We should rid ourselves of America...

There will be a day when war will be no more.

When our military bases will be recycling centers, and yes, metal for tanks will be used for metal for tractors to grow food.

There will be a day when all of the discord on the planet will be stamped out on the earth...

The question is, will man be left standing when that happens?

Mankind is learning how to take care of disaster and strife. As our systems become more efficient, and our path becomes clear as to what is best and right for all, then the appropriate action will be taken in its proper season.

Like Children learning what is right and wrong through discipline as well as trial and error, so must we as mankind mature.

The internet of today has us moving in and out of countries electronically in the name of information and trade. Global unity and bonding is happening even though there are those that would deny its process.

Our Children game globally online with other children around the world. Its a different world we live in today.

Its my vision that what Madness describes here wont be a postulate, but a reality one day in the future...

Unity, Community, Humanity...

On a common ground we call Earth.

Built on the solid foundations of Truth, Equality, Justice and Right.

Love Aequalitas

Peace


[edit on 12-1-2008 by HIFIGUY]

There will be a day when war will be no more.

I'm with you, pal, but it won't happen as long as we keep electing leaders who stand to profit from war.

xo

sameness is lameness

Already now when I travel the world, things are looking similar to everywhere else. The national individuality of nations continues to get lost in "globalization". On the Fiji-Islands, the first thing you see when you get out of the plane, is McDonalds. A shoe-store called "FootLocker", which I have never visited before, I have seen in Sharm-El-Sheik (Egypt), Krakow (Poland), Vienna, Rome, Barcelona, Sheffield (UK).

The idea of one-world as proposed seems dull to me. Instead, let every nation be different from others and take responsibility for their own collective actions.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
sameness is lameness

nobody is proposing "sameness"
except for law...but only certain laws.

Already now when I travel the world, things are looking similar to everywhere else. The national individuality of nations continues to get lost in "globalization". On the Fiji-Islands, the first thing you see when you get out of the plane, is McDonalds. A shoe-store called "FootLocker", which I have never visited before, I have seen in Sharm-El-Sheik (Egypt), Krakow (Poland), Vienna, Rome, Barcelona, Sheffield (UK).

the areas still retain their respective cultures. here in malta there is a burgerking and mcdonals, but i've noticed it's different from the counterparts in america. the biggest thing? people actually eat inside of the establishment. most people in america take their food home or...in what should be an exception, but isn't... go through the drive through and eat in their parked car in the parking lot...

The idea of one-world as proposed seems dull to me.

but you've thrown in only incidental ideas about globalization that will happen either way as a result of diffusion of peoples and ideas.

Instead, let every nation be different from others and take responsibility for their own collective actions.

yes, let's keep it so that women die in honor killings and genital mutilation is allowed.
or so that nations are stuck in perpetual poverty
HOW FUN!...
difference isn't always a good thing.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Last week I was diving in sharm-el-sheik, egypt.. The whole week I did not see a single woman working. Not in restaurants, not in hotels, not at diving centers, not at shops. The only working woman I saw was a massagist, and she wasnt even egyptian. When I asked someone where all the women are, he only responded: "Women must stay at home". Come to think of it...I didnt see many women there in general.

So, I agree with you that there´s is something sickish and oppressive about certain regions in the world and that some regions are far from being open and free.

Oh...did I mention I went to Burger King there? In egyptian burger king, you dont wait for your meal at the counter, a courteous waiter brings it to the table, along with catsup and mustard.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So, I agree with you that there´s is something sickish and oppressive about certain regions in the world and that some regions are far from being open and free.

exactly, that's the primary change that i'm trying to push for.

Oh...did I mention I went to Burger King there? In egyptian burger king, you dont wait for your meal at the counter, a courteous waiter brings it to the table, along with catsup and mustard.

burger king in malta doesn't even have mustard... which i find quite odd.

ok...so this thread seems to have died. i guess nobody could come up with a reasoned defense for a system of nations instead of a union of all people.

i still can't understand what the point is in labeling yourself by geography...
why are you an italian, spaniard, american, etc? why aren't we all just humans?

Ok, how about this? The US will never become a country until it takes the blame for the most complete and destructive genocide in the history of nations. You don't hear the jews going on about that one. Death to the zionist bankers who have corrupted the world! sorry to get off topic but I'm really angry.

Originally posted by dakota jim
Ok, how about this? The US will never become a country until it takes the blame for the most complete and destructive genocide in the history of nations.

...here's a sad dose of reality: a lot of nations have been created by genocide, so the US really doesn't have any precedent for apologizing until they've lost a conflict

You don't hear the jews going on about that one.

really? the volunteers at the holocaust museum talked a lot about it where i grew up...
the antisemitism really isn't appreciated.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ok...so this thread seems to have died. i guess nobody could come up with a reasoned defense for a system of nations instead of a union of all people.

Ideally, the regional nation state should serve the needs and proclivities of the people in that region, as they determine. Different cultures and creeds will have different ideas of what's best, so why not allow them self determination? Here in the West, we see that highly centralized government does not do a good job of responding to the needs and wishes of the people, but rather imposes the agenda of the big money PTB from above. A larger and more distant global gov would only be worse. What we need is more local gov, and less centralization. If you think globalization means an end to war you're fooling yourself. War is caused by the greed and power hunger of those in control, not by people speaking different languages or having different beliefs. All globalism does is increase the tyranny of the most powerful, and continue the disenfranchisement of the individual, who's ability to effect change will always be most keen on the local level. So basically I see the solution as being just the opposite of yours. Educate the people so they don't fall for the false flags and war propaganda, and return political power to the local level, where the people can much more easily assert their rightful control.

Ok, bare with me. I just finished reading all 7 pages of posts... and I am a bit confused on something.

You said you want to give everyone equal opportunity without redistribution fo wealth. I am assuming you mean the following:

1) Food
2) Education
3) Housing

List is probably longer, but let's go with that for starters. Using the USA as a comparison point, we have overcrowded schools, poverty stricken areas, homeless, etc. How exactly do we give other former countries the same opportunities as the better parts of the USA?

I pay taxes. These taxes go to the schools in my area. We vote on tax increases as needed. The schools are not bad, but I still think they could be better.

Now, taking County X (from example above)... how would they be granted the same opportunities I have? In detail please, because I am totally missing how any of this is related to opening borders.

Now, before you answer, please include the following...

1) Where are they going to live? There is already a housing shortage.
2) Where are they going to work? We already have unemployed.
3) What are they going to eat without a job, and without taking food out of my family's mouths?

I would be very interested in your solutions to these problems.

Originally posted by resistor
Ideally, the regional nation state should serve the needs and proclivities of the people in that region, as they determine. Different cultures and creeds will have different ideas of what's best, so why not allow them self determination?

because not all ideas for "what's best" are equally effective... or right.

Here in the West, we see that highly centralized government does not do a good job of responding to the needs and wishes of the people, but rather imposes the agenda of the big money PTB from above.

really? because i've yet to see how this applies to the states with the most centralized governments...

A larger and more distant global gov would only be worse.

where is the evidence?
a line of reasoning with some supporting evidence would be so wonderful right now
that way, i can actually discuss things. bring in counterpoints and counterevidence instead of just asking for evidence.

What we need is more local gov, and less centralization.

more local government doesn't work... it actually deprives many individuals of rights as the tyranny of the majority is more likely on a smaller scale. in larger governments there are safeguards to protect against this... but in a local town, the minority groups get oppressed.

If you think globalization means an end to war you're fooling yourself.

well...it'll sure as hell stop mass scale wars like we've seen in the past. china and america will NEVER attack each other due to their economic dependence.
that's just one example

War is caused by the greed and power hunger of those in control, not by people speaking different languages or having different beliefs.

why are you throwing in different languages and beliefs? that's completely off topic as i'm not talking about abolishing difference in language and belief.
i'm talking borders
no nations, no wars. it's kind of simple.

All globalism does is increase the tyranny of the most powerful, and continue the disenfranchisement of the individual, who's ability to effect change will always be most keen on the local level.

and i'm not arguing for globalism, what i'm arguing for is a step beyond globalism and a complete change in policy, so this is pretty much a strawman

So basically I see the solution as being just the opposite of yours. Educate the people so they don't fall for the false flags and war propaganda,

education
is
the
primary
aspect
of
my
plan
...

nobody reads anything these days... they just make assumptions and jump in

and return political power to the local level, where the people can much more easily assert their rightful control.

yes, their right to oppress the minority...
not to mention the ineffectiveness of local governance.
take a close look and you'll realize that government is actually MORE corrupt on the local level, it's just not publicized because it's smaller scale and less people are interested in such matters.

Originally posted by TLomon
Ok, bare with me. I just finished reading all 7 pages of posts... and I am a bit confused on something.

well, it's better for you to admit you're confused and ask for clarification than to just jump in not knowing what i'm talking about

You said you want to give everyone equal opportunity without redistribution fo wealth. I am assuming you mean the following:

1) Food
2) Education
3) Housing

well, equal access to them. we won't just doll out food to people who don't want to work. if you want to work, if you're looking for a job, we make sure you're fed and housed
the education part is open for all...

List is probably longer, but let's go with that for starters.

yes, it is... but you're right, it's a good start

Using the USA as a comparison point, we have overcrowded schools, poverty stricken areas, homeless, etc. How exactly do we give other former countries the same opportunities as the better parts of the USA?

well, the USA isn't the country i was going to use as a sole example. i'd say norway would be a good one for some aspects, france for others, the usa for some

I pay taxes. These taxes go to the schools in my area. We vote on tax increases as needed. The schools are not bad, but I still think they could be better.

Now, taking County X (from example above)... how would they be granted the same opportunities I have? In detail please, because I am totally missing how any of this is related to opening borders.

well, the open borders thing is about economic growth. capitalism isn't zero-sum... which took me a bit of time to wrap my head around. the more people we have progressing, the more the system will feed itself.
we start off slow and it snowballs. people get better and better education

Now, before you answer, please include the following...

1) Where are they going to live? There is already a housing shortage.

build more houses

2) Where are they going to work? We already have unemployed.

well...there are houses that need to be built...

there was a philosophy in england. they believed that if they could have full employment during wartime, they could do it during peace time.

understand where i'm coming from? we make jobs doing something that will stimulate economic activity. once the project is done, the stimulated economy will create more jobs and the now unemployed workers will have somewhere to go

3) What are they going to eat without a job, and without taking food out of my family's mouths?

we could triple the world's food production....
not to mention cutting down on waste of food...
and they do have jobs.

however... it's not perfect. i'm no economist, my knowledge of economics is quite limited.
so i need some help with certain aspects.
i've actually decided to flush out this idea into a book... so eventually you'll get the full gist.

Good Idea...instead of a few third world countries, lets turn the entire world into slum.

Raf

i see on todays cnn news that south africa which followed zimbabwe's lead of getting rid of white governments has started to slide into zimbabwe's hell-cant produce electricity anymore for all that they used to.

unemployment rate is 25% and falling.theyhave had 14 years of "freedom" and its all been downhill into a crime cesspool-----and you madinessinyour soul want us to become just like them?

you must be a part of the nwo and the imf ? because they want exactly the same for america as you propose-----to turn us all into poor sweatshop slaves that have to work because they have stolen and squandered our hard earned money-----ours---not theirs.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
build more houses

Where would the land come from to build these houses on? Remember, you promised not to take away from anyone.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well...there are houses that need to be built...

If we can't keep our current population employed, how would we employ others wanting to immigrate to the US? The reason for a housing shortage in areas is due to lack of land, not lack of building. A lot of contractors use day laborers (read: unemployed) for just this reason.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there was a philosophy in england. they believed that if they could have full employment during wartime, they could do it during peace time.

This is an idealism, and isn't realistic. For example, once you stop war all over the world, what would you have all the soldiers do? They can't be soldiers anymore in your ideal society. Unemployment figures were seriously fudged in the US when they decided to count military as employed instead of out of the equation.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
understand where i'm coming from? we make jobs doing something that will stimulate economic activity. once the project is done, the stimulated economy will create more jobs and the now unemployed workers will have somewhere to go

You have to produce a product or service to contribute to the economy. The product needs a buyer willing to pay a markup price for the company or individual to make a profit.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we could triple the world's food production....
not to mention cutting down on waste of food...
and they do have jobs.

So, the food that a farmer grows goes to a location that can't pay a reasonable market value for it... and then the farm can no longer afford to stay in business. This won't work under a capalist system.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
however... it's not perfect. i'm no economist, my knowledge of economics is quite limited.

Accounting and Economics is what my degrees are in, not that I use them in my current job, but I do keep up with the material when calculating cost analysis manufacturing in virtual economies of MMORGS.

Now, let's review a few of your other points... You stated that food will be given to those willing to work. What about those unable to work, due to physical or mental reasons? What pays for their food?

In addition, who is paying for the food that is being given away? Someone has to produce it, and since you insist this is capitalism, someone has to get paid for it. Yet, having a job doesn't mean you can afford it.

What you are proposing is a socialist/communist society but are calling it capitalism to prevent people from being shocked by change. But when you take land away from people, put farmers out of business, distribute foodstuffs and materials globally as long as people want to work, I have to ask... who decides this?

A farmer should have every right to sell his wheat to Norway for $100 a bushel instead of selling it in Africa for $10. By stating he can't you are taking away his rights under a capitalist society and replacing it with something else.

What about automation? More are more jobs are becoming obsolete because a machine can do it better, faster, and cheaper. Are you going to insist companies can't maximize profit for the sake of the job market?

Originally posted by TLomon
Where would the land come from to build these houses on? Remember, you promised not to take away from anyone.

buy the land.

If we can't keep our current population employed, how would we employ others wanting to immigrate to the US?

i think i addressed this a bit earlier. we wouldn't immediately do that whole "open borders" thing. it would be a gradual transition process. first we'd actually make the countries self-sufficient and thriving, THEN we'd open the borders. this way, we prevent the flood of employment.

The reason for a housing shortage in areas is due to lack of land, not lack of building. A lot of contractors use day laborers (read: unemployed) for just this reason.

it's actually not due to lack of land, it's more a mismanagement of land. you can build up...

This is an idealism, and isn't realistic. For example, once you stop war all over the world, what would you have all the soldiers do? They can't be soldiers anymore in your ideal society. Unemployment figures were seriously fudged in the US when they decided to count military as employed instead of out of the equation.

firefighters, first responders, police forces, etc etc
there are plenty of jobs that they could do... hell, we'd take military funding away, give it to public service and create those jobs for them.
they have the training, they just need a few specifics.

You have to produce a product or service to contribute to the economy. The product needs a buyer willing to pay a markup price for the company or individual to make a profit.

obviously. we can make projects to stimulate the development of business.

So, the food that a farmer grows goes to a location that can't pay a reasonable market value for it... and then the farm can no longer afford to stay in business. This won't work under a capalist system.

well, i never said it was purely capitalist. farmers would be subsidized for the food that goes to those markets. obviously not all of it would or the rest of the world would starve.

Accounting and Economics is what my degrees are in, not that I use them in my current job, but I do keep up with the material when calculating cost analysis manufacturing in virtual economies of MMORGS.

Now, let's review a few of your other points... You stated that food will be given to those willing to work. What about those unable to work, due to physical or mental reasons? What pays for their food?

the government. they'll be put into healthcare facilities. those that can't be rehabilitated to be fit for working will be taken care of.

In addition, who is paying for the food that is being given away? Someone has to produce it, and since you insist this is capitalism, someone has to get paid for it. Yet, having a job doesn't mean you can afford it.

well, i never said pure capitalism... it's capitalistic.

What you are proposing is a socialist/communist society but are calling it capitalism to prevent people from being shocked by change. But when you take land away from people, put farmers out of business, distribute foodstuffs and materials globally as long as people want to work, I have to ask... who decides this?

...ok, i'm not talking about taking land away. land would be purchased.

and who decides it...well, i haven't worked that out yet.

A farmer should have every right to sell his wheat to Norway for $100 a bushel instead of selling it in Africa for $10. By stating he can't you are taking away his rights under a capitalist society and replacing it with something else.

and a starving child in africa gets to starve to death due to genetic lottery...
i'm sorry, but a right to food comes in over the right to let that child starve for the sake of profit.

capitalism isn't perfect, socialism isn't perfect
but they both have good ideas
why not take the best of both?
if you call it socialist, it's wrong
if you call it capitalist...it's closer. it's not a state run economy. it's socio-capitalist.

What about automation? More are more jobs are becoming obsolete because a machine can do it better, faster, and cheaper. Are you going to insist companies can't maximize profit for the sake of the job market?

you still need people to build the machines... and even if machines are building the machines, you need people to design and build the machines building the machines

i guess employment will come from service industries. there are many business you can't run without people.

Originally posted by yahn goodey
i see on todays cnn news that south africa which followed zimbabwe's lead of getting rid of white governments has started to slide into zimbabwe's hell-cant produce electricity anymore for all that they used to.

and this is completely off topic.

unemployment rate is 25% and falling.theyhave had 14 years of "freedom" and its all been downhill into a crime cesspool-----and you madinessinyour soul want us to become just like them?

...no...
this shows you've read nothing of the thread

you must be a part of the nwo and the imf ?

i'm 19 years old.. how the hell would i be affiliated with the nwo?
and what's the imf? how the hell can i be part of something when i need to google it to realize it's the international monetary fund

because they want exactly the same for america as you propose-----to turn us all into poor sweatshop slaves that have to work because they have stolen and squandered our hard earned money-----ours---not theirs.

wow... you obviously haven't read anything i wrote. i'm not about taking anything from anyone...
see, this is what i've been talking about, people not reading the thread

Originally posted by Raf_50
Good Idea...instead of a few third world countries, lets turn the entire world into slum.

nice strawman
you're ignoring the issue. it's about sharing prosperity, not equaling things out. we raise those at the bottom up to a position where they have true social and economic mobility.

The problem with a unified world government is not that it wouldnt function well- of course it would be more efficient than the current many state system. The problem is- that in every society thus far created- at some point a villainous group gains power and bends or pounds the society to their fancy- depriving others of their basic rights, needs and even lives. If there is only one state- then there is no opposing force to keep them in check- once tyrrany is established- the populace has no recourse.....

Speaking of MMORPG economies, what if it were possible in the not so distant future fo large amounts of people to earn real life livings in virtual worlds. I know South Korea sort of has something like this going on, and they have that world series of gaming thing going down here in America... as Bill Gates recently said, we need creative capitalism to manipulate the system provide for the poor as well as it currently provides for the rich. Virtual jobs could be just one part of that creative capitalism, that thinks outsdie of the confines of our current system in order to do what's truly important: providing opportunities for all of earth's people to live a decent life.