why can't we all just....

paul_valaru

paul_valaru

100% Pure Canadian Beef
cause our world views are diffrent.

now I am talking about the WORLD, not this board.

Peace in the middle east? Peace with between the western world and the muslim world, what would it take?

besides Armageddon.

we have to see each others view points...easy right?

Not when the other viewpoint beleives in female circumcision, and you think it is barbarism and torture.

Not when 2 peoples think they same stretch of land is their homeland, and they don't like each other much.

Not when one country thinks they have the right to do whatever they want, and goes against and international organization to go it.

Not when one religion wants death to all non-beleivers.

We would need a set of rules that we ALL had to follow, that says this is right and this is wrong, and everyone would have to follow them, no exeptions for creed, race or religion. Any dissenters would have to be removed with society immediatly before they could start an uprising.

Think about it, a world working together, no more little fighting, all for the betterment of humanity, the levels of health and comfort would could acheive, just by giving up a few basic rights.

all your children growing up in a world without fear of what can happen, work for everyone, food and shelter guaranteed by the state. No chance of ever going to war.

bet you all would fight against that right?

so would everyone else..by your side.

so the secret to world peace?

a big ass war.
 
Paul said:
We would need a set of rules that we ALL had to follow, that says this is right and this is wrong,
Click to expand...

Okay. Follow the rules as set forth & all will be well.
 
Gato_Solo said:
I would've thought this would be a better starting point...;)
Click to expand...

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power
Click to expand...

now allowing freedoms is not such a good idea for a utopia, allows people to make up there own rules... everyone has to follow the same rules if we all want to be happy
 
paul_valaru said:
ah, those might actually work, except the free speach and the gun bits
Click to expand...

So...you disagree with free speech, eh? Now you're begging for a revolution. Allowing people to a public discourse for grievances is the only way to avoid such shenanigans. Allowing them access to their own privately held firearms ensures that this right doesn't go away...Nothing like an armed populace to keep the government in line...;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
I would've thought this would be a better starting point...;)
Click to expand...


As I understood it, it was great for states rights but the federal govt had no power for an army or to draft. While it is better for states and individual rights, I think the Constitution, as Gonz posted, would be better myself. ANd unlike Paul I want to keep the first two amendments
 
Gato_Solo said:
So...you disagree with free speech, eh? Now you're begging for a revolution. Allowing people to a public discourse for grievances is the only way to avoid such shenanigans. Allowing them access to their own privately held firearms ensures that this right doesn't go away...Nothing like an armed populace to keep the government in line...;)
Click to expand...


Free speech can lead to revolution, in a strict world goverment, only the police should have guns in a world govermetn society, along with great pressure to prevent and solve crimes, and the punishment for those crimes would be extreme.

my arguement here in this thread is that world peace can only be acheived through a totalrian world wide police state.

as to personal beleifes about free speach, I do not beleive in lese-majesty, meaning we can talk about what the goverment is doing wrong, but I don't beleive hate-speech should be allowed, like here in canada it is a criminal offense.
 
paul_valaru said:
Free speech can lead to revolution, in a strict world goverment, only the police should have guns in a world govermetn society, along with great pressure to prevent and solve crimes, and the punishment for those crimes would be extreme.

my arguement here in this thread is that world peace can only be acheived through a totalrian world wide police state.

as to personal beleifes about free speach, I do not beleive in lese-majesty, meaning we can talk about what the goverment is doing wrong, but I don't beleive hate-speech should be allowed, like here in canada it is a criminal offense.
Click to expand...


The first bolded statement is a common fallacy. In order to keep people happy, they must have certain guarantees. One of which is choice. In a world-wide police state, you wouldn't have choice, and such a government would be very short-lived. You'd also have a problem with too much power in the hands of too few...a recipe that always ends with disaster. Hell...even the illusion of choice is enough to make most folks content.

I believe that all speech should be allowed...including the age-old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. I also believe that any consequences brought down upon the utterer of said speech, by individuals, should be exempt from punishment. In other words, your mouth can "write a check your ass can't cash", and the payment should be swift and merciless...
 
Gato_Solo said:
The first bolded statement is a common fallacy. In order to keep people happy, they must have certain guarantees. One of which is choice. In a world-wide police state, you wouldn't have choice, and such a government would be very short-lived. You'd also have a problem with too much power in the hands of too few...a recipe that always ends with disaster. Hell...even the illusion of choice is enough to make most folks content.

I believe that all speech should be allowed...including the age-old yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. I also believe that any consequences brought down upon the utterer of said speech, by individuals, should be exempt from punishment. In other words, your mouth can "write a check your ass can't cash", and the payment should be swift and merciless...
Click to expand...


So you feel the speech and the consequences are there or that the speech is free but without the consequences? I am confused by what you mean
 
but isn't that close to anarchy? someone says something I don't like I can pucnh him, without concequence?

and if 90% of people agreed to live in a police state? what then do the other 10% have a right to revolt?
 
freako104 said:
So you feel the speech and the consequences are there or that the speech is free but without the consequences? I am confused by what you mean
Click to expand...

I feel that there should be swift and severe consequences for being stupid. You want to hold a Klan rally? Go ahead, but if the crowd turns ugly and decides to hand you your head, don't claim free speech. You knew what you were doing when you opened your mouth.
 
Gato_Solo said:
I feel that there should be swift and severe consequences for being stupid. You want to hold a Klan rally? Go ahead, but if the crowd turns ugly and decides to hand you your head, don't claim free speech. You knew what you were doing when you opened your mouth.
Click to expand...


Ahh now I see what you mean :) And I agree fully with what you said
 
paul_valaru said:
but isn't that close to anarchy? someone says something I don't like I can pucnh him, without concequence?
Click to expand...

Never said that. Besides anarchy is not the scenerio you just put forth. Thats chaos. A true anarchist wouldn't put you in a position where you felt the need to punch them in the mouth. He would give you the same measure of respect you give him.

p_v said:
and if 90% of people agreed to live in a police state? what then do the other 10% have a right to revolt?
Click to expand...

You'd never get anywhere near 90%..not without a lot of smoke and mirrors (bread and circuses). Eventually, the people would tire of the spectacle, and rise up against the ruler. It's happened before, and it will happen again.
 
then how do you acheive world peace? remember people out there beleive in diffrent stuff than you, and like you will die to defend your freedoms so will they.
 
paul_valaru said:
then how do you acheive world peace? remember people out there beleive in diffrent stuff than you, and like you will die to defend your freedoms so will they.
Click to expand...

If you have respect for the other person, and they have no respect for you, then they wouldn't last very long...death tends to make people very peaceful. After a generation, or so, of the cull, to include removing warning stickers from everything existing for more than 15 years, the ones you have left would keep the peace...
 
Gato_Solo said:
If you have respect for the other person, and they have no respect for you, then they wouldn't last very long...death tends to make people very peaceful. After a generation, or so, of the cull, to include removing warning stickers from everything existing for more than 15 years, the ones you have left would keep the peace...
Click to expand...


same thing for a police-state.....
 
paul_valaru said:
same thing for a police-state.....
Click to expand...

No. The police state exists only for itself, and consolidates the power of the society in the hands of the 'ruling class'. What I propose is placing all the power in the hands of the entire citizenry. The results may be similar, but the means to get those results are vastly different. I espouse personal responsibility, while the police state you refer to tells you what to do...

BTW...did you miss the significance of the 15 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top