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.

 

If ALL global leaders were voted on by global population, will this help bring peace.

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


I see your points as far as now/present goes yes these leaders need voted for but in future you feel a good population exist w/o any type of leaders corrupting the populace, interesting...

Thanks




posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 





This thread was inspired by the now Lybia conflict going on and others in the past so I wondered is there a way to help the people so they dont gotta hear and deal with bombs overhead due to them having bad dictatorship in their local.


Again, people get the government they deserve. All governments, including those run by "bad dictators" - as if "good dictators" was an option - exist by consent of the governed. It is arguable, I suppose, that there will always be petty differences between people, and for this reason some form of arbitration is necessary, but the problems in Libya are created by, in a large part, the people of Libya. All problems are self manifested.

The United States has no business interfering in Libya's manifest destiny, nor did the U.S. have any business in Iraq, or even Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. has no business maintaining a standing army, and certainly has no business keeping the amazingly dangerous nuclear arsenal it keeps. The 2nd Amendment should have instructed U.S. "leaders" at the time nuclear weapons were being developed. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The reason people have the right to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves from tyranny, externally and internally. Since protection of tyranny includes the potential tyranny of their own government, and since the U.S. keeps and maintains a nuclear arsenal, then it is arguable that the people have the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, which should have instructed the U.S. government on how remarkably imprudent it would be to develop nuclear weapons. Instead, the "leaders" opted to develop the weapons and had all ready gone down the road of treating unalienable rights as things that they alone can grant and take away.

Where I mentioned in my first post that the greatest sham perpetuated on the people is the notion that democracy equals freedom, the second greatest sham is that the U.S. is a free nation that respects human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth, and allowing people in Libya to elect "leaders" in the U.S. will not change this. What will change this is the American people, and not by violent revolution, but through peaceful enlightened self governed non acquiescence.

What if war was declared and nobody showed? What if a tyrant declared himself "leader" and everyone laughed? What if people learned to accept responsibility for their own actions? What would happen then? My guess is that people would realize that their responsibility goes beyond their own actions and that blame is irrelevant, which may touch upon what you are getting at - how can we help others - but it is imperative that we learn to be gentle in doing good. Electing "leaders" is not the answer. This is a delegation of responsibility. The question is not what WE can do to change the world, the question is what can I do...what can YOU do, to change the world. Voting is hardly the answer.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Romanian
 

Interesting point dividing countries into 50,000 thats a new for me. My only concern now is there would now be country leaders in positions of small town mayors. Which to me seems like it can get difficult to manage do to their being so much distance between multi county reps. their county needs and the pres or prim minister.
I also think it would be a great idea for being used to discuss global issues. And have taken into consideration that everyones IQ and learning abilities will differ. But can be overcame.

Thanks

edit on 3/22/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 



To leave them behind why everyone else is eating microwave popcoorn and watching cable tv... Unless, overlords HAVE to keep a certain amount of population left behind.


Well, see, there you have it. A lot of people might not think microwave popcorn is such a good idea. Same with cable. But of course the western way has to prevail, huh?

just an example my friend, if you ain know I was just saying im sure most would not mind clean water/medication/somewhat fair laws to protect the unprotected. Sorry you took it like I was forcing western ideas on the topic. That was not my intents. Usage of electricity my friend.

But of course the western way has to prevail- No do as you been.

Originally posted by wayno
Turn it around. There are more Chinese and East Indians than any other group. Do you really want them deciding your leader??

In the primary it would be cool to see who the world agrees with before voting YES...
thanks



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join