Do you support the loss of american sovereignty?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
What I'm saying is that technology has created a world that is more
connected, where ones country is not as important as it was even
two decades ago.

Nations, thousands of miles apart can still remain a sovereign nation, all the while their people sharing views from their homeland without having to share the same political views. If that's not a true statement, mention that to my "pen pals" that I've had since grade school.


Originally posted by iori_komei
And things change over time, oppressors die, revolutions occur,
ideologies change.

The idea of individual nations will become less and less important
to people.

Yes, things change, oppressors die, revolutions occur, and ideologies change... But one thing that never changes is the fact that we can all remain sovereign.


Originally posted by iori_komei
Things change over time, look at how Europe and the Western world
were 100-150 years ago.

Oh, great example. Do you honestly believe that Europe and America have become the "great buddies" they portray themselves to be? The two governments still have differentiating ideas on how to run their own countries. Who's going to decide that one way will work and the other won't?


Originally posted by iori_komei
Like I said, revolutions happen, people who hold the power die, ide-
ologies change.

And more people (even those that are oppressive) are born again.


Originally posted by iori_komei
You don't need to use force as much as you would before anymore
either, imagine how fast a country like the Congo would change if
you completely isolated them economically.

Congo hasn't been isolated economically. Even if so, by being a poor country, that's enough justification to form a one world government? No way. Congo's got natural resources. Sell them like everyone else does. It's called "trade".


Originally posted by iori_komei
Yes there will be some places where force is required, and personally
I support using force to change countries that deny there peoples
freedom and the democratic process.

How can you advocate a peaceful union, and say that you'll take land to be part of your peaceful union by force? That's hypocritical.


Originally posted by iori_komei
Another thing is places like PRChina, right now they are not a very free
or democratic country, but a century from now, they most likely will be,
and that is without force being applied, or massive revolutions occurring.

Are you suggesting that those Communistic leaders of China are just going to one day roll over and say, "OK, live your life the way you want?"


China would be "forced" into a peaceful union, as one that you are depicting. But then that wouldn't make it quite so peaceful, now would it?


Originally posted by iori_komei
My last example, is look at things like the AU (African union), over time
as it develops it will influence it's constituent nations to conform to the
ideas of freedom and democracy (of which it promotes).

What the nations of Europe and Africa do, is what they want to do. If Europe and Africa wanted to blow themselves up with nuclear weapons just to save face... does that mean we should?



Originally posted by iori_komei
The majority of the world wants to promote freedom, not turn everyone
into slaves, so the unfree countries would become free, not the other
way around.

Do you have any means to provide backing to the idea of everyone being having the "same" freedoms? Here in America, I have the Constitutional right to possess and bear arms... the Second Amendment... of which grants me (and any other law abiding American citizen) the ability to protect myself against a tyrannical government. How can you possibly fathom giving that right to everyone, worldwide, of which I'm sure there's some that will be happy to exercise that right to prevent any type of government?

Force?

But I thought you were advocating peace?




posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Dude when it come down to it, we are all the same.
We eat, we sleep, get up go to work, work, go home spend some time with the fam. And do it all over again


Not really. What do we eat? Where do we sleep? What work do we do? What's the family? How do we communicate with the family? Who is the head of the household? How are children treated?

What about something as broad and important as government philosophy? Tax? Religion? Rights?



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Not really. What do we eat? Where do we sleep? What work do we do? What's the family? How do we communicate with the family? Who is the head of the household? How are children treated?

What about something as broad and important as government philosophy? Tax? Religion? Rights?

By the standards you set the United States should not exist!
What do we eat? Texas: T-bone stake. New York: chicken shwarma… no let have Thai tonight.

Where do we sleep? Texas: in my bed inside my spacious ranch. New York: in my bed in my apartment the size of a shoebox.

What work do we do? Texas: ranch hand. New York: data entry.

What’s the family? That one is pretty universal.

How do we communicate with the family? Again universal

Who’s the head of the household? There are really only two choices here matriarchal or patriarchal, it does not matter the answer it does not affect the discussion at hand.

Children are treated pretty much the same world round, although in some countries children are put to work to feed the family.

Tax? Texas: people should not be taxed, ya here no income tax. New York: people should be tax on a gradual scale from zero to forty percent depending on there income.

Religion? Texas: in God I trust and I mean a vary specific God. New York: your God, my God, eh it’s all the same.

Rights? Texas: the gays should not be allowed to marry, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. New York: Gay marriage? Let them marry, who cares?

So though out America there is a startling difference in all these vary topics.
Note, I am not saying that everyone in these places feel how I described, I just generalizing.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
The idea of individual nations will become less and less important to people.


I kinda like our nation.

Why can't we keep it and just absorb everyone elses nation into ours?


Originally posted by Infoholic
Is every nation of people going to be brought up to the scale of the freest of the free? Or are the freest of the free going to be brought down to the deepest of "slavery"?


That's the juxtaposition of the argument.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I kinda like our nation.

Why can't we keep it and just absorb everyone elses nation into ours?



Isn't that the one thing that makes America so great?

All the differences and yet, still one Nation, Under God.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Nations, thousands of miles apart can still remain a sovereign nation, all the while their people sharing views from their homeland without having to share the same political views. If that's not a true statement, mention that to my "pen pals" that I've had since grade school.


Considering that the level of communication that I am talking about
has only been around for a little over a decade, it really is very new,
and as such it's full effect has not yet been seen.




Yes, things change, oppressors die, revolutions occur, and ideologies change... But one thing that never changes is the fact that we can all remain sovereign.


Yes, we can remain sovereign, I never said a nation could'nt or should
not be allowed to, that is unless its secession will lead to a less free
and less democratic state.




Oh, great example. Do you honestly believe that Europe and America have become the "great buddies" they portray themselves to be? The two governments still have differentiating ideas on how to run their own countries. Who's going to decide that one way will work and the other won't?


I was'nt meaning the relationship between America and Europe.

With Europe I meant look how much it has changed for the better,
to a point where the majority of the European countries just finished
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Union, and how
much more free and democratic alot of Europe has become since than.

With America I meant look how much we have become more unified,
and how we have freedoms now that we did'nt have than.




And more people (even those that are oppressive) are born again.


Yes, but at a rate significantly lower than in previous times.




Congo hasn't been isolated economically. Even if so, by being a poor country, that's enough justification to form a one world government? No way. Congo's got natural resources. Sell them like everyone else does. It's called "trade".


I know, I was just using it as an example of a country that needs
reform that could be helped along that path through sanctions and such.



Originally posted by iori_komei
How can you advocate a peaceful union, and say that you'll take land to be part of your peaceful union by force? That's hypocritical.


I did'nt say that, I said I don't have a problem with using force to change
a country that is not free and democratic, if they wanted to join, than
that's great, if they did'nt, than so be it, I don't believe in forcing them to.




Are you suggesting that those Communistic leaders of China are just going to one day roll over and say, "OK, live your life the way you want?"


First of all China is not Communist, it was founded on the Principles
of Leninism, Stallinism and Maoism, which are only communist in
that Leninism is an extreme form of Communism and Stallinism is a
perversion of Communism.

Secondly look at PRChina in the 1970's and compare that to PRChina
today, while there has not been a huge change, there is a significant
difference in freedoms and democracy.

That's not to say that there are not those who would try and prevent it.




China would be "forced" into a peaceful union, as one that you are depicting. But then that wouldn't make it quite so peaceful, now would it?


Again I do not believe in forcing any country into a union, and PRChina
is something that can go the right way by itself, though if things started
to degrade for a decade or more, action would need to be taken, be that
economic, force or a mixture of the two.



Originally posted by iori_komei
What the nations of Europe and Africa do, is what they want to do. If Europe and Africa wanted to blow themselves up with nuclear weapons just to save face... does that mean we should?


No, what I am getting at with that is that unfree and undemocratic
places can change, and that over time people can become more
united, and focus more on helping humanity as a whole rather than
squabble over countries.



Originally posted by iori_komei
Do you have any means to provide backing to the idea of everyone being having the "same" freedoms?


My definition of freedom is doing whatever you like as long as you do
not directly infringe upon other peoples freedoms, unless that is they
are consenting.




Here in America, I have the Constitutional right to possess and bear arms... the Second Amendment... of which grants me (and any other law abiding American citizen) the ability to protect myself against a tyrannical government. How can you possibly fathom giving that right to everyone, worldwide, of which I'm sure there's some that will be happy to exercise that right to prevent any type of government?


I am well aware of our rights, and what the second amendment states.
You assume I am not American?

I am an advocate of the premise of the second amendment.




But I thought you were advocating peace?


I believe in peace, but I am not a moron, I realize that there are cases
in which force is required.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I kinda like our nation.

Why can't we keep it and just absorb everyone elses nation into ours?


1. Because our system is flawed.
2. The system would not work very well on a global basis.
3. Because the rest of the world does not want to become a state of
the United States.
4. Because we are hardly free or democratic enough to be the world
government.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
I kinda like our nation.

Why can't we keep it and just absorb everyone elses nation into ours?


1. Because our system is flawed.
2. The system would not work very well on a global basis.
3. Because the rest of the world does not want to become a state of
the United States.
4. Because we are hardly free or democratic enough to be the world
government.


What kind of system would replace it then?



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What kind of system would replace it then?


Well I can't tell you what wil replace it, but I have my own ideas on
what should, but even than they are not exactly the msot probable
either.

What I think is probable is a confederation of blocs, much like what the
EU is, accept instead of countries, with geopolitical blocks like the EU,
South American Community of Nations, the AU, and the equivalents
that will come about in North America, Oceania and Asia.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Considering that the level of communication that I am talking about
has only been around for a little over a decade, it really is very new,
and as such it's full effect has not yet been seen.

Again, technology is no reason to rid the globe of national sovereignty.



Originally posted by iori_komei
Yes, we can remain sovereign, I never said a nation could'nt or should
not be allowed to, that is unless its secession will lead to a less free
and less democratic state.

Who is going to determine the level of being free or being democratic? Did you ever take into consideration that not all states (unions/nations) want to be democratic?



Originally posted by iori_komei
I was'nt meaning the relationship between America and Europe.

With Europe I meant look how much it has changed for the better,
to a point where the majority of the European countries just finished
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Union, and how
much more free and democratic alot of Europe has become since than.

Ahh... so you are clapping your hands for a police state... where no one is really free... but free on a false pretense. Nice.



Originally posted by iori_komei
With America I meant look how much we have become more unified,
and how we have freedoms now that we did'nt have than.

Superb. Look at all the rights, privileges, and freedoms we've lost over only the past 6 years. And you call that progress?



Originally posted by iori_komei
Yes, but at a rate significantly lower than in previous times.

Do you have any credible evidence to prove that the rate of "evil" or "corrupt" has dropped significantly... in... oh, let's say the past 2000 years?



Originally posted by iori_komei
I know, I was just using it as an example of a country that needs
reform that could be helped along that path through sanctions and such.

That's a discussion for the people of the Congo to take up with their own Government. That's not a problem that I should have to give up my sovereignty to solve.



Originally posted by iori_komei
I did'nt say that, I said I don't have a problem with using force to change
a country that is not free and democratic, if they wanted to join, than
that's great, if they did'nt, than so be it, I don't believe in forcing them to.

You don't get it do you? You can't change someone by force and expect them to accept it as a "peaceful" notion.




Originally posted by iori_komei
First of all China is not Communist, it was founded on the Principles
of Leninism, Stallinism and Maoism, which are only communist in
that Leninism is an extreme form of Communism and Stallinism is a
perversion of Communism.

China is not a Communist Country?



Originally posted by iori_komei
Again I do not believe in forcing any country into a union, and PRChina
is something that can go the right way by itself, though if things started
to degrade for a decade or more, action would need to be taken, be that
economic, force or a mixture of the two.

Then quit saying you'll force your beliefs, or it's OK for anyone else to force their beliefs on someone else. Simple.



Originally posted by iori_komei
No, what I am getting at with that is that unfree and undemocratic
places can change, and that over time people can become more
united, and focus more on helping humanity as a whole rather than
squabble over countries.

They can change ONLY if they wish to do so. You can't force anyone. You can't convince anyone to be someone or something they don't wish to be.



Originally posted by iori_komei
My definition of freedom is doing whatever you like as long as you do
not directly infringe upon other peoples freedoms, unless that is they
are consenting.

Agreed.



Originally posted by iori_komei
I am well aware of our rights, and what the second amendment states.
You assume I am not American?

I am an advocate of the premise of the second amendment.

Then answer my question.

How can you possibly fathom giving that right to everyone, worldwide, of which I'm sure there's some that will be happy to exercise that right to prevent any type of government?

Force?




Originally posted by iori_komei
I believe in peace, but I am not a moron, I realize that there are cases
in which force is required.

Under any case... FORCE DOES NOT EQUATE TO PEACE

[edit on 4/4/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
What kind of system would replace it then?


Well I can't tell you what wil replace it, but I have my own ideas on
what should, but even than they are not exactly the msot probable
either.

What I think is probable is a confederation of blocs, much like what the
EU is, accept instead of countries, with geopolitical blocks like the EU,
South American Community of Nations, the AU, and the equivalents
that will come about in North America, Oceania and Asia.


Sorry, INWT. I don't mean to step on your toes as to answer a post for you, but... iori... the EU is plain and simple a damn police state. Total control. A totalitarian dictatorship... a wolf in sheeps clothing, if you will.

Is this the form of "democracy" that you wish to sell?



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I don't know much about it. How is the EU so evil and totalitarian?



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
I don't know much about it. How is the EU so evil and totalitarian?


The EU is much like Canada. The rights/etc. in those countries are granted by the government.... which means the government can take them away at any given moment.

And no, that's not the same thing as declaring martial law.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Oh. The people aren't sovereigns.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
The rights/etc. in those countries are granted by the government.... which means the government can take them away at any given moment.

And no, that's not the same thing as declaring martial law.

Umm… are not the rights of every citizen in every country granted by there government?
Were not the rights granted the US constitution voted and granted by the government?
Can they not be taken away in the US visa-vie the patriot act?
I see no difference in this respect.
The major difference is the government type. The US is a Constitutional republic. Most E-U governments are parliamentary or constitutional monarchies.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Originally posted by Infoholic
The rights/etc. in those countries are granted by the government.... which means the government can take them away at any given moment.

And no, that's not the same thing as declaring martial law.

Umm… are not the rights of every citizen in every country granted by there government?
Were not the rights granted the US constitution voted and granted by the government?
Can they not be taken away in the US visa-vie the patriot act?
I see no difference in this respect.
The major difference is the government type. The US is a Constitutional republic. Most E-U governments are parliamentary or constitutional monarchies.


No. The difference is that in the United States, the rights of the people do not derive from the government or sovereign (king). The rights are natural rights of the PEOPLE, granted by God. The Constitutions just outlines what these rights are, but in effect, the document itself has no power. They aren't "Constitutional Rights," they're God-given rights that happen to be written in the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Total control. A totalitarian dictatorship... a wolf in sheeps clothing, if you will.

Is this the form of "democracy" that you wish to sell?


Hey I just want to be left alone to do what I want, when I want, without question. A decent social service system that provides a decent baseline for everyone in the society to start from or end at. And I don't want to pay for it. What we have now is anarchy and total insecurity on the part of the entire population. How ludicous.

Were all prisoners to a non-working system. I bet you won't see any millionaires walking through the streets of detroit at night, unless they have a batallion of marines, some helicopters hovering overhead and are wearing flack jackets.


[edit on 5-4-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Again, technology is no reason to rid the globe of national sovereignty.


I did'nt say it was, I am saying that the technology making us more
connected will help along the forming of a single world government.




Who is going to determine the level of being free or being democratic? Did you ever take into consideration that not all states (unions/nations) want to be democratic?


I may be precognitive, but I don't know that, int the end it will be the
will of the people.

Name me one place, that is not founded on obsolete religious teachings
that does not want democracy.




Ahh... so you are clapping your hands for a police state... where no one is really free... but free on a false pretense. Nice.



No, I am focusing on the positive changes, not the bad ones.




Superb. Look at all the rights, privileges, and freedoms we've lost over only the past 6 years. And you call that progress?


I am comparing America than to America pre-bush.
True, even before Bush was Pres. we had had some rights diminished to some extent, but overall we had gained more.

I dissaprove of what Bush has done.



Originally posted by iori_komei
Do you have any credible evidence to prove that the rate of "evil" or "corrupt" has dropped significantly... in... oh, let's say the past 2000 years?


Consider the world in the 1700's, now look at the world now, there
are a great many less of them.



Originally posted by iori_komei
That's a discussion for the people of the Congo to take up with their own Government. That's not a problem that I should have to give up my sovereignty to solve.


If a country is limiting it's peoples freedom and the democratic process,
it is the concern of the free world.

I did'nt say you should give up sovereignty to combat the suppression
of freedom and democracy.




You don't get it do you? You can't change someone by force and expect them to accept it as a "peaceful" notion.



Do you not think that the people of say Somalia (I think that's where
Darfur is, not sure) would be upset if we dismantled there government
and set up a new free and dmocratic government that actually tried to
end the genocide and other issues?




China is not a Communist Country?



No, it is not, it does not even fit the definition fo Communism, I
already stated what it is.

What I did forget to mention to, is that it is becoming more capitalistic
as well.


Originally posted by iori_komei
Then quit saying you'll force your beliefs, or it's OK for anyone else to force their beliefs on someone else. Simple.


If the regime/government of a country is limiting it's peoples freedoms and the democratic process, and especially when many people want those things, that gives the right to dismantle the government through force if need be.

The only thing that should ever be force don a country is freedom and
the democratic process, so long as that democracy does not limit
peoples freedom.




They can change ONLY if they wish to do so. You can force anyone. You can't convince anyone to be someone or something they don't wish to be.


Just because people may not want a freedom, does not mean it should
be banned.




Then answer my question.
How can you possibly fathom giving that right to everyone, worldwide, of which I'm sure there's some that will be happy to exercise that right to prevent any type of government?

Force?


I can not fathom denying people freedom.

By guaranteeing everyone that right in a body like a constiution.

Just like here in America.



Under any case... FORCE DOES NOT EQUATE TO PEACE


You can not be peaceful 100% of the time, and expect peace to
prevail throughout the world.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
No. The difference is that in the United States, the rights of the people do not derive from the government or sovereign (king). The rights are natural rights of the PEOPLE, granted by God. The Constitutions just outlines what these rights are, but in effect, the document itself has no power. They aren't "Constitutional Rights," they're God-given rights that happen to be written in the Constitution.

Just to ensure that we are discussing the same document, you mean the Constitution of the United States of America.
The American Bill of Rights, The first ten Amendment passed by congress September 25, 1789. Ratified by three-fourths of the States, December 15, 1791

That means that congressmen wrote it and voted for it. Then states discussed it, voted on it and passed it in to the law of the land.
God did not grant them, the government did.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Sorry double post

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Mr Mxyztplk]



new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join