United NAtions Parlamentary Assembly

[25]

If you fools think for a second any of the major nations in the world would subscribe to this bullshit you have another thing coming. 

Any major nation with ambition and intelligence ought to jump at an opportunity to corrupt such a system and mold developing nations in their own image. If a large group of minor nations, still ripe for much financial exploitation, are willing to leap into this without looking we'd all be fools not to take advantage of it. Even better, if many other major nations are put off by the idea then a single nation with enough financial and military power could politically annex a huge portion of the globe. Imagine Russia, for example,  having all of Europe and half of Asia at its beck and call.

Think of it in terms of the principalities of Europe 500 years ago, the potential is evident.

[Gordon Gekko]

No sleuthing is required.  You posted your web address which is public information.  I'm not Flagg, and your lawsuit probably never came to fruition - because it was all bullshit.  Rather than focus on what someone says, you attack them.  Just you exaggerated what Flagg did by calling the topic Mother's Maiden name and Social Security.  Flagg called you your real name, nothing more, nothing less.  Lie and Victimize yourself as much as you want, you seem to be good at it.

Your IP says shithole. What gives?

[lastroots]

Rather than call me a troll and reply only to those who support your cause, try to answer the real questions that you'll be forced to answer before anyone takes this idea seriously.  Why should a soverign and strong Nation like the US (UK, France, China, Japan etc..) submit to a government where weak nations like Nigeria, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Poland have an input on their economies and social systems?  Weak and poor nations will support this idea because they'll be able to profit off the 1st world nations.  If you fools think for a second any of the major nations in the world would subscribe to this bullshit you have another thing coming.  This is some fantasy by an individual with no real understanding of the world and certainly nothing invested to put at risk.  There is a reason why only college students and poor countries support this shit - none of them have anything to lose.

Edit:  Organizations like the Un can pass resolutions until they're blue in the face, but how will they enforce it?  They require US money and might to run most things now.  Do you think that the US would ever let a bunch of 3rd world dictators pass a law that would turn the US own power against itself.  The same can be applied with any other 1st world nation.  They have nothing to gain from this and won't sign.

You obviously didn't pay any attention to the points of the Strategy Paper I posted above. Maybe you realised that some people here are clearly not supporting me, but still I talk to them since they add to the discussion in a constructive way.

[lastroots]

lastroots:

I have some questions I'd like to have answered:

1.) According to the strategy paper, "The Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations should be open to all member states of the United Nations which are provided with a constitutionally embodied parliament." 
---My question here is one of semantics.  To have a parliamentary form of government generally means to have a representative legislature, out of which a prime minister is chosen.  I contrast this with a presidential form of government, where the executive and legislature are separately elected.  Does this paper mean "constitutionally embodied parliament" as I am interpreting them, or does it mean, more generally, any representative form of government? 

2.) You mentioned that you consider many countries "semi-democratic."  Are you contrasting these with any fully democratic countries, or just commenting that "true" democracy has yet to be realized? 

 

1. We are cleary aiming at "constitutionally embodied parliaments". Out of the 197 current members of the UN, 117 are democracies based on such a parliamentary system. And since the people within the UNPA will be freely elected by the citicens of their countries, it will not only include government members but also opposition members. This will guarantee that the UNPA members are not just on line with their home governments but can act on their own principles.

2. Yes, I wanted to say that, in my opinion, "real democracy" has yet to be realised. I live in Germany, and we are free to elect our parliament, but that's not a real democracy. A demmocracy would be a government trying to do the best it is able to do for my country. They don't. Most of the time they spread lies, just to look goog in the media and to keep their power through the next elections. Just one example. And as far as I can see it is nearly the same in all other "democratic" countries.

[25]

A demmocracy would be a government trying to do the best it is able to do for my country.

No, a Democracy would be a government of randomly selected private citizens with a one-year term limit and the possibility of being elected again by random lot. The popular vote would be used to outcast, for a decade, those who have served poorly, rather than to select a representative out of a handful of selected candidates. That would be a democracy, as developed by the Athenians*. Anything else is a two-bit knock-off.


(*I should point out that I refer specifically to the Council of 500 as they were the real, full-time government of Athens who set the agenda for the Assembly.)

[lastroots]

25, you have a point there.

But you must take into conclusion that that wasn't a real democracy either. In fact, women, immigrants and slaves were not allowed to participate in the elections. Second is that these democratic system was always used to rule just one city, so only for a rather small group of citizens. And last, a lot of things changed since back then. A parliament of today has to solve way more problems and is in need of more experts on different topics, etc. The world has become far more complex. In fact our current idea of democracy is a developed update of the democratic philosophy of Athens.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Democracy has become, along the years, a sacred word.
I dont think it's is that big of deal.
Democracy does NOT mean freedom or happiness.
Democracy does NOT mean "governement trying its best for the country"

It's only the voice of the people.
Unfortunalty, we are in a world where people are easily manipulated by money, the medias, pressure groups, lobbying ...

what's the deal with democracy if people do not really know or choose who they're voting for?

KingCobra > if they have nothing to lose they're stronger than you.

[lastroots]

You're right to some degree.

The big problem is that a lot of people (the majority in the so-called western world) don't even really think about it anymore. That's one thing we want to change, for example by doing the media campaign starting on April 23. We want people to realize that they in fact have the chance to change things and to make things better. The existance of this chance alone is democracy.

You are completely right when it comes to manipulation. That is a huge problem and I am totally aware of the danger of a corrupted UNPA. That is clearly not what we want. The plus is that there will be so many countries, so many people together in the UNPA that it will be hard to corrupt them all at once. We are currently working on strategies, doing our best to strenghten the system against corruption and manipulation. I don't know if we will succeed. But we are doing the best we can. And we have strong supporters in doing so, which you all will be able to see as soon as the list of subscribers and supporters gets released. 

[25]

25, you have a point there.

But you must take into conclusion that that wasn't a real democracy either. In fact, women, immigrants and slaves were not allowed to participate in the elections. Second is that these democratic system was always used to rule just one city, so only for a rather small group of citizens. And last, a lot of things changed since back then. A parliament of today has to solve way more problems and is in need of more experts on different topics, etc. The world has become far more complex. In fact our current idea of democracy is a developed update of the democratic philosophy of Athens.

"Our current idea of democracy" is not a revision, it's an entirely different system. To call it an "update" is akin to a computer an update of the abacus.
And your understanding of Athenian Democracy seems limited. The problems they faced, their use of "experts," were by all accounts similar to ours, with the exception that they sought to solve problems rather than paper over them and their experts were actually listened to rather than "consulted." It's a common misconception that, because the common man was involved at all stages of the proceedings, the original democracy was some sort of dumbed-down clusterfuck of opinion. The reality being that people were allowed to speak who knew whereof they spoke, waffling  partisans were, at best, ignored. Sounds a little more effective and logical than the current system, doesn't it?

The world is much less complex today than it was one or two thousand years ago, not more complex. The problems are much the same but the numbers are fewer and bigger. You'd think that would make them easier to identify and fix, no? Perhaps the very idea of small groups of men ruling populations of hundreds of millions is flawed, and the human race isn't capable of organization on such a scale? Doesn't bode well for any global system of government, if you ask me. 



I apologize for the aggressive and pompous tone of this post, I'm just trying to keep it simple and direct.

[25]

The plus is that there will be so many countries, so many people together in the UNPA that it will be hard to corrupt them all at once.

Isn't it easier to corrupt a large group of people more quickly than a small group of people with differing opinions? Isn't herd mentality a concern as an organization expands?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

As much as we can debate

These kind of project must be supported. In some ways. Economics and politics have gone global, and companies are now transcending nations and countries. Soon enough, decisions will have to be made globally and wolrdwide, with the voice of the "weak poor countries" - as some can say -. My fear is that we will just "copy paste" our western societies system knowing that it's not really working internally ....

[lastroots]

I don't think so. Look at the European Parliament. It's huge. From time to time we have people there who get corrupted, but never the whole system. If things go wrong, you have always people speaking their minds and fighting against it.

For your first post - it's ok to be direct, speak your mind. I just don't share your opinion that the world has become less complex. But I'm completely with your argument that our governments should act instead of talk everything to death. That's a big problem with all the bureaucracy we have in Germany currently. A bunch of good ideas to reform our systems came up during the last years, but they were so talked to death that the now realised outcome is just bollocks.

[lastroots]

As much as we can debate

These kind of project must be supported. In some ways. Economics and politics have gone global, and companies are now transcending nations and countries. Soon enough, decisions will have to be made globally and wolrdwide, with the voice of the "weak poor countries" - as some can say -. My fear is that we will just "copy paste" our western societies system knowing that it's not really working internally ....

You're right with that fear. But the plan is to involve these countries. It must be clear from the first moment that the copy & paste strategy will never come to fruition.

[25]

These kind of project must be supported.

How about this kind of project; A "League of developing nations," made up of and run by the democratic governments of upcoming countries to look after the interests of their people and commodities? A united front for the smaller nations. Something like that, executed correctly, would be of more value than an assembly in which smaller nations must compete or comply with larger ones.

[lastroots]

These kind of project must be supported.

How about this kind of project; A "League of developing nations," made up of and run by the democratic governments of upcoming countries to look after the interests of their people and commodities? A united front for the smaller nations. Something like that, executed correctly, would be of more value than an assembly in which smaller nations must compete or comply with larger ones.

Interesting, but that would not comply with our plan to move global politics closer to the citizens. As explained in the strategy paper, our goal is to give everyone in the world a democratic say. We're all humans. No one has the right to raise his voice over others. Everyone has got to have the same influence in a democratic world.

[25]

Interesting, but that would not comply with our plan to move global politics closer to the citizens. As explained in the strategy paper, our goal is to give everyone in the world a democratic say. We're all humans. No one has the right to raise his voice over others. Everyone has got to have the same influence in a democratic world.

Well, that peaks my interest. If everyone should have a say, no-one having the right to raise their voice over another, isn't the fact that current "democratic" governments are exclusive clubs in which the politicians are separate and secluded from their own people - and the people in general are excluded, financially, from effective participation - an obstacle preventing you from reaching your goal in any more than a superficial way?

[lastroots]

No. The democratic idea here is to give everyone the same right to participate. Every voice of every citicen has the same weight, and everyone is free to join a party and participate actively in politics. People choose those who they trust the most and elect them to support their interests - that's democracy.

A government that is elected does not stand above the people (or, at least, it should not), since it would not be there if the people would not have chosen and elected it.

[lastroots]

Oh, btw, we have a FAQ-paper pdf. If anyone is interested to read it, maybe to answer some of your question at once, just pm me with your email adress and I'll send it to you.

[25]

A government that is elected does not stand above the people (or, at least, it should not), since it would not be there if the people would not have chosen and elected it.

But if a political system, even one in which the representatives are freely elected, is clearly deeply corrupted by financial interests; where the representatives are selected by their own parties before being offered to the public; where to campaign for a position within the system you must have access to an incredible amount of money; where lobbyists have such influence that they literally get to write legislation; isn't the system clearly exclusionary? If so,  isn't a free and equal parliament comprised of many of those governments actually an elite collective in which the elites are equal only among each other, while the people they represent are still excluded? Regardless of the intent, isn't that a likely outcome?

[lastroots]

It is a danger, correct. It is a point that we are still working on, as I said in an earlier post.

If you want to have a deeper insight in such points, I really suggest you our FAQ, which will show you how far the ideas are developed yet.

I'll be off now for some time, since I have work to do. But I'll return later to answer more questions.