posted
You'd have to start by finding something that they're doing wrong, or doing oppresively. Hold it up for the people to see. Start rebellious feelings in the populace.
Get contacts within the military to sympathize with your cause.
Build up your rebellion until you can use it against the Government.
But the key thing is getting the military on your side.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. I believe you could manipulate or unravel the US government from the inside. It would take a while, but you would just have to build up some kind of faction of influential people. Then move to the lobbyists for support and money. Then use this influence to move against congress. From there you could pull strings on all the bureaucratic agencies and all things that has congressional oversight. you wouldn't need the President and then the military.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes, if we're talking about a political coup. I don't think we are; I think we're talking about revolution from outside the government, rather than corrupting it from the inside.
And for any revolution to succeed, it must be supported by the people.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So puppet the people, not the government. The people are there to be swayed; sway them, and you can build an empire to last for centuries. Corrupt the government, and you will simply have brought the empire down.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But people make up our government. The people on the outside can sway the government but its so much easier inside.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my mind, it's a question of nobility and honor. It isn't honorable to secretly corrupt the government from the inside. An honorable rebellion is one by the people, for the people... and that is the only kind of revolution that works in the long run.
Posts: 135 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not talking about corrupting the government. How would you cause a revolution by the people. With the military as said above? The military is controlled by the government. The militaries ties all fall with the government. Even briging in the military would make me believe that you would use force and violence in your revolution. That means deaths of Americans by Americans to change the government. Why not just get inside the government we have now a change it from the inside. That would be the easiest and quickest way, I think, to change anything. What can the people do in a revolution. How exactly would 'the people' go about in causing a rebellion. It is in my experience that 'the people' if not controlled quickly turn into a mob, especially when there are conflicting masses, and I assure you that when you talk about changing the American government there will be conflicting masses.
Also, back to the military. The only way to bring the military in would be to eventually plan a militaristic state, where the leaders of the military would rule. And anyway, how would the people gain any control over a military thats controlled currently by the commander in chief, aka, the President.
So anyway, how would the people go about bringing a peacably revolution and have actual changes made. Our system has been time and time again called near perfect. So why not keep the current system and make changes from within it?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
well considering the locke in the books was a terrible brother who would do anything to get what he wants, and there was also philiosipher locke who was british. So basically its a good thing there is no locke
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Bego, were not really talking bout Locke anymore, read the last page or so of this discussion. Locke was brilliant though, both of them, of they both worked hard to better the future however selfish and greedy the 'non-british' Locke was. And were you bashing Locke because he was british? Welcome to Hatrack!
Sagnorpt, I don't know who you're directing that question towards, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Adeimantus. But isn't it called a police state? And with that, wouldn't you have to issue a martial law edict? Oh, and that guy was talking about Adeimantus's occupation, I think.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
clas·si·cist One versed in the classics; a classical scholar. An adherent of classicism. An advocate of the study of ancient Greek and Latin. One learned in the classics; an advocate for the classics. an artistic person who adheres to classicism a student of ancient Greek and Latin
Yeah, Cham, the martial law and the police state is not what anyone wants.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
no kidding... that would suck, tanks going up and down streets... We would be as bad as Iraq...
Posts: 197 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Admeintus for your answer. Why not just tell the people what they want then give it to them. Wouldn't that be the best way to start a revolution? I know it sounds retarded. But, how many times have we made our own decisions that were already made for us? Look at our society of political correctness. I understand this might stem from personal feelings of sympathy, like little white lies, but it's amazing how much pressure is put on us to think "independently" so long as our "independent" thoughts don't interfere or put down the "independent" thoughts of others. Maybe that sounds right, from our point of view now. But, I have to admit it makes me more than a little angry that you can't call a duck a duck anymore without giving it some sort of moral high ground. I know it sounds a little self-righteous to say "You're doing wrong, you're doing wrong..." but how can it be self-righteous when you see the same in yourself? I apologize if that doesn't make any sense, or if it's pointless. I've been studying way too much.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I understand what you're saying. That our society through several outlets, has basically forced a new vocabulary on us. We accept it because it is right, or at least seems right. Kinda close to the mark? Yeah I think it would be very easy just to give the public what they want. Sociology, though complex, has simple points that can be used to sway the general public. I like that idea.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cham, in reference to me: "Guess he wasn't man enough to face me. "
Yeah . That'll be the day. I'm going to assume that this comment was a joke and that the previous ones were from the perspective of having only read my first posts, which BTW, were deemed poor communications by certain people who have since come to respect my opinions at least to some degree.
And in case the above quote was not a joke, I'd like you to know that, though I've never met you, I'm about ready to bet that I could not only face your blinding magnificence, I could kick your ass with one hand tied behind my back, and I mean physically, intelectually, or spiritually.
posted
It seems to me that the original post was kind of a "points out the window" deal. More philosphical "Hmm... I wonder?" than practical "Where can I find one?".
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To all those who have been able to control themselves for various reasons, congratulations. I would have to agree with Steel, it seems to be a more general statement on the world rather than just in this forum i have decied after reading it again.
A quick note to Organic Power: I assure you that we are not purposely "takening this too lightly." If you could elaborate to me the seriousness of our discussions then maybe we will take it to the seriousness you expect. And what exactly is "too philosophical" SUN?
And I think the bickering is unnecessary. Cham, you need to think alot harder about some meaningful material to post. Lets just try to pretend to be civil here.
posted
My answer to that would be that a thread is nothing in and of itself, just a collection of typed words. Therefore, the only way a thread could go on to long is if the placing of the typed words that it was made up of began to interfere with something more important than the discussion.
Adiemantus: A discussion is too philosophical is when it leaves the realm of practical reality to such a great degree that, in its abstractness, fails to do justice to an issue that is as real, tangible, and as vital as the jugular vein.
Implicit in that definition, of course, is that the issue is as described. Regardless, I'd like to add that my statement, in this case, was merely a suggestion.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
its noted as such. I understand now. Though I dont feel that it is too philosophical in here. I would like to bring up another question: why all the religion stuff? I just dont get it why people must discover what others think about religion, what types, God? Jesus? Buddha? (SP?) I just dont get it. At least in these types of threads you can share different ideas..what different ideas can you share about god. Thats just a yes or no question. Its more like a poll. I hate polls.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was more of a rhetorical. I was jsut shining light on the fact that there are threads in here that have no purpose other than to gather a bunch of jumbled ideas about G-d, etc...
I joined this forum because it had some really good discussions on government and philosophy that tied in really well with themes from the Ender series. I just kinda thought that the religon threads were out of place and shoulkd be on de otha side if you get my meaning.
Anyway thats my rant. But if at all possible, (it seems that discussions on this thread have dwindled a little) I could liven(sp?) up the thread? What are your thoughts on G-d? No Just kidding...
This topic was touched on a little in this forum but I want to hear you thoughts:
***A more constricted central goverment with more emphasise on States power, or visa versa?***
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Siece wanders back in.* @Adeimantus: >This topic was touched on a little in this forum >but I want to hear you thoughts: >***A more constricted central goverment with more >emphasise on States power, or visa versa?**
I'm definitely in favor of the latter. In order to survive, Man must be free, and that requires that the State's power to be as small as possible.
BTW, after due consideration, I've decided that I've had enough of just talking about political reform. It's time to actually do something with all these ideas we've stacked up here.
If you're interested in helping, go here to sign up. At present, my scope is limited to US politics, but hegemony is a possible future goal, if you can find a way to swing it. )
Posts: 31 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi again. I have a little to add. Stop sighing. Pay a crazy man his due, and you may learn something. If nothing else then you'll learn at least he's crazy. I think that the idea of involving any religion, previously existing, or newly formed into this new government would be a disastrous idea. If I may quote Frank Herbert: "When religion and politics ride in the same cart, the whirlwind follows." I'll admit, I don't personally have vast amounts of historical data which prove this (though maybe Herbert did, G-d rest his soul.)But, from a logical point of view, I can't see it working, especially if your, our, its goal is to free humanity and lead us to peace and goodwill for all men(a deceptively dangerous road to be sure.) I would think adding a religion in there would be like helping someone escape from prison by releasing one shackle from his arm and putting one around his ankle. His arm may feel nice and comfy, but not he's no more free than before, though in his anxiousness to have his arm free he may not have noticed what you did to his ankle, and now thinks he's liberated. And, you may even be in denial about what you did to his ankle, seeing only that you freed his arm, and now see yourself as a saviour. So, now we have two imprisoned men. One physically, and one in his own mind. But, ah, you say, you've forgotten! The man's arm is now free, he at least has a chance of working the lock on his leg with this free hand. Possible, but our first prisoner won't see this chance until he notices his leg is bound when he makes to leave. But, by then he'll be down again. He'll lose faith in you, you in yourself, and the whole system will fall apart. The prisoner will try to free himself, and may do it at that. If he does, then you are a hero again. You've rescued his arm, and given him the opportunity to free himself. But, he would have never have needed the opportunity if you hadn't locked up his foot in the first place. And, you say, he would still be in prison, though. And, right, he would. But, let's just skip the drama, and remember that it's also possible he never freed his leg, and he was stuck in prison. Not your fault in the big sense, seeing as how he ws there anyway. But, your purpose was to free him. And, let's not forget, he may get mad and lock up your leg in a shackle.
Please don't take that too seriously, I was just having fun ranting. It's flawed and silly, but the first couple of sentences are still true by my mind.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to that last post, that was in response to what Admeintus said about religion in the thread, though I may have flew off the wall, since he was just arguing for it off the thread. And, as per the question, if your talking about the US govt system, I'd say there need be a skillful balancing act "on the edge of a knife." (Frank Herbert quote again, blessed be his name.) States should have control, but the central govt is like the extra-cellular matrix, keeping everything in balance, and making sure no one strays, whatever that would mean. That's how I is understanding it, but I may be deficient in information on the subject. Actually, I am. So, ignore everything I just said because I refuse to erase it. Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree with everything I understood in your posts GLASS, which was basically, "Don't mix religion and politics" right?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have to say I'm impressed by the depth of study into the area of a world government. You've analyzed a world democracy from a myriad different angles. Quality stuff.
I noticed that your discussion stayed somewhat one track, though. You focused primarily upon the idea of whether a single world government was/is possible.
Several ideas which I thought might broaden the discussion.
1a) What role will future conflict play in causing a world government? Does the world need another global war to unify or will it happen naturally during peace?
1b) If another global war occurs, will the damage to global transportation and communications structure hinder or help unity?
2) Will unifications occur slowly (one nation at a time) or all nations at once?
I've got more questions but want to get some answers on these first.
posted
But you'd have to environmentally protect the insects from the war. They're the future cause they can live in space. One of these days....
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Admeintus, that's exactly what I was saying. And, now I'm wondering why I didn't just say it like that and leave it.
Potemkyn, I wonder if a conflict is really needed at all. The way I see it, without the external force, mainly alien insects or possibly alien frogs, a completely unified humanity will not be a one generation accomplishment. And, that's where some problems come in. If you could start building a house for your family, let's say God told you so, and that He (or She, if you're into the whole progressive thing ) told you this house won't be finished in your lifetime. You'll never see it even part way done. You're informed this house is yours, in that you helped build it, but it will be an unaccomplished dream. One day you'll die and someone else will take over. But, the rub is that God can't make this other person, maybe a son, continue building. So, God says, if you want to, start building, He'll supply you, but your success is totally out of your hands. And that's how this is. (Except the foundation can be built even by those who don't know what they're doing in our situation!) Without a global war, we push towards greater unification. Look at the world today, if you want evidence. Granted, the world is the way it is today because of war. And, I'm definitely not saying we're done with them. But, this new govt need not be a spoil of war, a cataclysmic change, or a banding of peoples against a common enemy. I'm pretty sure everyone's seen the Discovery Channel specials on remaking Mars. That's what a world goverment should (should being both a keyword, and a strong opinion)be like. The future-minded people of today starting construction on an unfinished, ultimately unrealized (by them only, of course)project that will not hand over world peace to the next generation, but will give them tools they didn't have, so that maybe the next generation can leave behind world peace for their heirs.
PS. I feel so sorry for the old smilies. They remind me of the old dog once the new puppy arrives. There. I've done my good deed for the day.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool idea about the house but I have to disagree. Humanity is made of individuals who are almost always at odds with each other, even when not in their interests. The whole 'John Nash' proposition of working for the greater good creates a better world for all is often unimplemented for the above reason. There most be a reason to create such an uber-government. League of Nations was caused by WWI and the UN caused by WWII. Another large war will once again create a call for an international government. It might not work at first, but it will slowly get stronger...or maybe weaker if it goes the way of the LON or the UN.
posted
I was reading some of the old poasts and I stumbled upon the idea of "internet voting." I noticed that there were quite a few people who were against this for the reason that to get the voting booths to poor countries seemed a misallocation of money.
This is actually quite easily remedied. In Africa now, in almost every nation on the continent, 20% of the population owns cell phones. Cell phones can access the internet and are cheap to produce. In that way, you could easily get a global vote (albeit not one free from some tampering). So communications are advanced enough for global government, the problems are, is transportation ready? and is society ready?
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the fundamental charter of the U.N. says that it is not, nor intended to be, a world government. The U.N. is very weak. Granted, however, it is stronger than the League of Nations was.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes sense because the UN does not govern, but it recommends, suggests and offers aid and protection. There is no "governing body" in the UN. All it does is oversee the 'United Nations', it does not in anyway govern them.
The main point I would like to make about world governments or governing bodies is that it would be opportunistic. Only when the opportunity arises for such a global unification will the idea of a hegemon seem possible. I dont know exactly what that opportunity is, but even them I am not quite sure if Earth will ever be able to have a complete world government. It would most likely turn out to be 2-3 unions that disagree on big issues. But inside each union will be nations with similar problems and strong points. Thus very little diversity in the unions. Thats what I foresee. -Adeimantus
posted
So..... What??? Like 1984??? What's the point in three big Unions? All the disadvantages of one world state, and none of the advantages. Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry if I mislead you. I wasn't pushing for what I said, I was predicting that if we strove for world unity, what we would end up with would be the three unions. That is NOT how I would want it.
Edit: it was meant to provide a "bad" to the idea of world unity.
I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. One, humanity is not so simple to be defined by an economics model of human behavior. This would only apply to seeing that people's interests are (seemingly) taken care of. Seemingly being the keyword. I have a lot of faith in humanity, but I do not see it as an intelligent organism (when taken as a whole.) War is unnecessary beacuse people are NOT (I say it for emphasis, not out of passion, so no offense please)individuals. Sure, I understand. It's the great modern myth. Let me explain. At a certain level, yes, people are individuals. I feel, I love, I hate, I think (ergo sum!). But, humans are not individuals, because they do not exist alone. They are like cells. Every now and then, a freak of nature (in no sense meant to be derogatory to any Individuals out there!) appears on the scene. But, even he/she is not fully alone. Let me explain that and all of this. A lone human with no preoccupation or other human is nothing! Even that lone human knows it. What is loneliness? No attachments, no meaningful attachments is a close enough definition for our purpose here. Do you really think a war is a group of individuals??? Do you believe a revolution is a massive hierarchy of thinking individuals wanting something as flimsy as freedom? Mass movements are the byproducts of, I'll admit, individuals coming to together for a common purpose. But, here's the rub ( yes, I'm genuinely fond of saying that. For further reference, see my other posts) the common purpose is not the, well, purpose. People don't give up individuality (defined here as free choice, whatever that may be) for ideals. They may say they do. They may even believe they do. But, mass movements and revolutions, religious and social, are not JUST people saying, Hey!, I want freedom. They are also people who have lost hope, who are bored, who have lost meaningful attachments, be they art, love, sense of community. Note that totalitarian governments do not fall when the people are being beaten the hardest. It's when a system loses its hold. A war is completely unnecessary, because, as I mentioned before, the world is getting smaller and smaller. These prokaryotes can either feed off each other and die. Or, they can join together and begin the next step in their evolution, the eukaryote. Awfully complex, and awfully important, as you know, to our existence. Man can either live in peace or he'll eventually die off. Though it may be a sign of naivete, I can't for the life of me seeing a forming of a one-world nation that comes as a product of war lasting past that war. If you'll remember, even OSC agrees in some sense. After the buggers were destroyed, humanity slipped from the confines of predictablity. They followed the economics theory, to prove myself an @$$!!! A complete social revolution of the entire world will always fall back into chaos, unless there be a reason to stay together. Think of revolutions as hot candle wax dripping down from the top of a candle. As it moves on, it cools down and slows, and eventually hardens. So, to prove myself completely wrong (!!!) yes, humanity will have to act like the two prisoners! But, a war is not necessary, because we can show the masses the importance of peaceful co-habitance by predicting the result. Maybe, it's already happened! WWII taught us some important lessons. And, now the world's nations watch their neighbor like a hawk. As for the UN. I never meant to imply their leadership in future world power. In fact, I am against it! And, although, the UN says it doen't want power, it acts like a partying introvert. Yes, I contradicted myself in this post. But, it might have something to do with the complexity of people. Or, my own incompetency. The first sounds better. Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. That'll be the day. I'm going to assume that this comment was a joke and that the previous ones were from the perspective of having only read my first posts, which BTW, were deemed poor communications by certain people who have since come to respect my opinions at least to some degree. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
rest his soul.)But, from a logical point of view, I can't see it working, especially if your, our, its goal is to free humanity and lead us to peace and goodwill for all men(a deceptively dangerous road to be sure.) I would think adding a religion in there would be like helping someone escape from prison by releasing one shackle from his arm and putting one around his ankle. His arm may feel nice and comfy, but not he's no more free than before, though in his anxiousness to have his arm free he may not have noticed what you did to his ankle, and now thinks he's liberated. And, you may even be in denial about what you did to his ankle, seeing only that you freed his arm, and now see yourself as a saviour. So, now we have two imprisoned men. One physically, and one in his own mind. But, ah, you say, you've forgotten! The man's arm is now free, he at least has a chance of working the lock on his leg with this free hand. Possible, but our first prisoner won't see this chance until he notices his leg is bound when he makes to leave. But, by then he'll be down again. He'll lose faith in you, you in yourself, and the whole system will fall apart. The prisoner will try to free himself, and may do it at that. If he does, then you are a hero again. You've rescued his arm, and given him the opportunity to free himself. But, he would have never have needed the opportunity if you hadn't locked up his foot in the first place. And, you say, he would still be in prison, though. And, right, he would. But, let's just skip the drama, and remember that it's also possible he never freed his leg, and he was stuck in prison. Not your fault in the big sense, seeing as how he ws there anyway. But, your purpose was to free him. And, let's not forget, he may get mad and lock up your leg in a shackle.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
) told you this house won't be finished in your lifetime. You'll never see it even part way done. You're informed this house is yours, in that you helped build it, but it will be an unaccomplished dream. One day you'll die and someone else will take over. But, the rub is that God can't make this other person, maybe a son, continue building. So, God says, if you want to, start building, He'll supply you, but your success is totally out of your hands. And that's how this is. (Except the foundation can be built even by those who don't know what they're doing in our situation!) Without a global war, we push towards greater unification. Look at the world today, if you want evidence. Granted, the world is the way it is today because of war. And, I'm definitely not saying we're done with them. But, this new govt need not be a spoil of war, a cataclysmic change, or a banding of peoples against a common enemy. I'm pretty sure everyone's seen the Discovery Channel specials on remaking Mars. That's what a world goverment should (should being both a keyword, and a strong opinion)be like. The future-minded people of today starting construction on an unfinished, ultimately unrealized (by them only, of course)project that will not hand over world peace to the next generation, but will give them tools they didn't have, so that maybe the next generation can leave behind world peace for their heirs.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
There. I've done my good deed for the day.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
All the disadvantages of one world state, and none of the advantages. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
