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.

 

Republican Senate Candidate Says Voters Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Elect Their Senators (VIDEO)

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Republican Senate Candidate Says Voters Shouldn’t Be Allowed To Elect Their Senators (VIDEO)

Another Republican candidate that has been pushing to repeal the 17th amendment, claiming that state's legislatures should determine a state's senators, as opposed to being elected by the state's voters.


Todd Akin is currently in a primary race to be the Republican candidate to face Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in Missouri. As part of the primary, Akin took part in a debate last week and tried to justify stripping Americans of their right to vote for their senators, which is guaranteed by the 17th Amendment of the Constitution.

Akin claimed that directly electing senators violates state’s rights.


Akin says that the only way to make state’s rights stronger is to take the election of senators out of the hands of the people, and allow state legislatures to hand pick them.




Over the years, many Republicans have called for repealing the 17th Amendment, including Utah Senator Mike Lee, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, just to name a few. Akin is just the latest Republican to do so. But why do Republicans hate Americans having the right to elect their senators? The answer is that Republicans don’t trust the American people. If you haven’t noticed, Republicans have been making efforts across the country to severely restrict voting rights. From voter ID laws to voter purges, Republicans have a major problem with people having the right to vote. A New Hampshire Republican once said that college students shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’ll vote liberal. And conservative preachers and [url=http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/07/460188/in-2009-derbyshire-argued-women-shouldnt-vote-women-voting-is-bad-for-conservatism/]writers[/u rl] have actually complained about women having the right to vote.


It's nice to see our candidates are really looking out for our best interests, such as not letting us vote for our own senators. This seems to be a common theme among today's brand of quasi-conservatives.




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Has voting for our senators gotten us better senators?

.... not that I'd trust the representatives that currently hold office to do any better.

I'd rather see them get rid of the 14th amendment. That's the one that puts us all under federal jurisdiction.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
That was the way it was originally, when states actually had rights and the federal government didn't rule everyone. The idea was that the senators were the states' representatives; the House was the "People's House." Both had rights and responsibilities vis-a-vis the Federal government. In theory the people have control over their own states' legislatures, therefore they also have indirect control over the senators. The senators were there to do the states' bidding.

The Federal government really pulled a coup with the 17th amendment. They got the people riled up enough to take the control away from the states. The vacuum was filled by the Federal government. It was then that "The United States" became a singular noun rather than a plural noun.

Lots of people here rail against the establishment of a New World Order and One World Government. Well? The same thing happened with the 17th amendment. Your rights as self-governing human beings were all subjugated from a union of self-governing states that united for such things as self defense, to an all-powerful central government that essentially tells the states what to do.

The amazing thing is that people think a proposal to reverse the 17th amendment is taking away the power of the people. It isn't. It's putting it back in your hands. I don't expect such a proposal will ever fly. The Federal government has its talons in our hides so completely that all it has to do is flex its muscle and you will all say "Yes, sir!"



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I am in favor of appealing the 17th amendment. I think State legislatures should appoint the senators. This will make it harder for them to be bought by special interests because the state can recall them if they aren't representing their respective states.. This will give more power back to the states where it should be. We are suppose to be a Constitutional Republic not a democracy.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I agree with both you and wardk28, but its bigger than that, anything beyond the 13th amendment needs to go into the shredder if we're going to ever get back State's rights. But its the 16th that keeps our money being siphoned off by the feds rather than funding the states, as it should.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
There are many opinions that suggest the 17th Amendment was a Liberal agenda.

It seems to correlate with the time frame of the Federal Reserve.

It also was ratified during times of Liberal movements around the world.

Some even were concerned about corruption.


Judge Bybee has argued that the amendment led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, with the lack of a state-based check on Congress allowing the federal government to supersede states.[2] This was partially fueled by the Senators; he wrote in the Northwestern University Law Review:

Politics, like nature, abhorred a vacuum, so senators felt the pressure to do something, namely enact laws. Once senators were no longer accountable to and constrained by state legislatures, the maximizing function for senators was unrestrained; senators almost always found in their own interest to procure federal legislation, even to the detriment of state control of traditional state functions.[21]

Rossum, concurring, gives the New Deal legislation as an early example of the expansion of federal regulation.[44] Ure agrees, saying that not only is each Senator now free to ignore his state's needs, Senators "have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty."[45] Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review, analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a "statistically significant difference" in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold.[46]

17th Amendment impact



sidenote:

The following states did not ratify the Seventeenth Amendment

Utah (explicitly rejected amendment)
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Virginia




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
To all above; how is allowing a state's population to elect a state's representatives a violation of that state's rights? The 17th amendment allows for the direct election of a state's senators by popular vote. It also offers a good 'check and balance' for state's legislatures. One of the biggest of those 'checks and balances' is to keep a state legislature, should it become one-party lopsided, from redrawing district maps to all but eliminate the opposing party. Even now where where one-party legislatures hold only a slim lead they engage in 'gerry-mandering' to eliminate opposing party districts. Case in point: Dennis Kucinich, who had his district eliminated, forcing him out of office.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



but its bigger than that, anything beyond the 13th amendment needs to go into the shredder if we're going to ever get back State's rights.


Well that's going a little far, I don't know about you but I think women's suffrage and due process are good things.

Why should the "people" not be able to vote for their Representative in the senate?
edit on 30-5-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by frazzle
 



but its bigger than that, anything beyond the 13th amendment needs to go into the shredder if we're going to ever get back State's rights.


Well that's going a little far, I don't know about you but I think women's suffrage and due process are good things.

Why should the "people" not be able to vote for their Representative in the senate?
edit on 30-5-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)


Au contraire, I didn't go anywhere near far enough, there are also hundreds of EOs, PDDs and signing statments that need to go bye bye. And as someone said earlier ~ the federal reserve act has always been a real sticking point for the states and individuals living in them. For good measure, I'd throw in the Buck Act and the Public Employee Payroll Tax Act as well as the Social Security Act into the shredder. Shoot, we could have a ticker tape parade from coast to coast by the time I got done.

Women's suffrage? The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee the same rights to ALL citizens, it has always been the people elected to office throughout this country's history who have chosen to "set aside" certain people's equal rights based on skin color, gender, etc. That doesn't mean the laws weren't there, just that they were ignored and twisted. Even the Civil Rights Act would never have been necessary if elected representatives had acknowledged that the BoR was not limited and should not exclude any group of people.

Due process as it is practiced today is a joke. They should call them Plea Agreement Courts and be done with it. Only if we went back to common law courts and jury nullification rules would we have anything resembling due process.

And like I asked someone else earlier, has being allowed to vote in any way made your pursuit of happiness easier? Its an illusion
.
Holy Cow, I forgot the most important one ~ the United Nations Treaty. Hasta la vista, baby!!!



edit on 30-5-2012 by frazzle because:

edit on 30-5-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



Women's suffrage? The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee the same rights to ALL citizens, it has always been the people elected to office throughout this country's history who have chosen to "set aside" certain people's equal rights based on skin color, gender, etc. That doesn't mean the laws weren't there, just that they were ignored and twisted. Even the Civil Rights Act would never have been necessary if elected representatives had acknowledged that the BoR was not limited and should not exclude any group of people.


First off you cant anthropomorphize the constitution. Most if not all the writers of the constitution owned slaves and had wives that did not vote (women in New jersey could if they "met" the requirements but that was stopped between 1800 and 1810). They weren't ignored or twisted, they were simply interpreted differently.

Dred Scott

Racism and sexism were very alive back then, and if it wasn't for progressive thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th century it would still be much more prevalent. And IMO it still very much is but its just in the closet, just go to Darlington, SC and talk to some people about race down at the speedway.

These amendments solidified a progressive interpretation of aspects of the constitution, as oppose to the old "elitist" (if you will) view.

The extreme views that are being pushed by the right now days are amazing.


And like I asked someone else earlier, has being allowed to vote in any way made your pursuit of happiness easier? Its an illusion.


So democracy is an Illusion?

How should we be ruled then?

By feudal lords or military dictators?

ETA:


Holy Cow, I forgot the most important one ~ the United Nations Treaty. Hasta la vista, baby!!!


Yes lets just turn the clock back 150 years and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world as they progress and we devolve into nationalism.
edit on 30-5-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by frazzle
 



Women's suffrage? The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee the same rights to ALL citizens, it has always been the people elected to office throughout this country's history who have chosen to "set aside" certain people's equal rights based on skin color, gender, etc. That doesn't mean the laws weren't there, just that they were ignored and twisted. Even the Civil Rights Act would never have been necessary if elected representatives had acknowledged that the BoR was not limited and should not exclude any group of people.


First off you cant anthropomorphize the constitution. Most if not all the writers of the constitution owned slaves and had wives that did not vote (women in New jersey could if they "met" the requirements but that was stopped between 1800 and 1810). They weren't ignored or twisted, they were simply interpreted differently.

Dred Scott

Racism and sexism were very alive back then, and if it wasn't for progressive thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th century it would still be much more prevalent. And IMO it still very much is but its just in the closet, just go to Darlington, SC and talk to some people about race down at the speedway.

These amendments solidified a progressive interpretation of aspects of the constitution, as oppose to the old "elitist" (if you will) view.

The extreme views that are being pushed by the right now days are amazing.


And like I asked someone else earlier, has being allowed to vote in any way made your pursuit of happiness easier? Its an illusion.


So democracy is an Illusion?

How should we be ruled then?

By feudal lords or military dictators?

ETA:


Holy Cow, I forgot the most important one ~ the United Nations Treaty. Hasta la vista, baby!!!


Yes lets just turn the clock back 150 years and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world as they progress and we devolve back into nationalism.

edit on 30-5-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)


Can you find any language in the Constitution or BoR that negates women's rights, or Black's rights? Of course you can't. And although its true that some of the leaders of that time were elitists and bigots, they could never have written something like that into law and expected it to be ratified. They actually did use tar and feathers back then. Also, the Bill of Rights was only passed after many of the delegates and states demanded it be added because they understood the dangers of unfettered power.

As for how we should be ruled, I'm hard pressed to figure out why the heck people think they NEED to be ruled in the first place. Aren't you capable of ruling yourself? And you didn't answer my question: has being able to vote made your pursuit of happiness easier? If not, you should be pretty ticked off at the people you elected.

Eliminating the UN treaty would not end our ability to trade or negotiate with the rest of the world, however our future trade and those negotiations would not be dictated to us by unelected foreign powers, but by OURSELVES. Imagine that.

It sounds to me like the only people you trust are the elites, and the higher their office the more you trust them. Maybe you should just trust yourself more.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



Can you find any language in the Constitution or BoR that negates women's rights, or Black's rights? Of course you can't. And although its true that some of the leaders of that time were elitists and bigots, they could never have written something like that into law and expected it to be ratified. They actually did use tar and feathers back then. Also, the Bill of Rights was only passed after many of the delegates and states demanded it be added because they understood the dangers of unfettered power.


But again that Bill of rights did not say women could vote or slaves born in America of African descent were citizens. Those "rights" and "morals" are subjective.


As for how we should be ruled, I'm hard pressed to figure out why the heck people think they NEED to be ruled in the first place. Aren't you capable of ruling yourself?


Yes that is why we have democracy, so the "people" can have a say in government, and YES we do need a government a large one to.

What we have now is not a democracy, it is an out of control plutocratic/feudal empire that is going to eventually collapse, because all empires do.


And you didn't answer my question: has being able to vote made your pursuit of happiness easier? If not, you should be pretty ticked off at the people you elected.


Sorry I didn't answer your question, in certain ways yes it has and in certain ways no it has not. I am more than willing to agree as are most that the system is screwed up, but its not messed up as a result of the Social Security system or the 17th amendment. But politicians using there positions for greed. That's it...getting in bed with large corporations and special interest groups.


Eliminating the UN treaty would not end our ability to trade or negotiate with the rest of the world, however our future trade and those negotiations would not be dictated to us by unelected foreign powers, but by OURSELVES. Imagine that.


And this is what extreme conservatives in america have in common with foreign nationalists, an argument that nations should not be dependent on one another. The thing is...we are and we always will be. Why should we not be involved with the politics of the world and why shouldn't other countries be involved in our politics? Why should we not be able to punish criminals who commit genocide against their people?


It sounds to me like the only people you trust are the elites, and the higher their office the more you trust them. Maybe you should just trust yourself more.


Not really. I am not satisfied with the current president, or many people in the administration, I did not vote for it. I'm not satisfied with my home state either we are in bad economic times.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


Wow, this is going to take some time and its already about half past bedtime here.

mañana


SM2

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
before the 17th amendment, the people were represented by the representatives in the house, the states were represented by the senators they the state legislatures elected in the senate. That is when we the states were still respected by the federal government and were still considered sovereign states in a union. The individual states could recall any senator not representing the state's interests to their satisfaction as well. It was a check and balance to the system. Each party involved had equal representation, the people and the states. Makes perfect sense to me. I guess that is why it is no longer like that, it made sense and helped maintain the republic as intended



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I prefer to have 25 different cereal choices and two terrible candidates at all time, 35 ben and jerrys flavors and 4 wedge topics that dont mean squat, a rep that reps a reps rep that worked for the company that loves to poison our water, food and air....please put on another episode of cupcake wars so i can subconsciously want to attack my neighbor because there dog pooped on my lawn once, no forgiveness for u. beer, boobs, and babies....thats how america runs, throw the constitution in the garbage and light one up.

end rant?

btw i hear that senator loves truck stops and hates gay marriage



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SM2
 


So how do you suppose out state's senators are getting there now? They're not being appointed by the federal government, they are being elected by the eligible voters of their respective states by popular vote. As far as the federal government goes it's all the same.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


What they gave us with the Constitution was a representative republic, not a democracy, however its well established that Republics always devolve into democracy and then into chaos. We’re not quite at the chaos level yet, but moving swiftly in that direction.

I’ve always thought of the Constitution as a manual on how to properly set a table, with the Bill of Rights as the meat and potatoes on the plate. But the Constitution specifically lists 16 issues over which the federal government has authority, called the enumerated powers. I have many issues with the language in the Constitution, but article 1 section 8 limits the federal government to those particular issues and they’ve gone so far beyond the scope of those limitations that its mindboggling. You could write a book ~ well, actually there are thousands of books out there detailing how far beyond those powers they’ve gone. And each time they overstep their boundaries, the promotions of why they must do so always comes across as reasonable and logical until those oversteps are actually put into play. That’s because theory seldom works out very well in practice, but instead of stepping back, they keep building on the faulty theories that went before.

If your primary complaint is that the Constitution didn’t give women the right to vote, well, you probably already know that only white male landowners were given that right and we can be sure that there were also MANY white males of that era who were not landowners. Apparently the framers were trying to limit voting to people who had “skin in the game”, not based on the color of said skin or gender, but it was highly discriminatory and that’s just one of the issues I have with the original constitution’s language and intent.

If we were to call for a Constitutional Convention today, I’d like to see wording that requires testing for a basic understanding of what the rule of law actually says and what all of the successions of legislatures, etc. have done to overturn that rule in the past 300 plus years as the benchmark for voting rights. Changes are good if the people making those changes have a clue as to why and how they should be made ~ and I’m not talking about emotional responses, like “get out of my uterus”. Hell, the government had no authority to be there in the first place, until women demanded they get in there. Now they want them back out ~ until the bill comes due.

Such interference in our lives always reminds me of James Madison’s quote from the federalist papers: “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” And that reminds me of the rep from Illinois yesterday screaming on the house floor and throwing pages of legislation that “cannot be read or understood” all over his colleagues. But Roe vs Wade is just one tiny example of what big government can do TO you because you THINK you want it. And you think you want more of it? Go wander through the stacks of legal mish mash at your state’s law library to see just how damned voluminous the law really is. And most of it is incoherent if you’re not a Philadelphia lawyer, which was the intent of the original 13th amendment ~ to keep the lawyers OUT of government so a layman could understand what they were really saying, writing and doing.

I know this little rant goes against the grain, but eliminating the 17th amendment won’t make a bit of difference in real terms unless they go back and eliminate everything from the 14th on and start over, without the lawyers, because you will never find a plutocrat without his stable of lawyers working day and night to confuse you and me. That’s why the original 13th amendment was scrapped and replaced with another. Shakespeare was right.

But the Bill of Rights is the PEOPLE’S legal meat and potatoes and it has been skewed, screwed, blued and tattooed by representatives who were elected by people too ill-informed, misinformed and just plain too lazy to study the issues the candidates campaigned on, or know their previous voting records and personal integrity. It’s all about pretty lies and empty promises. Anything but the harsh ugly truth of who and what we have become and how we got that way.

Finally, why do we need to be “dependent” on government or foreign nations to successfully deal with others humanely? Our inhumanity to man as well as financial straits worldwide have increased exponentially since the US created and then became dependent upon a foreign body’s (WTO) power to dictate with whom we must be “friends” and “enemies”.

This, once again, is not a right / left paradigm, its basic common sense because the bird’s brain that causes both wings to flap IS the plutocracy. That’s why you’re not happy.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



If your primary complaint is that the Constitution didn’t give women the right to vote, well, you probably already know that only white male landowners were given that right and we can be sure that there were also MANY white males of that era who were not landowners. Apparently the framers were trying to limit voting to people who had “skin in the game”, not based on the color of said skin or gender, but it was highly discriminatory and that’s just one of the issues I have with the original constitution’s language and intent.


Yes it catered to the "privileged", that is my complaint. The original interpretation of the document was very elitist, however times changed and peoples outlook on life and society evolved as we got more involved with the rest of the world.


“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” And that reminds me of the rep from Illinois yesterday screaming on the house floor and throwing pages of legislation that “cannot be read or understood” all over his colleagues.


I can agree with you here, our Representatives are given little to no time to read the documentation that is put in front of them. Also the language of those documents are crazy I remember reading a story of a man who was denied medicare when he had breast cancer, because the language of the document described it as a "female" disease, that is crazy.


But the Bill of Rights is the PEOPLE’S legal meat and potatoes and it has been skewed, screwed, blued and tattooed by representatives who were elected by people too ill-informed, misinformed and just plain too lazy to study the issues the candidates campaigned on, or know their previous voting records and personal integrity. It’s all about pretty lies and empty promises. Anything but the harsh ugly truth of who and what we have become and how we got that way.


Yes democracy has flaws, it is no where near a perfect system and is one reason wer are NOT a pure democracy. It is much better for average people to be electing Representatives, then some non elected Oligarchy appointing people to positions. If this was the case corruption would be ridiculous, even worse then it is now.

And not all of our elected Representatives are bad people or liars, I would say many of them are trying really hard to change things, on both sides. But the left and the right are soooooooo extreme now days that the centrist positions of old have been lost. From the late 1940's until the late 70's we had a very very prosperous time in the US because both the right and the left agreed on things and compromised on others. But now if the left likes it the right hates it and if the right like it the left hates it; its a revolving door of nonsense, charged by ignorance and fundamentalism on each side.


Finally, why do we need to be “dependent” on government or foreign nations to successfully deal with others humanely? Our inhumanity to man as well as financial straits worldwide have increased exponentially since the US created and then became dependent upon a foreign body’s (WTO) power to dictate with whom we must be “friends” and “enemies”.


Well firstly when has the laymen ever not been dependent on some form of organized power? Just look back in history, no such thing has ever existed. The Iron Rule of Oligarchy however does exist, this oligarchy can either be mostly corrupt or mostly honest. The goal of the worlds nations should not be to solidify their borders, but to break them down. That is not something that is around the corner but it is something we need to work on.



The enemies of the world should always be those who encourage intolerance, who enslave and butcher their people, who believe themselves to be God's in a world where only their flesh and blood brothers and sisters walk. Anyone who follows any of the ideals of the above deserve to be opposed. We have fought many wars over the passed 100 years that have fallen into this category, but most of them have been fought for wall street and "national stability".


This, once again, is not a right / left paradigm, its basic common sense because the bird’s brain that causes both wings to flap IS the plutocracy. That’s why you’re not happy.


No the plutocracy makes me very very upset, it infects all those who partake in it. We NEED legislation that forbids monopoly, that forbids corporate money in politics, that forbids corporate lobbyists, that forbids corporate slavery. This has gone on for more than 100 years, it goes all the way back to the railroad corporations.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Openeye
 


You’ll get absolutely no argument from me that the men who founded our STRONG CENTRAL government were, for the most part, elitist and that is nowhere more evident than in the anti-federalist opening statement regarding the Constitution ~ A dangerous plan of benefit only to the aristocratick combination.” That’s why you won’t find language in the founding documents that forbids corporate slavery, or lobbyists, or money in politics, or monopolies. Not only that, it gave us no teeth with which to throw off already elected officials who have undermined our sovereignty and wellbeing by cutting deals with monopolists and lobbyists behind closed doors.

But I disagree that this problem only goes back a hundred years, its been the cause of repetitive downfalls of civilizations since … well, since civilization began. And a world government would be no different, it would still be a few greedy, grasping individuals calling the shots and hoarding all the good stuff for themselves because its just human nature that the kind of people who seek power over others are generally the least deserving of it. And it would be even harder to contain or to throw off the worst offenders.

Its my own belief that the purest democracies in the world have always been practiced by the original indigenous peoples and the secret to their thousands of years of cultural success was that decisions were strictly localized and involved the WHOLE people of a tribe or band. There was no “Iron Fist”. And of course their destruction wasn’t due to corruption or political squabbling, or even wars, as ours will be, they were invaded by outsiders and destroyed. So when Americans talk about the wonders of democracy they seldom consider that several generations of our forefathers were actually responsible for its bloody end. Again, democracy ONLY works when its kept local and everyone participates. The bigger it gets, the more whacked out it gets.

The only reason this nation was prosperous in earlier decades is because there was always room for expansion and a pyramid scheme will not work for long unless there’s room to continually grow the base. Now there’s no more room to grow unless it can be stolen from someone else, so that’s what we do and the UN is in full support of those actions.

The United States has become the most intolerant butchers of mankind the world has ever known, all based on lies and greed and room to expand. You’re right, though, we do it because butchering people who’ve done us no harm is very profitable for Wall Street and the military industrial complex. And if you’ll look at who we’re primarily killing, you’ll realize that we have not risen above bigotry, we’ve fully embraced it.

But the strangest thing is that we do actually agree on the removal of national borders, although for completely different reasons, at least if I understand what you’re saying correctly. I take it that you think a single international body (call it what you will) would be able to impartially rule the world so that fairness and decency would end all hatred and selfishness so that love would bloom for all of mankind. OTOH, I think if borders and all restrictions on movement were removed, people would be like water, each seeking his or her own level and being free to live within whatever political/cultural/religious grouping they preferred, unhampered by outside forces, but trading with all. Perhaps both ideas are pie in the sky fantasies ~ but I still like mine better.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



But I disagree that this problem only goes back a hundred years


When it comes to problems in government your right, they have gone on since we established "rule of law". However private corporations being involved in politics is a relatively modern thing, going back at most 3 or 400 years. Before this "private" really didn't exist, everything was controlled by the state or throne.


And a world government would be no different, it would still be a few greedy, grasping individuals calling the shots and hoarding all the good stuff for themselves because its just human nature that the kind of people who seek power over others are generally the least deserving of it. And it would be even harder to contain or to throw off the worst offenders.


Again I say an oligarchy can either be mostly corrupt or mostly honest. It is a HUGE straw man to say that all people who want to be in government desire money and power, this couldn't be further from the truth. Some people actually DO want to make a difference and they succeed. It is however easier to be oppressive and greedy , thats why after a while the corruption starts to leak in. That is when it is responsibility of the people to change things. This is kind of difficult however when the majority of the wealthy individuals in said nation are profiting from the corruption. Because all capitalists profit from corruption, unless you own a small business then your just screwed over.

And how in a unified world government would it be harder to prosecute offenders? Especially when there is no other country with different laws for them to flee to.


Its my own belief that the purest democracies in the world have always been practiced by the original indigenous peoples and the secret to their thousands of years of cultural success was that decisions were strictly localized and involved the WHOLE people of a tribe or band. There was no “Iron Fist”. And of course their destruction wasn’t due to corruption or political squabbling, or even wars, as ours will be, they were invaded by outsiders and destroyed.


I would say that smaller democracies are easier to run, but they also do not really progress. Most of the tribal democracies you mention were very primitive, and were constantly at war with other tribes. There was no real unity outside the tribe, only racism and bigotry.

The tribes of Papua New Guinea still kill each other to this day, the same can be said of the rural South American tribes.


So when Americans talk about the wonders of democracy they seldom consider that several generations of our forefathers were actually responsible for its bloody end. Again, democracy ONLY works when its kept local and everyone participates. The bigger it gets, the more whacked out it gets.


No I would say we have actually done fairly well. We live in a day and age where more people go to sleep with a full belly, where more people get a proper education, where peoples life expectancy is 10 to 20 years longer than it was in the 19th century. Things have even improved in 3rd world countries, not by as much as it should but it IS better.

The harder something is the better the outcome is going to be, a relative world peace and a unified government are two of the hardest things that man kind will ever face. The next being the inevitable world wide calamity that could render us extinct. All of these things depend on universal cooperation between all nations and peoples. THIS WILL NOT BE EASY! Life has never been easy, the easy way out is most always a sure way to destruction, of a society or at the very least its morals.


The only reason this nation was prosperous in earlier decades is because there was always room for expansion and a pyramid scheme will not work for long unless there’s room to continually grow the base. Now there’s no more room to grow unless it can be stolen from someone else, so that’s what we do and the UN is in full support of those actions.


A pyramid scheme involves anyone who sits on top, Capitalism is a great example.

Social Security, Unemployment, Free Medical care, Welfare, the EPA, the FDA, and even dare I say it the CIA are all NECESSARY for our world to progress. Do they need to be reformed, they sure as hell do! Hell I think we should reevaluate all these programs and departments every decade. But we don't just get rid of them or give them to a private corporation that has know true allegiance but to capital, we fix what the problem is,which there are some.


he United States has become the most intolerant butchers of mankind the world has ever known, all based on lies and greed and room to expand.


Again I disagree, we are borderline nationalists which is bad. But Nazi Germany, and the Holy Roman Empire were much worse then us. We have a say!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join