|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:31 pm
What you are implicitly stating is the destruction of soveriegn nations, and instituting a world government. This, in its self, is the antithesis of everything I believe. One world government would mean that one body of government would hold sway over all of the affairs of man.
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." as Lord Acton once stated.
So please, in the future, before simply making blanket invitations to those who participate in the ED, actually READ their posts. Making an invitation to one who would find your guild's thesis repugnant at best only comes off as being sarcastic.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:06 pm
The institution of a united world assembly does not have to mean the destruction of the sovereign nations of the world. What it does mean is that the nations of the world would be able to work together at eliminating the ills of today's world and preventing those of tomorrow's.
Acton may be correct in saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," but the beauty of a democracy is simple: no single person has absolute power.
The broad scope of invitation reflects this guild's desire to represent the views of all people. We would be doing no one any good by inviting only those people who support our views. As I sent out invitations, I made a conscious effort to invite people of all beliefs, and especially those on opposite sides of arguments.
I am personally sorry that you chose not to join the Novos community, we could have benefited from your input.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:59 am
i think it would be great if:
all the nations in the world become great nations very quickly. the smaller weaker nations may join better ones, and they become better too.
then, after they all become great, they slowly join each other and eventualy turn into one big country.
or here's anouther solution. but albeit more violent.
a great big war breacks out, and one country conqures the world. if this country so happens to have no freedoms at all, then a new revolt or something liek a civil war, or something. and then we all get great freedoms, and unlike america, the government doesn't breack does freedoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:10 am
yes i totally belive in trotsky we must all be one before communism can work perfectly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:28 am
Cyrus_Ariavand i think it would be great if: all the nations in the world become great nations very quickly. the smaller weaker nations may join better ones, and they become better too. then, after they all become great, they slowly join each other and eventualy turn into one big country. or here's anouther solution. but albeit more violent. a great big war breacks out, and one country conqures the world. if this country so happens to have no freedoms at all, then a new revolt or something liek a civil war, or something. and then we all get great freedoms, and unlike america, the government doesn't breack does freedoms. Poverty doesn't just go away. Even if you join the two poorest nations in the worls together, the result is not better off. Wealth per person is still the same. Also, the war you spoke of could end human life (as least as we know it) if certain weapons were used such as nuclear bombs and biological weapons. About revolt, In the modern era of technology, a government has the capacity to watch every action of every individual. Using such intelligence, revolts could be squished before the idea spread to more than 2 people. Against a modern absolute government, we could loose the power of revolt. That's a scary thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:52 am
Aperium The institution of a united world assembly does not have to mean the destruction of the sovereign nations of the world. What it does mean is that the nations of the world would be able to work together at eliminating the ills of today's world and preventing those of tomorrow's. Acton may be correct in saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," but the beauty of a democracy is simple: no single person has absolute power. The broad scope of invitation reflects this guild's desire to represent the views of all people. We would be doing no one any good by inviting only those people who support our views. As I sent out invitations, I made a conscious effort to invite people of all beliefs, and especially those on opposite sides of arguments. I am personally sorry that you chose not to join the Novos community, we could have benefited from your input. No, just, no. You do NOT want people from all different viewpoints to join your organization, because any conservative, such as myself, would declare "Thou art anathema!" and get as far from your organizations reach as possible. Your guild here is nothing more than a new comintern with a different name. One world government would not respect the sovereignty of nations, and borders would be slowly but surely erased, to the point where its one big country. No conservative would want that. And any "Republican" who says that would be nice is a Democrat in red state disguise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:11 am
Greylance Aperium The institution of a united world assembly does not have to mean the destruction of the sovereign nations of the world. What it does mean is that the nations of the world would be able to work together at eliminating the ills of today's world and preventing those of tomorrow's. Acton may be correct in saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," but the beauty of a democracy is simple: no single person has absolute power. The broad scope of invitation reflects this guild's desire to represent the views of all people. We would be doing no one any good by inviting only those people who support our views. As I sent out invitations, I made a conscious effort to invite people of all beliefs, and especially those on opposite sides of arguments. I am personally sorry that you chose not to join the Novos community, we could have benefited from your input. No, just, no. You do NOT want people from all different viewpoints to join your organization, because any conservative, such as myself, would declare "Thou art anathema!" and get as far from your organizations reach as possible. Your guild here is nothing more than a new comintern with a different name. One world government would not respect the sovereignty of nations, and borders would be slowly but surely erased, to the point where its one big country. No conservative would want that. And any "Republican" who says that would be nice is a Democrat in red state disguise. Yes, I tell you, we do want people of all viewpoints and opinions, even if they are in direct opposition with other members. Such disagreement encourages discussion and leads to a better understanding of what would and would not be acceptable to all people. The united world assembly idea and the idea of a world government that have been proposed are just that: ideas. If you have a different idea, please propose it. Here at Novos, we support productive and constructive discussion. This allows you to say what you think is wrong (or right) with the ideas of others as well as give your ideas and receive comments on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:05 am
Hang on... So you're refusing to join a guild you joined? Well why join it in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:44 pm
Emmanuela Hang on... So you're refusing to join a guild you joined? Well why join it in the first place? I believe your confusion may come from the fact that Novos is a public Guild and non-members can post just like members can. This way we cam encourage people like Greylance to talk, even if they won't join.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:28 am
I believe Lord Acton was wrong, what he should have said was "Any amount of power, can absolutely corrupt."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:21 am
M-mann I believe Lord Acton was wrong, what he should have said was "Any amount of power, can absolutely corrupt." People always have some amount of power, even if it's only over themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:37 pm
M-mann I believe Lord Acton was wrong, what he should have said was "Any amount of power, can absolutely corrupt." Wrong. When you are not in absolute power, when you have to worry about other people over top of you, that can bring any corruption to heel very quickly. When you have absolute power, there is no check nor balance to keep your from total corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 7:23 pm
Greylance M-mann I believe Lord Acton was wrong, what he should have said was "Any amount of power, can absolutely corrupt." Wrong. When you are not in absolute power, when you have to worry about other people over top of you, that can bring any corruption to heel very quickly. When you have absolute power, there is no check nor balance to keep your from total corruption. Which is why the United States decided on a three branch system. Each branch balances the other two. No single branch has absolute power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:29 pm
Well, I think both sides of the coin are right (dichotomous, I know). Any amount of power can lead to mental or moral corruption...this has clearly been evidenced in many cases even within the U.S. government. Any amount of power can lead to total corruption. However, the check-and-balance system guards against the use of that corruptive power. Absolute power merely allows one to use the absolute corruption already present in the mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:42 pm
And even if everyone is fully corrupt, the government will remain to balance their actions( unless their corruptions lead them to all work together... eek scary thought )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
