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.
Originally posted by xtcsx
reply to post by LFN69
Quite true... however I believe your perspective is off... a tree doesnt start as a full grown oak tree (to continue the analogy). It starts off as a seed... or a cell (individual) and then grows with respect to them. The problem currently is the top down approach... left over from the hundreds of years of monarchies and dictatorships that has somehow been engrained into our DNA. The US from the ideals of the founders was supposed to be the new experiment to counter that... Where society began with the individual and the protection of rights of that individual. For some reason thats been lost and it seems a little sad that such a simple thing like a shift of perspective over time can completely warp a once great nation into the acceptable police state that its become.
3. The use of direct democracy into the United Nations. Therefore people of each sovereign nation are able to vote online on issues, and it goes to the UN where it is debated (fully visible) in front of world public view.
Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by LFN69
Well TPTB are actively engaged in getting rid of the world's dictators (Syrian bad boy is next). Democracy will replace these rogue regimes over time and then these governments will be cooped by a global government in the form of a scientific dictatorship that will subplant national state sovereignty. It is all by design and well planned.
.
Originally posted by GhostyMew
This is one of those good-on-paper ideas, like communism. World government would be too difficult to maintain, given the population on earth is 7 billion. There are way too many crazy people, and the people in power will take advantage of that just like in any other government. I'm fine with democracy. It works for me and it's not changing any time soon.
Originally posted by LFN69
Originally posted by GhostyMew
This is one of those good-on-paper ideas, like communism. World government would be too difficult to maintain, given the population on earth is 7 billion. There are way too many crazy people, and the people in power will take advantage of that just like in any other government. I'm fine with democracy. It works for me and it's not changing any time soon.
Amen!!!!
Can the everyday man think and rule himself?
Then AI comes to mind.... Do we let computers manage us??? That opens up doors everywhere you look.
Originally posted by knowledgedesired
reply to post by AthlonSavage
3. The use of direct democracy into the United Nations. Therefore people of each sovereign nation are able to vote online on issues, and it goes to the UN where it is debated (fully visible) in front of world public view.
So how do we go about assigning an exclusive number to each and every person that can't be manipulated by computer systems?
NWO comes to mind with the mark of the beast or an RFID tag for everyone.
Mabye DNA as a biomarker?
In order to assign everyone a individual voting id a computer must manage the data and then a person must manage the computer giving them access to vast information and control.
Then AI comes to mind.... Do we let computers manage us??? That opens up doors everywhere you look.
Originally posted by chr0naut
The fourth idea is the feedback mechanism of legal review.
The judiciary and legal process can remain in its present form, to administer the letter of the law and to push for new precedents with which to codify new law, but legal review is introduced systematically (to the entire tree) for the purpose of disestablishment of poorly framed or unfair laws. This is done as part of the "work packets" distributed to the tree.
Note that this process does not prevent such laws from being re-established by the judicial process or re-removal by the system.
It allows law to evolve with technology and society in a controlled and stable manner.
edit on 14/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by LFN69
Originally posted by chr0naut
The fourth idea is the feedback mechanism of legal review.
The judiciary and legal process can remain in its present form, to administer the letter of the law and to push for new precedents with which to codify new law, but legal review is introduced systematically (to the entire tree) for the purpose of disestablishment of poorly framed or unfair laws. This is done as part of the "work packets" distributed to the tree.
Note that this process does not prevent such laws from being re-established by the judicial process or re-removal by the system.
It allows law to evolve with technology and society in a controlled and stable manner.
edit on 14/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
This is all gobbledygook.
Are you truly certain that the average person will have a clue as to what you are really on about?
I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent yet all I see is a complex structure of words that is meant to quantify and, i assume, be clearly understandable to the masses. Well it isnt.
I tell you what it really is. Its nothing more than philosophising over the kind of politics that belongs in a fantasy world. People dont even understand the political structures in place now yet you expect the masses to grasp a load of tosh about a "New World Politics" that was probably invented by a bunch of San Fransisco dope filled hippies circa 1967. What is proposed here has probably been proposed forever because there will always be sections of society who feel that everything isnt fair and the poor get jackbooted by the rich elite.
People still dont get the one salient fact that is inescapable, we are humans! It matters not what is in place, people wont like it, they wont want it and somebody somewhere will be corrupted by it.
What most hacks me off is the idea that this five suggestions/ideas or whatever you want to call it would be imposed upon people because others would consider anything more to be confusing and brain hurting. What bloody right would anybody have to impose that kind of doctrine upon us? Would we have a one man one vote, 7 billion of us click yes or no on the computer to pass that "law" or dismiss it? Utter farce.
The person that came up with the five idea is a bloody dictator!!!!
The biggest farce of all is that clearly intelligent people with plenty of acumen have even considered and discussed this "turd in the toilet" when if they had sat down and really thought about it, it would never have made the board.
Tip. If ideas to restructure the political stage are to be chewed over, you have to make it all VERY simple to understand because, Im afraid to say, much of Planet Earth is inhabited by thickies.
Having said all that tho, Ive enjoyed the discussion.
Originally posted by chr0naut
Originally posted by LFN69
Originally posted by chr0naut
The fourth idea is the feedback mechanism of legal review.
The judiciary and legal process can remain in its present form, to administer the letter of the law and to push for new precedents with which to codify new law, but legal review is introduced systematically (to the entire tree) for the purpose of disestablishment of poorly framed or unfair laws. This is done as part of the "work packets" distributed to the tree.
Note that this process does not prevent such laws from being re-established by the judicial process or re-removal by the system.
It allows law to evolve with technology and society in a controlled and stable manner.
edit on 14/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)
This is all gobbledygook.
Are you truly certain that the average person will have a clue as to what you are really on about?
I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent yet all I see is a complex structure of words that is meant to quantify and, i assume, be clearly understandable to the masses. Well it isnt.
I tell you what it really is. Its nothing more than philosophising over the kind of politics that belongs in a fantasy world. People dont even understand the political structures in place now yet you expect the masses to grasp a load of tosh about a "New World Politics" that was probably invented by a bunch of San Fransisco dope filled hippies circa 1967. What is proposed here has probably been proposed forever because there will always be sections of society who feel that everything isnt fair and the poor get jackbooted by the rich elite.
People still dont get the one salient fact that is inescapable, we are humans! It matters not what is in place, people wont like it, they wont want it and somebody somewhere will be corrupted by it.
What most hacks me off is the idea that this five suggestions/ideas or whatever you want to call it would be imposed upon people because others would consider anything more to be confusing and brain hurting. What bloody right would anybody have to impose that kind of doctrine upon us? Would we have a one man one vote, 7 billion of us click yes or no on the computer to pass that "law" or dismiss it? Utter farce.
The person that came up with the five idea is a bloody dictator!!!!
The biggest farce of all is that clearly intelligent people with plenty of acumen have even considered and discussed this "turd in the toilet" when if they had sat down and really thought about it, it would never have made the board.
Tip. If ideas to restructure the political stage are to be chewed over, you have to make it all VERY simple to understand because, Im afraid to say, much of Planet Earth is inhabited by thickies.
Having said all that tho, Ive enjoyed the discussion.
I thought I invented/discovered the "five" idea (and some of the other stuff) but I hardly think I am a dictator as I am only fielding suggestions on ATS. Just "shootin' the breeze".
I'm not a particularly politically active person, either, these days. Just another "armchair expert".
I do take on board that you want it "dumbed down" somewhat. Fair enough, but I'm not well equipped to determine the internal thought processes of the lowest common denominator.