E.

World government, not this UN sham, real world govt., inspired by the ideals of the constitution, as a starting point. It’s just plain right.

Second of all. all this stuff in the middle east is about ignorance. We need information missionaries (non-religious, non-nationalistic “missionaries”) to carry valid and sound information to the terrorist-based countries…and the average street people who have no choice, due to their ignorance, to support the terrorist mentality.

Who should the missionaries be? Us. Philosophers, people who love reason, people who have the free-thinking gene, who have the patience and the desire to test hypotheses, weigh evidence, consider gray areas, us, us, us. U.S.E.

Cheers

2

That’s not very feasible. And how are you going to base a global form of government on the constitution of one country. That’s a bit rediculous. The U.N. is fine, it just needs a few changes. You can’t infringe on the sovereignty of other nations, that won’t work. International law is agood idea, but societies have different values that need to be kept separate and maintain nationality. To make those countries all try and vote for leadership for the world would never work. Even if they did agree to this system (which no one would), there would be civil war in no time.

3

that’s a cop out. the constitution allows for everybody’ss cultural values to coexist peacefully…if you can come up with a value that can’t co-exist in a constitutional framework, well, it probably isn’t much of a value,i.e., it means someone’s being a DICK. With the constitution you can have…
your religion
your property
your ideas
your money
your freedom
your political voice
your due process
your sexual orientation
your wallpaper
and your house can reek of currie for all I care…these are values that allow for freedom…what more is there? I’ll tell you = lack of freedom. That’s it. So anyone who wants to retain sovereignty is a TROUBLE MAKER.
The end. Civil wars can be dealt with in the same way forced world govt. is establish: force. Thankyou and goodnight.

4

World peace in twenty words or less:

It’s wrong to force a person to do anything that person does not want to do.

5

I’m moving this to social sciences.

Please feel free to pm Ben, myself, or any of the staff with any questions.

6

So your answer is let’s just take over the world! The American system is breaking down, proof that it wasn’t so great to begin with. It was created by a bunch of white slave owning elites who proclaimed all men were created equal. This whole country was created by double standards, and those double standards are what we have been functioning on for the past two and a half centuries. You are using double standards right now. You want world peace, but you suggest that we use force and attack and conquer everybody. It’s like programmed into people’s brains in this country. The use of hypocrisy…

7

You’ll never get peace by starting a war.