quote: But the way I see it is we can end this discussion with one thing---reality. And the reality is that the only fathomable way our world could have a hegemon is if there was another world war
Why? That doesn't really make sense, because if there's another real world war, with both sides seriously fighting it'll be too late for a world government. As for a unifying tragedy/challenge, people have suggested an Asteroid or comet, or an alien attack. I'm thinking they need to wake up, because we're killing ourselves already, and the 'Future' is Now. A dozen or so subtle threats that seem little to most people now, because most people tend to not bother about anything except that which is right in front of them. The trouble about this day in age, unlike others, by the time it becomes obvious that one of those 'little' threats is in fact a big threat, it will no longer be a threat, it will be a, as you say, reality. But humans haven't got this far because they are stupid, and there are plenty of things lying around to wake them up with, it's just that nobody has effectively done it yet.
quote: i dont think we need a world where one person controls the world
Whether or not we need one, depending on your definition of "Controls", is irrelevant because you won't find one capable. With humans, unlike with buggers, government, regardless of style, is not a matter of absolute control, it's a matter of arbitration or corruption.
quote: the real job would fall to whoever worked under the hegemon, the real policy and decision makers.
Or maybe some of the job could fall to the "hegemon", and a larger part to the legislature, and hang the policy and decision makers.
quote: Independent democracies with strong economic ties is good enough for me.
And they all get along hunky dory. A utopia. Sounds good, but flies like an ostrich, and won't happen, though could theoretically if people were better than they are, but they're not. Of course, without the everlasting-near-presence of a common enemy, a unified human race(unlike a utopia) may happen, but on a single planet it will not last. There always has to be a frontier, or the human race will not survive. Fortunately, there always will be one. If a world government is established, and space travel/colonization is made possible (which it undoubted could be given the immense resources available) then, as has been the concern of many on this thread, no matter how good the world government is, there will undoubtedly be serious critics, people unwilling to live in what they somehow feel is an oppressive shadow, or people who just want to see more, and to the best and brightest of these the solution will be obvious, these will be the frontiersmen, and their way will be as tough as any that came before them, but they will get there. What happens after that is anybody's guess, theoretically there might be harmony for a thousand years, or there might be a massive revolutionary war in a hundred, but Mars and any others will be a long way off, and for a while at least, though billions may die, some small part of enlightened humanity will have outdistanced its greatest threats, its own weapons, over crowding, polution, disease, a lack of resources, and all the other tragedies that can far too easily come from a lack of physical diversity.
quote: So instead of arguing about whether or not OSC would be a good hegemon in any capacity or what qualities are, if I may, Hegemonic- we could discuss more applicable topics?
Nobody's stopping you, mate, but what's more applicable?
quote: we just need a more relevant thread in here.
And what is more relevant than the quest for the survival of humanity and who should lead it? Not to be a jerk, just don't really see what you're driving at.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First- my point was the only way to install a world government would be, like in the ender series, through collective strife--where the world could join together to counter a common enemy, but like you said SUN this world government will not last. That is why I was speaking of reality. Other world colonization is YEARS AND YEARS away. Even the idea of a world government is laughable. Why should we try to find the answer to a question that does not concern us now? Even if we should find a sutiable "hegemon" then what have we accomplished? How then can we make a hegemony on earth within the next 70 years? That is my point. Though this may be a good phlosophical discussion, why not focus our time trying to find the answer to what you mentione in your post, the real questions that need answering:
quote: its own weapons, over crowding, polution, disease, a lack of resources, and all the other tragedies that can far too easily come from a lack of physical diversity.
The hegemon is not part of "the quest for the survival of humanity". It is up to us NOW to come up with answers in order to sustain life. Why not solve these problems first and then worry about a "leader?"
And so I come to my point--reality. You speak of threats and possibilities, but I have found that humans learn to cope with these troubles and find ways to work them out or work around them.
We can not think of our world in terms of Card's world in the Ender series. It is NOT and I repeat NOT a 'problem' that we do not have a world government or a hegemon, but it is a problem that people are starving in North Korea, that we still have repressive dictatorships around the world. That people cannot recieve education that will save their lives in Africa and other parts of the world. We have many wide spread problems affecting us today that aren't going to be releaved by a hegemon. And taking the time to try and work out something that is not affecting us and will nto affect us for many centuries is, dare i say, irrelevant.
The problems affecting us today are not to be solved by a hegemon, but by the systems of governments around the world TODAY, working in cooperation to find common goals and strategies for battling these problems.
My last point is---Why search for the medium when you can search for the answer?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"First- my point was the only way to install a world government would be, like in the ender series, through collective strife--where the world could join together to counter a common enemy"
And my point is that common enemies abound.
", but like you said SUN this world government will not last. "
I implied that it would not stand unchanging forever in its own rite, I also implied that it would probably not endure as the only leading body of the human race- no entity will- but that it could last long and well(not forever, but if it is laid down right, it ought to have as good a chance of survival as a changing entity as say Britain) as a "planet earth government" if there were other governments elsewhere to filter to.
"How then can we make a hegemony on earth within the next 70 years? "
That's a good question, and it has a good answer, if not several good answers, hard to uncover but nonetheless existent so long as the one who questions believes answers can be found. In my opinion, world war or world unification is inevitable in the next 70 years, if not the next 40.
"You speak of threats and possibilities, but I have found that humans learn to cope with these troubles and find ways to work them out or work around them."
That is why the human race is still alive so far. Unfortunately, one of our premier methods of coping has in the past has been full scale war. A full scale war as this point would mean the end of the human race as we know it. Our other method of coping with our most serious problems has been exploration, expansion, and escape. This option is difficult under current governments but certainly would be quite feasible with the power of a unified one to get things going.
first you say:
quote: it is a problem that people are starving in North Korea, that we still have repressive dictatorships around the world
Then you say:
quote: The problems affecting us today are not to be solved by a hegemon, but by the systems of governments around the world TODAY, working in cooperation to find common goals and strategies for battling these problems.
I would ask how exactly are the "repressive dicatatorships going to "find common goals and strategies"? How are starving people in Somalia going to "find common goals and strategies" because some european who lives in a two hundred thousand dollar home dropped bags of rice on their heads so they could survive for one more day? Have you any idea how many countries are in civil and guerilla war, or how many people all over that are starving or dying of diseases that people should no longer have to die of, or how little is being done about it all, or how much could be done by a fully committed united front?
quote: My last point is---Why search for the medium when you can search for the answer?
I do not understand what you mean. If you mean why search for the method neccessary to achieve the goal when you could search for the goal, then I'd say the "answer" is pretty obvious: to come as close as possible to lasting moral enlightenment and economic well being, meaning that everyone is pursuing highest virtue while their most basic needs are met. I surmise that there are relatively few people that would disagree with this point and that most of them are stupid jerks.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one wants the arrogant leader, if you are going to try and save the world the way Peter tried to take it over in the aftermath of the buggers, learn from his mistakes.
Also
(I hope because I added this this post isn't deemed spam)
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazing. After reading 17 pages, I have a lot of thoughts, most of which would take too long to mention.
First, I loved the impassioned nature of the speeches at some points - it reminded me of OSC's trial and error process Peter and Valentine went through trying to find adult voices that worked. And after a while, you all did. So, Suntran, you still interested in becoming a world leader?
I think all of your ideas of searching for a Locke were quite brilliant, but perhaps aiming a little too high to begin with. Begin with a single step and things may look easier; changing the world is possible, but it is easier to change yourself.
Have you considered the possibilities of starting your own country rather than adapting the government of others? (a real question, I promise you).
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the world to really unite it needs to unite against something or else it will be along time before unity comes on its own. Fear and threats often speed up the course of world affairs.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Problem with being a dictator style hegemon like peter is made out to be is in real life you need suport to govern, its never been done before without a fanatical suport base or extreme oppression... I know you all love to get the rosy outlook that people are all nice and happy and want to be friends and live in peace but its simply not the case.. and a democratic world govt cant possibly adequitely represent the entire world, heck we have problems representing even just this one country.
Fact of the matter is Peter is not a real person, and there has never been a real person to govern any nation of large size without seriously restricting the rights of the citizens or turning the citizens into blood thursty fanatics and turning them loose on other people ala hitler. I would much rather live with the threats we have today in a society we have today than live in a society like any of those even if it protected me from the threats... besides even if you can find a benevolent hegemon you need to find a new one every 30 years or so forever unless you want the old Augustus to Claudius style fun.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fallow if we wish for world government to happen within our life times. Then yes velocity is a concern.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
don't you worry that the speed of social change (increasingly lagging behind technological progress - standup-comedy potential aside) is a little unsettling? particularly for anything that might be called a social "institution"?
posted
Jumping back to the original post. Where is the second coming? I'll tell you.
Jesus was a faker. A good teacher and all that. Believe he was god, that's fine. Weak people need something to believe in. If you believe Jesus was truely God's son then I tell you this... I am the second coming of Christ.
But for those who know enough to see a good trick or a work of fiction when they see it. I'm just enlightened. And we all have god inside of us. Who hears your prayers? God/only you.
That is all.
Silence is silver. Thought is gold. Actions are diamonds.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, believe what you want. And I'll believe what I want. Atleast I'm not sitting at home waiting for the second coming of Christ to be born. Or what's better... heaven. Yeah I'm REALLY looking forward to death.
posted
I think everyone has their own opinion. However, when people express their opinion in a hateful, immature way other people tend to have a problem with it.
posted
The only reason you perceive my message as "hateful and immature" is because you think that. Not me. I am neither hateful or immature. I am who I say I am. I am just plain old me. It's all a matter of perception.
Only "hateful and immature" people would be upset at what I say. Think about that.
Silence is silver. Thought is golden. Actions are diamonds.
I was simply trying to point out that you might tone it down so you don't offend anyone with the very religious beliefs that you mocked. I'm an agnostic, so it didn't bug me, but I like everyone here. Part of what I like about people here is that they don't make an obvious effort to stomp on others' beliefs.
posted
I think we are missing the point here. It doesn't matter why White posted the message the way she did, what matters is why that is what she BELIEVES. If you don't mind my asking, what is it that you believe White? Are you a follower of another religion, or are you purely athiestic, though I do not believe that anyone can be PURELY athiestic. Do you believe in an afterlife at all, and what about God? Does God exist?
Posts: 50 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without regard to divinity, the question propossed on page one still remains. Some have propossed people to be the answer to where is Locke, others have pointed to institutions. And still others have propossed God/religion as Locke.
Still wondering if anyone can nail down a good answer. Been a solid 8 pages of posts since I last checked this thread.
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are sort of naive dont you think? That we need a "Locke". Or a "Demosthenes". What we need is to stop making mistakes, and correct all the ones we have made. Stop killing the entire rainforests. Perserve energy. Make new energy that is resourceful and won't lead to a disaster. We need to huddle, think, act, and behave how humans..well..not how we've been acting. how we should. Once we correct ourselves, right our wrongs, and rebuild everything thats been destroyed, we won't need a Locke. We won't need a Demosthenes. We'll have a eutopia. ::chuckle:: Now I'm being naive.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now What in the Flying Blue Fornicator???!!! As I remember, this thread was dead, I buried it, and said a prayer over it, that should have been it! What do I have to do, drive a stake into its heart? I doubt this thread would have lived long without my psycho comments on the first page how come I can't kill it too? Abyss, we can bury this thread, but you're the only one who can kill it for cripes sake do your duty and put it out of its misery, it deserves better, we've had some good times with it.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*whistles* Anyway until then might as well keep going, I'll start with this one even though it's old because it flatters me and I'm an egotistical bastard:
"So, Suntran, you still interested in becoming a world leader?"
Yes after some fashion or another, at least A world leader.
"I think all of your ideas of searching for a Locke were quite brilliant, but perhaps aiming a little too high to begin with."
How so? If I only had mind controler power it would have worked perfectly
"Begin with a single step and things may look easier; changing the world is possible, but it is easier to change yourself."
Yeah yeah yeah I'm tryin, I'm tryin.
"Have you considered the possibilities of starting your own country rather than adapting the government of others? (a real question, I promise you)."
Abso-flipping-lutely, quite a bit and in many different ways, so if daydreaming is a qualification for being a world leader I'm da man.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
YES. Or that's the theory, other wise why bother trying to start a world government if everything's just going to sort itself out?
From WhiteDuckTape's post: Jumping back to the original post. Where is the second coming? I'll tell you.
"Jesus was a faker. A good teacher and all that. Believe he was god, that's fine. Weak people need something to believe in. If you believe Jesus was truely God's son then I tell you this... I am the second coming of Christ.
But for those who know enough to see a good trick or a work of fiction when they see it. I'm just enlightened. And we all have god inside of us. Who hears your prayers? God/only you.
That is all."
Of course She's right, practically speaking, rude silly female that she is, though I happen to disagree with her religous views, they're very similar to views expressed by my little sister (who happens to be more or less of a pracical genius). But whatever your views, we all do have God in us, and God doesn't expect us to sit around and do nothing and thump pulpits and wait for the apocalypse, quite the contrary, and yet that attitude is prevalent among Christians and non-Christians alike of our era. Not our era especially, but out era most importantly. One, because it is OUR era, and two because to the human race it is an era more dangerous than any other, and a man made apocalypse is a very real threat.
and same person in response to Space Opera:
'The only reason you perceive my message as "hateful and immature" is because you think that. Not me. I am neither hateful or immature. I am who I say I am. I am just plain old me. It's all a matter of perception.
Only "hateful and immature" people would be upset at what I say. Think about that.'
Close to true, not quite.
and again: "I believe in... the second coming of Christ.
But it's not me.
I'm just a girl.
Opps, I made a mistake.
Must be the blond streak in my hair.
Blah Blah Blah, I'm a total idiot.
But if you ask me...
*edit*"
I believe that's what is known as deteriorating dialogue Anyway to get back to the real question she has a serious point, but like everything else, we've already gone over it before: we need a do-er not just a thinker.
Steel said: "No, seriously you guys. Where is he"?
Well Steel, I'd say me again but I already said that once... though I must admit I could try again it got an interestingly violent response... but I still haven't got the mind control thing figured out and I don't have any credentials papers and I've already tried the random chance angle with you guys but you don't seem to want to worship me and spread the message to the four corners of the earth, though I was e-mailing back and forth with some folks who sounded like they wanted to start a coalition but they disapeared maybe the FBI got 'em don't know and I would need full on support with one head only for quite a while if I was gonna get anywhere, and anyway I'm not sure I'm mentally psychiatrically mature enough to do the danged thing truth to tell, so my only orders might be: do good deeds and wait till I grow up and that isn't exactly what I'd call a super awe-inspiring coalition. So that being said, who wants to give Kofi Annan a go? Please don't kill me for suggesting just that if he's done a lot of bad stuff I don't know about it. We could force Mandella out of retirement but he's pretty old and tired. Jimmy Carter's really shapin up well in his old age but again really friggin old. Though Mother Teresa wouldn't want to accept power we could make it happen except that she suffers from the chronic difficulty of being dead. Is Gorbachev dead? I don't think so but he's probably a tired old bastard too, but some hope there... and what about Benizeer Bhuto or whatever her name is, don't know toi much about her but might be a good pick? At least she won't die of old age, right? We might be able to try that Palestinian guy, what's his name the one who resigned, heck I don't really know about him though. We could try the leader of a really good group like amnesty international, but who knows what we might get some idiot who talks the talk but don't walk the walk. Guess that leaves my older brother Cimarron, he's a more psychiatrically mature than I am, has been through all hell, so no nutsy idealist, has darn little public education but has read and understood horribly Copious quantities of History and government, is extremely charismatic and a very direct and practical natural leader, and is extremely inteligent, and is very relatively open-minded but maybe not aboslutely open minded and that concerns me but I don't know.
So there's your Lockes. You choose or let's have a better one.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
This world is not to be "saved" by some hero. It is to be "saved" by ourselves. Let me explain.
Whoo, no, that would take too long, instead, let me sum up (thank G-d for the Princess Bride!).
If G-d just handed us a savior, it wouldn't mean anything to us. Sure, he can move mountains, make stars go Nova, create feelings of hope, etc. But the job is to get us to <i>earn</i> in some way, our potential as people.
Look at Iraq for a moment. The best thing for the Iraqis right now is that they are quickly training an army and police to combat the terrorists in their country. This way, they will know that they earned their freedom, it wasn't just handed to them. So it will mean much more and be far more precious to them.
For us, we have to work to become what G-d wants us to be, when we hit that "critical mass", he'll give us the leader we need.
Btw, why are you all assuming that if we got the ultimate leader that everything would be hunky-dory? Do you really think there wouldn't be immense division in the world if such a man appeared?
Even that last sentence tells something. How many people reading this are offended that I said "man" and not "woman"? So you see, it isn't just a matter of G-d sending us a leader.
He could easily do it of course. Look at the evil people of the world. How quickly do they shuffle like sheep to follow the whims of some maniac who promises them glory? There have been many such leaders.
But a leader of Free Men, is a different story. Where people are allowed and encouraged to think, how do you deal with that? Where are the lines drawn?
I read over the chapters dealing with Moses and I see the ultimate leader, and the ultimate followers. Others see a bunch of "willfull former slaves". I see people who think, very seriously, and take issues very seriously. Who are literally willing to take down the ultimate leader in history, because they do not view him as G-d, but as only a man. A great man, but still a man, who can be wrong. And even admitted to being wrong on occasion.
I see a leader who was willing to let himself be anhilated ("and if not, then please let my name be blotted from Your book") to save a people who had embarassed him tremendously. Someone who didn't think twice about prostrating himself before another man who insulted him. Someone who would say "but a little more, and they will stone me!" or would be criticized (!!!!) for saying "hear me you rebels!" the criticism being "They are believers, sons of believers!"
Can anyone seriously tell me that if the ultimate leader came today then there wouldn't be tremendous strife and conflict? Are we really so independent minded that we could criticize him when necessary? G-d doesn't want sheep, He wants Men and Women who have honor and struggle within themselves TO MAKE USE of a great leader.
The purpose of a leader isn't to "save us" it is to make it possible for us to take the next stage in "saving ourselves".
Jews, at least, believe that there is always one man in every generation who has the ability to be that ultimate leader. But it's not a matter of that man saving humanity. But of humanity being ready to make use of that man.
posted
Rereading that post I just made, I realized that the willingness to give up everything seems to be something that everyone regards as necessary in a great leader.
The question though, is what must we do to be ready to make use of such a leader?
At least, that's what I think. Not too clear on this whole topic though.
Yeah I don't make sence. I don't know if I ever will. I can't really prove it to you because you don't know me.
But whatever. Look, I just spent 10 days in a mental hospital in Austin, TX. Yeah all the crazy people liked me there, I was actually sad when I had to leave.
I like crazy people, they cut the crap and get straight to the point...
Who are you? Where are you from? Where are you going? What brings you here?
posted
::ahem-spam-ahem:: Make you posts more clear than that. K? But yeah, people shouldn't drive drunk, or rather, they shouldn't drink at all.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know... I can totally see how there would be more than one second coming of Christ. Dude there are plenty of them. It's just a matter of time until more and more of them start popping up bring the world together despite race, age, gender, religion, country, etc.
Man I need to see A.I. again. Fact vs. Fiction.
It's like X-men, freak mutants.
Me... I have mind control. Kinda like Jean Grey (sp?)
Oh but really, I'm more like Rogue. I even got the hair to prove it.
Better watch me, if I touch you I might drain your powers! *opps*
posted
Perhaps the largest problem with this thread is the belief of those who feel we need someone to watch over us and lead us. But perhaps it is, as some have pointed out, that the people are sheep. If this is true, than the world needs a shepard to guard us from each other.
The optimists believe that we are capable of ruling ourselves, the pessimists, otherwise.
Personally, I feel that those who have the will have no need of watchful eyes, and yet I have learned that many in the world are too foolish to survive otherwise.
Humans as a whole are foolish and incompetent. If they were otherwise, why would we need leaders? Thus a true communistic society cannot occur under such conditions. Nor can a true democracy.
Those who are the true leaders you do not find in the political realm, for the real test of leadership is knowing when to lead. You find the true leaders behind the scenes. They know that by being made public, they will fall.
Those who remain behind the public eye, influencing those whom they meet are the true leaders. Those who know enough to avoid the trap that is politics are the strong and truly powerful.
The wise remain hidden to survive til the day that the foolish fall.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't everyone here that is currently registered at this forum have above-average intelligence... I mean for a fact that I am in the top .005% intelligence in the United States as far as the tests can go I presume... But what does it matter whether or not the human race is the best decision-makers ever... they're the only ones we have. Everyone in this world needs to just unite under every government. I think that we should all form a International Fleet or some bullshit like that. All this world needs is someone who has enough strings to pull together some of the worlds' countries most powerful decision-makers to form an ultimate alliance... after that ultimate alliance is formed then they should provide an ultimatum... Join us or perish... in which the basis is if you and your entire country does not completely allow us to control the world... we will destroy everyone in your country... that is how this race evolves... by making irrational decisions that people will eventually learn there lessons from... even if my plan fails... which the only way it could is if every other country united to oppose the super-alliance and then if that indeed happened the super-alliance could just grace-fully bow their heads and say "This is what we wanted all along... a universal human alliance... we will gladly surrender our troops to your alliance if you continue to exist and allow everyone in the World and Above to join and force those who do not wish to join or make them perish."
Just think about it... truly think about it... would this work... why dont we do this... I know that some of you have thought of this before and were too embarrassed to say anything... even OSC thought of this... and so he created the hegemon and the international fleet... THAT should be our lokke... a worldly alliance that would expand the human races technology faster and improve standards of living for most.
REPLY TO ME... if you think im crazy just reply to this thread
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: Johivin... the foolish have never risen so they can never fall... the truly wise have always been standing but not in obvious positions of power... come join the wise with me now... all who agree that we need a worldly alliance reply to the thread WORLDY ALLIANCE NEEDED?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the ICC (International Criminal Court) strike anyone else as being a birthplace for a world alliance? As an American first and a world-ian second I'm opposed to the US joining it... but it seems to have definant promise as far as a world governing body goes. The idea is that it's a treaty that allows it's council (think Supreme Court) to arrest citizens of member nations and try them as criminals.
This basically amounts to a sacrifice of sovereignty; the ICC would and could arrest, say, the President or Congress for no good reason. But while I am against it as an American, I think it could probably function as, say, the legislative branch of the EU.
World government in the making, perhaps?
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I do not believe that the ICC was designed to arrest individuals for 'no good reason'. However, I find that it would seem better to say that it exists to service crimes that are inflicted by a nation that would otherwise only be solved by war.
A person the likes of say, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden are perfect candidates for individuals who should be tried under the ICC. These are individuals who have committed great atrocities against their own citizens in the case of the former, and innocents in the case of Bin Laden.
Does a man in the military who goes around raping the women in a far off country deserve to be reprimanded, or even those who have committed acts of torture in Iraq, do they deserve a slap on the wrist for their actions? Governments may say that they take proper action, but the information remains disclosed to the rest of the world. How do the people of Iraq know that justice was carried out on those who tortured the Iraqi prisoners? The point is that they don't know. They are left in the dark and it is possible that those individuals were not brought to justice.
My point is that nations can hide their mistakes and the atrocities that they have committed by not joining. By joining the ICC it would be a step in saying that we do not commit these unspeakable acts, that we do not torture or murder unnessarily.
The point of the ICC is not to dismantle countries that it doesn't like, but to bring those who have committed crimes against humanity to justice.
And as an American I am disturbed by the fact that some believe that by not joining we are 'protecting' our soldiers against 'unfair prosecution' as the President has said. There are American soldiers that should be procesuted and yet remain unpunished for their actions.
How can we feel that we have the right to attack other nations in the name of 'freedom' and the effort to combat 'terrorism' yet when our own soldiers commit atrocities, we turn the other way? If those responsible for the Iraqi prisoner torture had not taken pictures of the event, would they have been reprimanded at all?
The ICC was not formed to needlessly prosecute individuals, but to prosecute those that have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Why should we stand opposed to justice being served? If the individuals are not held accountable for their actions, then the cycle of chaos will continue on. The guilty should stand trial for their actions.
Johivin
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah well at least I temporarily shut people up on who the leader should be, a topic which frankly I don't care about in the least and don't think will matter. "Build it and they will come" Start the movement, and do it in earnest, and the leader(s) will become apparent without beckoning. Johivin a court is a court it doesn't matter whether it's an American court or a international court, it's either a fair court or it's not, if it is fair it's fine, otherwise it's trash. Steel the fact is that I don't know much about the ICC, but I have actually thought about that myself, and again if it doesn't have both an adequate autonomous military and a definite set of laws, or a whole whole lot of energy pushing it that way, it's never going to be a governing body any more than the UN is, and is therefore doomed, though perhaps in and of itself not a bad idea, to be no more than it is- a puppet, a powerless beuracracy with apparent political power but no true mandate to back it up. As for a world aliance, a world court may seem to be a step in THAT direction, but the idea of a world alliance is a myth, because you can come close to that, but the fundamental prerequisite to universal alliance is universal government. So to answer your question, no I don't see the ICC becoming anything more than the ICC, not without severe corruption or a serious kick in the butt.
Western Europeans colonized the world, they thought they'd conquered it, Europeans let the world go, and they thought everything'd be hunky dory, and they continued to think that it was, so Europe came up with the leaugue of nations, with the UN, and even though the situation gets worse, they continue to think otherwise, they come up with the EU, thinking that it will unify Europe, but even it will last exactly as long as europe's power lasts, and europe's power is built on a foundation of cracked glass. Europe sees America and Japan and China going straight up all around her but thinks Oh, that's Ok, because after all, everyone wants to be like Europe, but that's not true anymore, what is true is that everyone wants a slice of europe's power when she falls, and with her, the UN and world courts and international law, not to mention her false sense of a happily effortlessly unified mankind. It's a nice dream, but you can't eat concrete and factories, you can't have your cake of monarchy or restrictive socialism and eat your freedom of capitalism and democracy too, you can't build armies or spaceships or farms out of gold or bits of paper, you can't have Rome without Carthage and Greece and Egypt and you can't control the world from one half of its second smallest continent on the continued assumption that the world is in fact just a rather large extension of it. Theirs is a lie so powerful that they have convinced not only themselves, but much of the civilized world. Powerful because it represents to many something we would so like to be true. Powerful because the apparent major alternative is the general idea in Russia or America or China-to hell with everybody else, let's get ours. See, it's not just their lie, it's a really old lie, it's the lie designed to keep good people from doing what they know is right, the lie of complacency: "Leave them alone and they'll come....." kill you and take whatever you've got.
BeansAch.: The "join or we'll kill everbody" plan won't work. It is morally wrong, the ends don't justify the means, because some little country that doesn't happen to be Iran or Sudan or Zimbabwe is eventually going to stand up and say piss off, and from that point on the plan will be doomed because of the "David and Goliath" if you like, factor- human beings are moral animals and they can only be fooled so much for so long before the lid blows off, and when it blows off the whole factory goes kablooey. BTW, how the heck did you manage to get your worldly alliance thread on this side of the forum without heaps of moaning and cussing?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Asking ourself where is Locke seems interesting. However, when i'm using my computer, i rather ask myself if "Jeanne" (i don't know her name in the Original version. It's the Ender "virtual" friend) can exist. I visited a lot of chatterbot or IA internet pages, but not find such a intelligent bot...
posted
where is our locke? there can be no locke. as of now there are only three ways that i can think of for there to be a locke, none of wich invlove a traditional advance through our useless pollitical system. one way would be fore some bright inquesitive and slightly manipulative mind to get his hands on a tv station or tv show and to win the peoples hearts and aproval, and the other is to take power by force and become the leader that peter was. the final way is the one that is most simmilar to what peter did and that is to build a netward of contacts and friends and gain enogh influence to take some seat of relitive power.
there is no news net, there are no debate forums, and what is said online tends to stay there. they well come, times well change.
this is from an american standpoint and not a universal one. I assumed that you where refering to locke as in peter as a leader and not locke as in the actual person or locke as in the pen name and the articles peter wrote under it.
Posts: 33 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually you've given me an idea by bringing up the argument that it can/can't be done via the internet. I propose a fourth and second most insane (after the by force bit) if not best option to your three. Get everybody to take LSD and brainwash them into getting on hatrack every day and posting our instructions on this thread. Yessss Exceelent plan...
posted
After 10 years of no posts, and 11 years of me not posting anything on hatrack, I really think this thread deserves a bump. After all, I still have not managed to take over the world yet, and neither has anyone else...
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The joke hidden within the joke there is FiveThirtyEight in the blogroll; Nate Silver started out in 2007 as a pseudonymous blogger on someone else's site, gained enough popularity to start 538, unmasked himself, got taken seriously by "real" media, and ended up on Time's 100 Most Influential list for 2009.
Posts: 89 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
We need to huddle, think, act, and behave how humans..well..not how we've been acting. how we should. Once we correct ourselves, right our wrongs, and rebuild everything thats been destroyed, we won't need a Locke. We won't need a Demosthenes. We'll have a eutopia. ::chuckle:: Now I'm being naive.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
and I would need full on support with one head only for quite a while if I was gonna get anywhere, and anyway I'm not sure I'm mentally psychiatrically mature enough to do the danged thing truth to tell, so my only orders might be: do good deeds and wait till I grow up and that isn't exactly what I'd call a super awe-inspiring coalition. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
