posted
wieczorek, forgive me if I jump in the discussion with very little knowledge as to what as been previously said, but I find it nearly impossible for nations to set aside pride, hatred, and above all, the sense to rule the world. If one nation said they were willing to give up their power over smaller countries in order to make a better world, I would have to laugh. Not that I'm against a better world and complete and total peace, but it's impossible. As of right now I would like to think that America is the greatest country in the world and basically has power over everyone (this is my pride talking) and I wouldn't be willing to give up that power just so everyone feels equal.
Again let's say that America's greatest enemy came to us and asked our government to give up all of its power in order to show they were willing to give it up, do you honestly think our enemy wouldn't use that as a way to bypass o8ur defense and completely destroy us.
Not only is it against human nature to what everyone to be equal, but who can we trust? It is just an unfathomable dream to me.
But what do I know? I'm just a ignorant 17 year old boy speaking his mind... Posts: 58 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to believe that no country will want to partcipate in a unified government. The problem with that is that there is substansial evidence that proves otherwise. Many European countries have essential done this already in the economic arena. To put it bluntly the two main things standing in the way of all countries joining together like the European countries are a superiority complex and differences in religion. I know that the US has a major problem with thinking they are superior to everyone else, and I'm sure there are a few other countries with the same mind-set. And as history has proven over and over again religion has caused a great many problems including war and pregidious. Not that religion is bad but it does have a tendience to cause disturbances. The fact is though that over the past hundred years or so there have been a great many advances towards a well functional world government. Although we aren't even close to any such government, we are making progress. So those two things haven't halted the progress, they just slowed it down considerable. I expect that with in the next two to four hundred years we will finally have such a world government. Just in time for me to finish decomposing. Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"I wouldn't be willing to give up that power just so everyone feels equal."
-Same person, same post.
verrrry in-ta-west-ing. Would you be willing to give it up so that everyone can be treated more equally? I'm just an ignorant 19 year old boy speaking his mind, but that seems like a bit of a paradox to me- unless you're a hypocrite.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well as a matter of fact suntranafs, it is extremely hypocritical. I guess in my own way it was me trying to cover up my selfish ideals. I am completely for a better world, no doubt in my mind. However I don't think I would be willing to fight or die to change a world that has been this way for the past 2000 years and probably longer. What I was trying to say is that there are to many selfish people (I would have to include myself) in the world with power to change but don't want to lose what they have. This all may sound cruel and completely barbaric, but I'm assumeing a lot of the people on this site feel the same way. I also may be by myself on this one...
posted
"However I don't think I would be willing to fight or die to change a world that has been this way for the past 2000 years and probably longer."
Whaddya mean? The world is constantly changing, and as such, it either gets better, or gets worse- no middle ground.
"What I was trying to say is that there are to many selfish people (I would have to include myself) in the world with power to change but don't want to lose what they have."
LOL, I was gonna say I can't argue against that kind of logic, but I suppose there's always the outlook that if the world's going to hell then you're going to hell with it, so it's up to you to stop that from happening. I'm extremely selfish myself, but using a little forsight, I can see that me and my genes don't have much hope right now if the rest of the world goes totally haywire.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our Locke seems to be not unlike the Locke of Ender's time. Powerless, but here it is even more hopless, for our Locke is either nonexistant or completely under the scope of the public eye. The only thing I have decided from this thread is that a Locke in our current situation is a futile thought. We have no present hope in agreement on who or what our Locke should be or the opinions he should be of. (I use the generic term he, though I don't disagree that a woman has just as much Locke-ability as any man I know.)
The trend I am seeing now is that China is becoming less and less dependent on others, Europe is banding together to create a formidible political, militaristic,a nd economic superpower_including possibly Russia and the US is losing its sway in the world at large. We are (becoming) arrogant in our international politics. For too long has America been the hegemon, a new nation(s) must arise and lead us in a new direction or the only other alternative is a completely different political agenda then the one I see and have seen in D.C. for some time now.
The problems fall to the fact that there are too many problems. Intra-American problems that must be dealt with on various levles of governmant and the US's colossal role it plays in international development, especially in Africa. We have too many problems with not enough fixers(dollars) to fix them. Unfortunetly my self-proclaimed philosophical greatness does not offer me any knowledge that might be used to rectify this situation. So we must continue on as we have and hope for a (heavenly) or some other intervention that might lead to a united world free of starvation, war........and all the other hippie stuff. My conclusion is why bother with the search for one man or woman to take us into unification and freedom and peace when we all could contribute to the greater good. Instead of bickering of policy and philosophy why not find something to agree on. Claiming others stupidity is not the answer, proving your own is not the answer either. We would all wish for perfect knowledge but unfortunatetly for us EVERYONE has an opinion, which is not fact by the way.
So offer your two cents as I have done here and then everyone knows your position. Then we work to compromise. If u find anything you would like to refute in this passage I will not try and silence you thoughts, but pleased be assured that I probably know no more than you and vice versa so we are all just idiots in our own way. This profram is not completely futile however, this actually might be the only answer to better overall world growth that we have at the present.
posted
"So we must continue on as we have and hope for a (heavenly) or some other intervention that might lead to a united world free of starvation, war........and all the other hippie stuff."
Correct me if I'm wrong Adeimantus, but ism't this the 'sit around on your arse and wait till somebody or something lights a fire under it and then invariably jump around like a chicken with its head cut off' philosophy?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...but I find it nearly impossible for nations to set aside pride, hatred, and above all, the sense to rule the world. If one nation said they were willing to give up their power over smaller countries in order to make a better world, I would have to laugh. Not that I'm against a better world and complete and total peace, but it's impossible.
Again let's say that America's greatest enemy came to us and asked our government to give up all of its power in order to show they were willing to give it up, do you honestly think our enemy wouldn't use that as a way to bypass o8ur defense and completely destroy us.
Seeker, I am not suggesting that we ask all nations of the world to give their power to us in order for us to make them protectorates, let alone colonies. However, perhaps we could all (no matter how impossible this may seem what with the middle eastern conflicts) have spheres of influence amongst each other. Imperialism is not completely banished, anyway. We still have a naval base at Guantanamo by provisions of the Platt Amendment. I don't find it to be completely unrealistic to believe that all countries may be more united than the present within the next couple of centuries.
quote: As of right now I would like to think that America is the greatest country in the world and basically has power over everyone (this is my pride talking) and I wouldn't be willing to give up that power just so everyone feels equal.
Imperialism is still existent, Seeker, but we are not in an absolute imperialistic situation with all other nations. I don't doubt that most Americans would like to believe that their homeland is the greatest and strongest power both politically and economically, but can you honestly say that you don't think other countries feel the same way towards their own land?
quote: Not only is it against human nature to what everyone to be equal, but who can we trust? It is just an unfathomable dream to me.
I find it surprising that you think it is unnatural for humans to believe everyone is equal. Most humans take equality for granted - I daresay most everyone practices some form of discrimination every day, but not nearly as many of those people think of others as being unequal - they either reciprocate jealousy without conciously realizing their own unfairness or understand the unsurpassable differences that humans encounter within one another. I do not believe all nations will one day be equal, but I believe that we can strive for some form of similarilty. I believe this is where the Common idea originated from.
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't doubt that most Americans would like to believe that their homeland is the greatest and strongest power both politically and economically, but can you honestly say that you don't think other countries feel the same way towards their own land?"
posted
OK. Valid point SUN, but my main point was that my belief in a "world of peace" is that it cannot be man-made. Though I have no faith in the idea that we will one day have "peace on earth," it is still possible.
My problem is that there are those so resistant to change that they will not even listen to these new ideas. the world is changing, but slowly because change takes time. We strive to balance budgets while spending tens of billions of dollars that is still going on even after it was "won." Sorry. I digress. We need gradual change; first we need change within the countries of the world. We need less dictators, more uncorrupted democracy. We need more liberalism. This is big, because if we are all to bicker about little things like the Commandments being inside a courthouse, then we're gonna get nowhere. We need people to understand that it doesn't matter what sexual afiliation you are, what race, religion, origin, etc, we need more acceptance in order to change. Why spend the duration of our lives fighting over these little disputes when there are problems larger than all of us that will affect those who come after us long into the future. We need to make sacrifices in the present in order to have, please excuse my cliche, a "better tomorrow." We cannot, i repeat, CANNOT mix religion with any kind of government, whether it be judicial, executive, or legislative. Religion is the cause for many of these indiscrepancies. We can have a faith, but organized relgion cannot be as political as it is now. America is secular and it should stay that way completely. Over the next 20 years if we do not move the US toward being more prepared for change, then there will be problems. Just think about how interwoven our society is with those ideas that will prohibit change. It is scary how accustomed we are to our National Christmas Tree. Think also on these: capital punishment, the increasing rate of undergraduate education, the crucial two party system that is draggin down american politics, and the economic, foreign, and enviromental problems that will occur in the next 20 years.
posted
I think I agree with most of your conclusions, but two things I wonder: One, would you propose to accomplish the above attitudes, if you do. Two, "We need more liberalism." why in heck do you use that word? Without thoroughly defining what you mean, more than suggestive, it's useless.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is big, because if we are all to bicker about little things like the Commandments being inside a courthouse, then we're gonna get nowhere. We need people to understand that it doesn't matter what sexual afiliation you are, what race, religion, origin, etc, we need more acceptance in order to change. Why spend the duration of our lives fighting over these little disputes when there are problems larger than all of us that will affect those who come after us long into the future. We need to make sacrifices in the present in order to have, please excuse my cliche, a "better tomorrow."
You suggest that philosophical complacency is the answer to the worlds problems; forgive me if I disagree.
A world of unity, or even a world of morality, will not be accomplished by wishing it so. No feat, in all of human history, has been reached through good intentions. Results require action. Peace requires peacekeepers.
Society requires leaders, not philosophers.
As Peter became older, he often wondered if what he did was right; if Alai, firm in his religious conviction, ought not have been the Hegemon. But he never stepped down. He lead. He did not collapse to his philosophy but stayed firm in his gut resolve, and that is why he remained Locke.
His pseudonym was a philosopher, but his given name was a leader.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liberalism: more policies that accept the idea of change and progress; do not confuse with the traditional ideas of "liberals" vs "conservative" though they(the liberal terms) both share the idea that moving forward is preferable to the opposite.
My main point is that in order to lead, basic concepts of the philosophical arguments must be agreed upon. Spending all of our time arguing over what I believe is inconsiquential and irrelevant to government policy is a step backwards. Focusing on these topics doesnt get us anywhere. IE: the court case legalizing abortion in the US was decided upon 31 years ago, and yet it is one of the largest topics of discussion and argument. I understand that argument leads us to understanding, but I feel that change can take less time and have a greater impact if we come to some basic understandings of society today. Many will probably disagree with me, but (trying to) ban gay marriage? Come on. Trying to mix religion with government? Why does it matter. Religion is a belief held by a group of people and should have nothing to do with governance, why must it be flaunted? For PR? For votes?
You might feel that i am a broken record, but this is a large topic of debate; We can never have a Locke for these reasons that are prevalent today: Religious divisions and its affects on government/society(which is never truly discussed in the Ender series as far as Peter is concerned), the overwhelming population that does not give a crap, and the relative innocence with which Peter goes about attaining his office and keeping it. There are no comparable realistic attributes between Peter and today's Politicians(except ambition, etc)
Unforetunetly, the policies that today's politicians hold so "dear" are bought and sold for the betterment of, most often, the few. I believe that action is the best policy when attempting to bring about change, but action without thought is reckless and damaging. The Fundamentals, the most crucial of the human policies and rights we have gained and fought for, seem to be the policies we most often abuse and bicker over.
My question is this: What is a "leader," if not a philosopher? I believe society needs an "eye-opener" (not a messiah, but a realist; someone who can show the people that we are still repeating the actions that characterized our past, only in a different form. This is the most pitiful truth of all. And also the most preventable.
posted
I'm surprised this is still going, I mean come on, last post was the fourteenth? This was going forever! Now excuse me as I go back into annomy. Posts: 197 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it is not necessarily a smart person we would need as Hegemon but rather someone who knows what to say to people to get them to think of you as a good Hegemon. Even though Bean didnt want to be Hegemon that if it was a smart Hegemon he thought the world needed he would have nominated himself instead aiding Peter Wiggin in his conquest of power.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody figure that OSC himself would be the best Locke of our time? I expect he's missed his chance now, but he's got the mind for social politics and understanding of human nature. I've read some of his columns and I strongly agree with most that has been said.
Suntranafs: Sorry, but the fact that so many people are already debating everything you say (which is only normal for most people) doesn't give me much hope for you becoming the next Locke.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Is incredulous* This.. thread.. is.. still.. ALIVE???? Wow. It really is the energizer bunny incarnate. It seems to be going very slow though, so I might as well try and stoke it up a little
quote: There are many that feel this way.
I think many might be a stretch, anyway I'm pretty sure they're wrong. If I wanted to get polarized I could say that he is far too slanted in his views against the muslim world and for America's Republican leaders, and therefore would be a piss poor representative and an inferior judge of absolute planet earth morals. Not wanting to get too polarized, though, and it's probably a better reason anyway, I'd have to agree with Steel: OSC is a thinker and a writer far more than he is a leader. Don't get me wrong, Card is a great man in his own rite, and I've little doubt that what he does lead he leads wisely and well. To lead the world I think one would have to be a philosopher, but first a leader. More than that one would have to have a great genuine resolve to do so, like as if, in one way or another, one's entire life up to the point of becoming leader would have to be preparing for it. Whether by nature or nurture, the person to lead the world would have to have it all the way. Now that doesn't mean he/she'd have to be like Peter, with a life struggle directly for it, though I think that's an example impossible to rule out, but there's no way you want anyone without an extremely strong and powerful personality, a specifically extremely diverse and enlightened human education, a huge dose of compassion and education about the relationship between practical leadership and compassion, and the will and the self belief to overcome any obstacle, and the willingness to get the job done! And that's just the very most basic req.s, as I see it.
quote: Suntranafs: Sorry, but the fact that so many people are already debating everything you say (which is only normal for most people) doesn't give me much hope for you becoming the next Locke.
Ok, I suppose I look kind of stupid addressing a post two months old, but I'll go ahead because it's fun, and I'm a rabble rouser and because there's a point I'd like to address. I find it kind of humorous that this noble hatracker(you're not by any means the first that as gone along these lines, btw) has not only not read past the first page to find out what is going on, but is responding to statements made by me approximately two years ago. Since I just barely care what I said then, I find hard to fathom that anybody else would. Out weighing these facts though, with which I'm just playing because they're funny, and coming to my point: Kai's conclusion is exactly wrong. And no I'm not trying to get elected hegemon from hatrack again I'm arguing the general case. When you see everybody disagreeing with one person, there are three possibilties, not one. The first is of course that the person is saying stupid things, and that somebody smart pointed it out and a bunch of stupid jerks are ganging up on him because the can. The second is that the person is saying cruel things and he is being reprimanded through common consent. Last but not least, there's the possiblity that the person is someone with potential to be a great leader, because he has his own independent ideas that he is willing to stand by, and does not fear the criticism of others, be they wise noble critics or moronic bullies, For he is a RADICAL. There was never a single great leader born, good or evil, that was not a radical. Stale and Moderate dreams do not move mountains. A radical can come any many forms, it's not a matter of left wing right wing; there could even easliy be a radical of moderation. What makes a radical is not even neccessarily that his ideas are new, it's that his ideas are his. When you see someone on the rise in the world like that, who is begining to gather a strong and diverse folowing, however small, then There's your fundamental trait, There's your world leader, There is your Locke.
posted
I am an optimist. But, though it is fun to contribute to this thread and ponder about what would make a locke for our world- a hegemon. But the way I see it is we can end this discussion with one thing---reality. And the reality is that the only fathomable way our world could have a hegemon is if there was another world war--which is not preferable. i dont think we need a world where one person controls the world. Just think about the enormity of that position-the real job would fall to whoever worked under the hegemon, the real policy and decision makers. So who should the hegemon be? A spokesperson. And this is only a hypothetical because I believe that one man should not have so much power and that the idea of a hegemon in our world is naive and unreasonable. Independent democracies with strong economic ties is good enough for me. So instead of arguing about whether or not OSC would be a good hegemon in any capacity or what qualities are, if I may, Hegemonic- we could discuss more applicable topics? But it has been fun, we just need a more relevant thread in here.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the way I see it is we can end this discussion with one thing---reality. And the reality is that the only fathomable way our world could have a hegemon is if there was another world war
Why? That doesn't really make sense, because if there's another real world war, with both sides seriously fighting it'll be too late for a world government. As for a unifying tragedy/challenge, people have suggested an Asteroid or comet, or an alien attack. I'm thinking they need to wake up, because we're killing ourselves already, and the 'Future' is Now. A dozen or so subtle threats that seem little to most people now, because most people tend to not bother about anything except that which is right in front of them. The trouble about this day in age, unlike others, by the time it becomes obvious that one of those 'little' threats is in fact a big threat, it will no longer be a threat, it will be a, as you say, reality. But humans haven't got this far because they are stupid, and there are plenty of things lying around to wake them up with, it's just that nobody has effectively done it yet.
quote: i dont think we need a world where one person controls the world
Whether or not we need one, depending on your definition of "Controls", is irrelevant because you won't find one capable. With humans, unlike with buggers, government, regardless of style, is not a matter of absolute control, it's a matter of arbitration or corruption.
quote: the real job would fall to whoever worked under the hegemon, the real policy and decision makers.
Or maybe some of the job could fall to the "hegemon", and a larger part to the legislature, and hang the policy and decision makers.
quote: Independent democracies with strong economic ties is good enough for me.
And they all get along hunky dory. A utopia. Sounds good, but flies like an ostrich, and won't happen, though could theoretically if people were better than they are, but they're not. Of course, without the everlasting-near-presence of a common enemy, a unified human race(unlike a utopia) may happen, but on a single planet it will not last. There always has to be a frontier, or the human race will not survive. Fortunately, there always will be one. If a world government is established, and space travel/colonization is made possible (which it undoubted could be given the immense resources available) then, as has been the concern of many on this thread, no matter how good the world government is, there will undoubtedly be serious critics, people unwilling to live in what they somehow feel is an oppressive shadow, or people who just want to see more, and to the best and brightest of these the solution will be obvious, these will be the frontiersmen, and their way will be as tough as any that came before them, but they will get there. What happens after that is anybody's guess, theoretically there might be harmony for a thousand years, or there might be a massive revolutionary war in a hundred, but Mars and any others will be a long way off, and for a while at least, though billions may die, some small part of enlightened humanity will have outdistanced its greatest threats, its own weapons, over crowding, polution, disease, a lack of resources, and all the other tragedies that can far too easily come from a lack of physical diversity.
quote: So instead of arguing about whether or not OSC would be a good hegemon in any capacity or what qualities are, if I may, Hegemonic- we could discuss more applicable topics?
Nobody's stopping you, mate, but what's more applicable?
quote: we just need a more relevant thread in here.
And what is more relevant than the quest for the survival of humanity and who should lead it? Not to be a jerk, just don't really see what you're driving at.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
First- my point was the only way to install a world government would be, like in the ender series, through collective strife--where the world could join together to counter a common enemy, but like you said SUN this world government will not last. That is why I was speaking of reality. Other world colonization is YEARS AND YEARS away. Even the idea of a world government is laughable. Why should we try to find the answer to a question that does not concern us now? Even if we should find a sutiable "hegemon" then what have we accomplished? How then can we make a hegemony on earth within the next 70 years? That is my point. Though this may be a good phlosophical discussion, why not focus our time trying to find the answer to what you mentione in your post, the real questions that need answering:
quote: its own weapons, over crowding, polution, disease, a lack of resources, and all the other tragedies that can far too easily come from a lack of physical diversity.
The hegemon is not part of "the quest for the survival of humanity". It is up to us NOW to come up with answers in order to sustain life. Why not solve these problems first and then worry about a "leader?"
And so I come to my point--reality. You speak of threats and possibilities, but I have found that humans learn to cope with these troubles and find ways to work them out or work around them.
We can not think of our world in terms of Card's world in the Ender series. It is NOT and I repeat NOT a 'problem' that we do not have a world government or a hegemon, but it is a problem that people are starving in North Korea, that we still have repressive dictatorships around the world. That people cannot recieve education that will save their lives in Africa and other parts of the world. We have many wide spread problems affecting us today that aren't going to be releaved by a hegemon. And taking the time to try and work out something that is not affecting us and will nto affect us for many centuries is, dare i say, irrelevant.
The problems affecting us today are not to be solved by a hegemon, but by the systems of governments around the world TODAY, working in cooperation to find common goals and strategies for battling these problems.
My last point is---Why search for the medium when you can search for the answer?
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"First- my point was the only way to install a world government would be, like in the ender series, through collective strife--where the world could join together to counter a common enemy"
And my point is that common enemies abound.
", but like you said SUN this world government will not last. "
I implied that it would not stand unchanging forever in its own rite, I also implied that it would probably not endure as the only leading body of the human race- no entity will- but that it could last long and well(not forever, but if it is laid down right, it ought to have as good a chance of survival as a changing entity as say Britain) as a "planet earth government" if there were other governments elsewhere to filter to.
"How then can we make a hegemony on earth within the next 70 years? "
That's a good question, and it has a good answer, if not several good answers, hard to uncover but nonetheless existent so long as the one who questions believes answers can be found. In my opinion, world war or world unification is inevitable in the next 70 years, if not the next 40.
"You speak of threats and possibilities, but I have found that humans learn to cope with these troubles and find ways to work them out or work around them."
That is why the human race is still alive so far. Unfortunately, one of our premier methods of coping has in the past has been full scale war. A full scale war as this point would mean the end of the human race as we know it. Our other method of coping with our most serious problems has been exploration, expansion, and escape. This option is difficult under current governments but certainly would be quite feasible with the power of a unified one to get things going.
first you say:
quote: it is a problem that people are starving in North Korea, that we still have repressive dictatorships around the world
Then you say:
quote: The problems affecting us today are not to be solved by a hegemon, but by the systems of governments around the world TODAY, working in cooperation to find common goals and strategies for battling these problems.
I would ask how exactly are the "repressive dicatatorships going to "find common goals and strategies"? How are starving people in Somalia going to "find common goals and strategies" because some european who lives in a two hundred thousand dollar home dropped bags of rice on their heads so they could survive for one more day? Have you any idea how many countries are in civil and guerilla war, or how many people all over that are starving or dying of diseases that people should no longer have to die of, or how little is being done about it all, or how much could be done by a fully committed united front?
quote: My last point is---Why search for the medium when you can search for the answer?
I do not understand what you mean. If you mean why search for the method neccessary to achieve the goal when you could search for the goal, then I'd say the "answer" is pretty obvious: to come as close as possible to lasting moral enlightenment and economic well being, meaning that everyone is pursuing highest virtue while their most basic needs are met. I surmise that there are relatively few people that would disagree with this point and that most of them are stupid jerks.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one wants the arrogant leader, if you are going to try and save the world the way Peter tried to take it over in the aftermath of the buggers, learn from his mistakes.
Also
(I hope because I added this this post isn't deemed spam)
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amazing. After reading 17 pages, I have a lot of thoughts, most of which would take too long to mention.
First, I loved the impassioned nature of the speeches at some points - it reminded me of OSC's trial and error process Peter and Valentine went through trying to find adult voices that worked. And after a while, you all did. So, Suntran, you still interested in becoming a world leader?
I think all of your ideas of searching for a Locke were quite brilliant, but perhaps aiming a little too high to begin with. Begin with a single step and things may look easier; changing the world is possible, but it is easier to change yourself.
Have you considered the possibilities of starting your own country rather than adapting the government of others? (a real question, I promise you).
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the world to really unite it needs to unite against something or else it will be along time before unity comes on its own. Fear and threats often speed up the course of world affairs.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Problem with being a dictator style hegemon like peter is made out to be is in real life you need suport to govern, its never been done before without a fanatical suport base or extreme oppression... I know you all love to get the rosy outlook that people are all nice and happy and want to be friends and live in peace but its simply not the case.. and a democratic world govt cant possibly adequitely represent the entire world, heck we have problems representing even just this one country.
Fact of the matter is Peter is not a real person, and there has never been a real person to govern any nation of large size without seriously restricting the rights of the citizens or turning the citizens into blood thursty fanatics and turning them loose on other people ala hitler. I would much rather live with the threats we have today in a society we have today than live in a society like any of those even if it protected me from the threats... besides even if you can find a benevolent hegemon you need to find a new one every 30 years or so forever unless you want the old Augustus to Claudius style fun.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fallow if we wish for world government to happen within our life times. Then yes velocity is a concern.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
don't you worry that the speed of social change (increasingly lagging behind technological progress - standup-comedy potential aside) is a little unsettling? particularly for anything that might be called a social "institution"?
posted
Jumping back to the original post. Where is the second coming? I'll tell you.
Jesus was a faker. A good teacher and all that. Believe he was god, that's fine. Weak people need something to believe in. If you believe Jesus was truely God's son then I tell you this... I am the second coming of Christ.
But for those who know enough to see a good trick or a work of fiction when they see it. I'm just enlightened. And we all have god inside of us. Who hears your prayers? God/only you.
That is all.
Silence is silver. Thought is gold. Actions are diamonds.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, believe what you want. And I'll believe what I want. Atleast I'm not sitting at home waiting for the second coming of Christ to be born. Or what's better... heaven. Yeah I'm REALLY looking forward to death.
posted
I think everyone has their own opinion. However, when people express their opinion in a hateful, immature way other people tend to have a problem with it.
posted
The only reason you perceive my message as "hateful and immature" is because you think that. Not me. I am neither hateful or immature. I am who I say I am. I am just plain old me. It's all a matter of perception.
Only "hateful and immature" people would be upset at what I say. Think about that.
Silence is silver. Thought is golden. Actions are diamonds.
I was simply trying to point out that you might tone it down so you don't offend anyone with the very religious beliefs that you mocked. I'm an agnostic, so it didn't bug me, but I like everyone here. Part of what I like about people here is that they don't make an obvious effort to stomp on others' beliefs.
posted
I think we are missing the point here. It doesn't matter why White posted the message the way she did, what matters is why that is what she BELIEVES. If you don't mind my asking, what is it that you believe White? Are you a follower of another religion, or are you purely athiestic, though I do not believe that anyone can be PURELY athiestic. Do you believe in an afterlife at all, and what about God? Does God exist?
Posts: 50 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without regard to divinity, the question propossed on page one still remains. Some have propossed people to be the answer to where is Locke, others have pointed to institutions. And still others have propossed God/religion as Locke.
Still wondering if anyone can nail down a good answer. Been a solid 8 pages of posts since I last checked this thread.
Posts: 110 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
