It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We should rid ourselves of America...

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
So... in your one-world, borderless, utopian society everyone is equal. Okay. What happens to people who don't pass your "health screenings"? Do they get quarantined, and sent off to some island somewhere like a leper colony? Do they get taken out back "Old Yeller" style?


not utopian, but i hadn't thought about it. i guess the best thing to do would be to set up treatment centers in which these people would be treated with dignity and possibly cured within their lifetimes



I am not saying that (in the society you speak of) I would want people with all sorts of diseases just roaming to wherever they please and spreading things. I am just curious how your health screenings would deal with this situation. Everyone is equal, and has more opportunities... uness they're contagious, or icky? You're just trading one kind of inequality for another.


no, but you do bring up a good point, which i'm happy about. got me to thinking about a part of the situation i hadn't thought of.




Sorry. I don't want a one-world government, and I will fight and die to prevent it from being forced on me. It must be nice to have these ideas about a perfect society with no war or hunger, where we all just make daisy chains in a meadow somewhere and sing together. Us humans are far too angry a species.


but you've yet to show any causation that would make this idea unworkable.

and toad, on the post about obesity, i wasn't going to go into the details. i know that it's more complex than that, but many people are obese and overweight simply because they eat too much. there is, without a doubt, a capacity in this world to produce more food than the world needs, and we do produce enough at the moment. that was the point.
there's also the issue of food wasted in the more developed countries. imagine how many people we could feed with all the wasted food...


Originally posted by bonijean
Why would one worry about their topic being derailed if one is presenting a solid rational idea in the first place?


it is a solid, rational idea. you may disagree with it, but it isn't some sort of unsubstantial, insane idea. it's just one you don't like



Personally I think with no border you have no order.


ok, one big border, it's the atmosphere. problem solved.



Can you imagine everyone competing for resources in such a world order? If there is one thing that mankind has been really adamant about over the ions it is competing for resources and sometimes it gets really ugly.


ok, then why do we let some people get more resources and others get less simply because of how they are born.

you fail to address the moral element here.

one more thing


My advice: Finish your education, get out into the real world for a while, and feel what it's like to work for things and struggle. Then, have someone tell you that none of that matters, that we should all just redistribute some things, and that we should all be equal. I'm not sure that your future self would agree with your current argument.


ok, now i have advice. get into the real world, but instead live your life in mogadishu. now, try to accomplish what you did wherever you live now in that same situation. those people have to struggle a lot harder and get a lot less.

this isn't about redistribution, it's about creation. we can create access to resources for all. we don't have to take opportunity away from anyone except those who don't work hard enough to earn it. that's what it's all about
for some reason i keep seeing that people think this is some kind of communist system, it isn't.
the main point is hard work.

[edit on 12/31/07 by madnessinmysoul]




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

this isn't about redistribution, it's about creation. we can create access to resources for all. we don't have to take opportunity away from anyone except those who don't work hard enough to earn it. that's what it's all about for some reason i keep seeing that people think this is some kind of communist system, it isn't.
the main point is hard work.

[edit on 12/31/07 by madnessinmysoul]


Okay... so what do you propose is done with the people that don't want to work hard? You say that opportunity won't be taken away from anyone, except those who don't work hard enough "to earn it." How does one earn opportunity, in your opinion?

On one hand, you say that people deserve certain opportunities, just because they are unlucky enough to be born in a place that sucks (to paraphrase). But then you talk about "earning it."

Here's a hypothetical for you: Let's take a country, called Country X. Country X is extremely poor, the people are starving, etc. Now, we have this borderless world of which you speak, for the purpose of creating equality and opportunity in a place like Country X. After all, these poor people are only poor and starving because they were unfortunate enough to be born in Country X. So we give them all of these opportunities that they have been missing out on... what happens when we find out that the people of Country X don't want to work hard and "earn it"? Do we take these opportunities away? Put the borders back where they were? I am just asking you to think about this, as part of your argument.

Also, you never addressed my comment regarding the fact that there are poor, starving people in every country. There is poverty everywhere! How does your proposal eliminate worldwild poverty just because there are no borders, when within the borders of affluent countries there is still poverty?

Furthermore, you fail to address the fact that cultural, social, and religious norms would prevent opportunities from being distributed to all. I seem to recall a few countries where women are still treated as second class citizens, for example. Opening borders won't help them. You would have to change thousands of years of thinking to make a difference there.

It's a lovely daydream, but it is completely impractical and unworkable.

You also keep saying that everyone has it all wrong- that you are not talking about a one-world government. Well, how do you propose that this giant country operate? Who is in charge? You would still have under-represented people, and in time, you would separate countries again as disagreements came up among people in different areas.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The reason there's no historical precedent, is because human nature is never going to change. There's always going be sheep, and there's always going to be predators. There's always going to be envy, greed, selfishness, hatred, injustice, etc... There are always going to be bad people in the world that you cannot reason with, or talk problems out with.
In short, it doesn't matter how much you wish people could just work their problems out, it just isn't ever going to happen.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I refuse to be part of an extranational government. Local sovereignty is important because, simply the rest of the world has vastly differing beliefs of what a proper government should be. Look at China, North Korea, and then the United States.

There's a stark contrast, somewhere in there...



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I have a better idea! lets let all those other nations rid themselves of their borders first, and we can sit back in our SUV's and see how that works out for ya. lol, Americans don't want to be a part a of world gov. or a new constitution! We want our constitution enforced!

[edit on 12/31/2007 by rockets red glare]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

I personally would never support such a system for one it opens the doors wide open for a one world dictator. Secondly, I personally don't like the idea of "wealth dispersion." If I am going to get up and work my ass off, the guy who is perfectly capable of working himself but chooses instead to sit on his lazy ass shouldn't reap any benefit at all. "He who does not work, does not deserve to eat."

[edit on 24-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]


WHo says he will reap any benefit. All that was said was that he will have the same oppertunity to become successful as you do. There was nothing said about giving your wealth to him.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
Okay... so what do you propose is done with the people that don't want to work hard? You say that opportunity won't be taken away from anyone, except those who don't work hard enough "to earn it." How does one earn opportunity, in your opinion?


opportunity was the wrong word. i meant to say resources. resources won't be taken away from people, you only lose them if you don't work for them

clearly i'm asking for a society where people fail because they weren't trying, not because of circumstance

psychologically ill? we'll fix that and make sure it stays fixed so you can be a productive member of society instead of letting you wander the streets homeless.

the example, again like others, fails because it rests on a misunderstanding of my position. there would be equalizing prior to the removal of borders.

someone put it best (though i forget who), you can't open up the airlock without equalizing the pressure.


Originally posted by Johnmike
I refuse to be part of an extranational government. Local sovereignty is important because, simply the rest of the world has vastly differing beliefs of what a proper government should be. Look at China, North Korea, and then the United States.

There's a stark contrast, somewhere in there...


who says that the chinese like their current system? or the north koreans?
it's quite clear that the populace hates it, they mostly don't buy into the propaganda.

now look at sweden, norway, or france. they have wonderful idea about how things should be...


Originally posted by GT100FV
The reason there's no historical precedent, is because human nature is never going to change.


that's good, because compassion is part of human nature. just read into evolutionary psychology... human nature does change.



There's always going be sheep, and there's always going to be predators. There's always going to be envy, greed, selfishness, hatred, injustice, etc...


there are always going to be heroes and saints as wel
there will always be admiration, charity, selflessness, kindness, justice, etc.
the positives are just as much of a part of human nature as the negatives, now let's put the human species into a situation that will make the positives shine



There are always going to be bad people in the world that you cannot reason with, or talk problems out with.
In short, it doesn't matter how much you wish people could just work their problems out, it just isn't ever going to happen.


again, i never said things would be perfect.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there are always going to be heroes and saints as wel
there will always be admiration, charity, selflessness, kindness, justice, etc.
the positives are just as much of a part of human nature as the negatives, now let's put the human species into a situation that will make the positives shine


MIMS, I was going through some of your posts and I came upon this one.
Over 20 years ago I had this same thought.

Dont back down what you see to be good for the whole and be altert for oppression. Those that seek to enrich only themselves at the expense of others are the true opposition to your proposal.

I personally support your thoughts here and agree that the entitlement to opportunity should not reside in a birth right limited by political status or geographic lottery.

We are all children of the Universe. That being said, that which the Universe has given to all of us, is for all of us.

Indeed Shine...

Great post

Peace


[edit on 1-1-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Let me start by saying this: Madness, I don't want you to misunderstand me... while I disagree with you on this, I respect the hell out of you for having this opinion. Please don't feel like I am picking on you, because I am not. I wanted to get that off my chest.

That being said, I repeat...

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad

Furthermore, you fail to address the fact that cultural, social, and religious norms would prevent opportunities from being distributed to all. I seem to recall a few countries where women are still treated as second class citizens, for example. Opening borders won't help them. You would have to change thousands of years of thinking to make a difference there.

. . .

You also keep saying that everyone has it all wrong- that you are not talking about a one-world government. Well, how do you propose that this giant country operate? Who is in charge? You would still have under-represented people, and in time, you would separate countries again as disagreements came up among people in different areas.


What about these things?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
prefacing things with a quote that addresses the labels people have been slapping on me


"When I gave hungry people food, they called me a saint. When I asked why the people had no food they called me a communist."
-Dom Helder Camara, Catholic Archbishop

..odd that a catholic apostate is quoting this, but i liked it.


reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


ok, thing 1: those issues would be resolved in the lead up to the borderless world. it's not something that's going to happen overnight

thing 2: i have no clue about how the exact system would be set up and part of the reason i opened up this thread was so that people could provide input to come up with the system. the ideas of one person won't help govern billions.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I figured that you would say that those problems would be resolved slowly in the years leading up to the borderless society, what I am curious about is whether you have any thoughts on how to solve those problems.

Do you have any ideas? (Again, not picking on you... just wonder what your opinion is on it).

And even though you are looking for the ideas of others regarding how government would be set up... any ideas from you on how that might work?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
I figured that you would say that those problems would be resolved slowly in the years leading up to the borderless society, what I am curious about is whether you have any thoughts on how to solve those problems.

Do you have any ideas? (Again, not picking on you... just wonder what your opinion is on it).


well, i'd go with secularism, proper education of the general populace and protection for the rights of all as stated by the UN declaration of human rights (it's the only declaration of human rights i could think of that includes what i think everyone needs)



And even though you are looking for the ideas of others regarding how government would be set up... any ideas from you on how that might work?


well, a 3 branch government
executive branch would have one person from each region

not to sure about the legislature, but one idea would be having a tricameral system, one with each area having 2 or 3 reps (all would have the same number, i'm just not sure what a proper number would be), then one for representation by land area, and one for representation by population.
or maybe a bicameral one similar to the US system...
it all depends on how the regions of the world are set up under the system

judiciary would be quite straightforward system based on a hybrid of existing international laws and a separate set for governing affairs of the world

since the system is federalist, each region would have its own governance, but the laws must be subject to the global laws first, and certain issues would be up to the regions.


that's just a vague outline



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeyTheBear
 



It is certainly implied. Anytime you talk in sweeping terms of a one world government, borderless nations, et cetera, et cetera, you are by default implying shared wealth or a "redistribution of wealth."



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHypnoToad
Let me start by saying this: Madness, I don't want you to misunderstand me... while I disagree with you on this, I respect the hell out of you for having this opinion. Please don't feel like I am picking on you, because I am not. I wanted to get that off my chest.



I do too. I respect the fact that he wants to help everyone.. I just don't think, given the nature of the human being and its mindset, it'll ever work. It may be tried, eventually, but it will collapse in ruin.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


it doesn't necessarily imply it anymore than unifying smaller nations into a larger nation does. any of the revolutions that created the modern european nations didn't involve redistribution of wealth. the unification of germany or italy didn't involve such things. maybe we can take that as a bit of a historical precedent for this kind of thing working on a smaller scale



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I enjoy individuality and culture. If we were to open up all boarders we would be annihilating one of the most facinating things about this world.

Its not Americas fault that we worked hard for what we have. I know plenty of third world countrys that would be extremely prosperous if THEIR leaders diddnt horde all the money. Look at Iraq with Saddam in power. He was disgustingly rich, while the rest of his country basically starved. This can be said for most other countries as well.

Look at what happened to Zimbabwe. They were on their way to be a very prosperous nation. They had one of the best economys in Africa and were continuing to do so. Then a man by the name of Robert Mugabe assumes power and totally destroys the countrys economy. I doubt he cant find bread to eat, or water to drink. I bet hes having a grand old time.

Its NOT our fault that individual countries cannot use their resources in the way that they should be. Africa/Middle East was once the CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION. Now explain to me, how a area that was once one of the best places to live, is now one of the absolute worst.

We do NOT need a one world government. What we do need is to rid this world of CORRUPTION. That is why the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. The reason the hardest working people in the poorest countries make so little is because of their insanely rich leaders. Let me sit on my gold throne and drink out of my gold goblet while the rest of my country starves. Dont blame the world when its not the worlds fault.

Anyway. While it seems like such a good idea, there will always be inequality. Im sorry but not everyone is created equal. That is total bee ess and a utter lie. To say that I am equal to someone who dosent bother to put forth effort, apply himself, and strive to make a difference is a total falsehood. Many of these poverty stricken countries would be much better if the PEOPLE diddnt go around RUINING the country. Look at Pakistan. If everyone in the United States rioted and burned buildings, churches, schools, killed their fellow country men, and shout murder in the name of Allah - we would be just as bad off.

Stop blaming America when its obviously the PEOPLE who LIVE IN them third world countries who are ruining them. Why aid a country that is just going to destroy everything you give them? Why build when they will tear it down?

Sorry, but its your own fault.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Sorry. Double post.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by deadline527]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

well, a 3 branch government
executive branch would have one person from each region

not to sure about the legislature, but one idea would be having a tricameral system, one with each area having 2 or 3 reps (all would have the same number, i'm just not sure what a proper number would be), then one for representation by land area, and one for representation by population.
or maybe a bicameral one similar to the US system...
it all depends on how the regions of the world are set up under the system


But if representation will be determined based on regions, what is the point of getting rid of borders in the first place? If you remove borders, and then set up that system, you are just paving the way for countries to reform.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by deadline527
 



Originally posted by deadline527
Its NOT our fault that individual countries cannot use their resources in the way that they should be. Africa/Middle East was once the CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION. Now explain to me, how a area that was once one of the best places to live, is now one of the absolute worst.


Colonialism, exploitative capitalism, and the collaboration by corporations with regional governments. Africa in a nutshell.

The absolute worse was created by many of the 1st world countries of today in the name of capitalism and exploitation.

Africa, her people and her cultures was the gathering grounds for those that would exploit their brother for a dollar and take away their liberty.

We applaud it under the banner of economy and individuality, yet turn a blind eye to humanity.

Peace



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I must say, very good answer.

Although, I still think that if Africa applied itself, without the corruption of its so called "leaders", without the people constantly rioting, genocide on a weekly basis, raping innocent women, and generally being the kind of people noone even wants to help.. that they could be much more prosperous.

And I do know that there is many people who mean well in Africa, many who try, and many who are born into such a lifestyle..

..but then there is just as many who choose to do those things that I previously stated.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join