Constitution of Mankind

[Absurd Ramblings]

- That there must never be any laws aside from this one.

[Old Tyrannia]

Upholding and recognising traditional authority does not equal allowing local authorities to do whatever the hell they please. Additionally, I fail to see how the people of the United States would suddenly decide to obliterate Russia just because of the prescence of a global authority. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you think the leadership of a hypothetical North American regional authority based in the former United States would have any authority over Russia.

1. Ronald Reagan said what I posted.

That's an interesting fact, but again I fail to see the relevance to the discussion.

2. My point is that you need to define the rights of local governing, otherwise I get to decide it first. It could include mandatory pony rides, it could include wing-tip-to-wing-tip negotiations, we never know.

I never presented that list as a complete global constitution, just a list of basic principles I think it should uphold, like the OP gave. Obviously it didn't cover all the details.

3. Because "traditional authority" in North America starts in Washington DC.

But Washington, D.C. is not the traditional source of authority for Russia, is it? The traditional authorities in Russia are the Czars and the Russian Orthodox Church. Also, traditional authority (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense of the word) in the United States starts in Washington, D.C. Canada and Mexico have not traditionally been under the yoke of the US government.

[The Emerald Dawn]

1. Ronald Reagan said what I posted.

That's an interesting fact, but again I fail to see the relevance to the discussion.

2. My point is that you need to define the rights of local governing, otherwise I get to decide it first. It could include mandatory pony rides, it could include wing-tip-to-wing-tip negotiations, we never know.

I never presented that list as a complete global constitution, just a list of basic principles I think it should uphold, like the OP gave. Obviously it didn't cover all the details.

3. Because "traditional authority" in North America starts in Washington DC.

But Washington, D.C. is not the traditional source of authority for Russia, is it? The traditional authorities in Russia are the Czars and the Russian Orthodox Church. Also, traditional authority (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense of the word) in the United States starts in Washington, D.C. Canada and Mexico have not traditionally been under the yoke of the US government.

What happens when two traditional authorities disagree?

[Old Tyrannia]

That's an interesting fact, but again I fail to see the relevance to the discussion.

I never presented that list as a complete global constitution, just a list of basic principles I think it should uphold, like the OP gave. Obviously it didn't cover all the details.

But Washington, D.C. is not the traditional source of authority for Russia, is it? The traditional authorities in Russia are the Czars and the Russian Orthodox Church. Also, traditional authority (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense of the word) in the United States starts in Washington, D.C. Canada and Mexico have not traditionally been under the yoke of the US government.

What happens when two traditional authorities disagree?

Be more specific, please. An example would be nice.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What happens when two traditional authorities disagree?

Be more specific, please. An example would be nice.

Washington disagrees with Russia. On ANYTHING. That's the entire premise of our discussion. Your statement is allowing for traditional authority, and that includes the authority to war.

[Norsklow]

What happens when two traditional authorities disagree?

Be more specific, please. An example would be nice.

The traditional authority over the The colonies is King George.
However, the seditious locals don't agree and point to their ancient constituted assemblies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwmSL3-Y77k

[North California]

Ya'll forgot some important shit:

-No searches and seizures without a warrant.
-A right to privacy
-A right of first refusal
-A right to bear arms
-A right to secede

[Old Tyrannia]

Be more specific, please. An example would be nice.

Washington disagrees with Russia. On ANYTHING. That's the entire premise of our discussion. Your statement is allowing for traditional authority, and that includes the authority to war.

Washington has no authority over the Russian administration and Russia has no authority over the United States. As in all federal or decentralized polities, the central administration would not allow two internal regional authorities to go to war with each other, and the regional authorities would have no military to fight with in the first place. Problem solved.

Be more specific, please. An example would be nice.

The traditional authority over the The colonies is King George.
However, the seditious locals don't agree and point to their ancient constituted assemblies.

The traditional laws and codes of protocol of the region in question would be used to solve the dispute.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Washington disagrees with Russia. On ANYTHING. That's the entire premise of our discussion. Your statement is allowing for traditional authority, and that includes the authority to war.

Washington has no authority over the Russian administration and Russia has no authority over the United States. As in all federal or decentralized polities, the central administration would not allow two internal regional authorities to go to war with each other, and the regional authorities would have no military to fight with in the first place. Problem solved.

The traditional authority over the The colonies is King George.
However, the seditious locals don't agree and point to their ancient constituted assemblies.

The traditional laws and codes of protocol of the region in question would be used to solve the dispute.

Then you don't have "Traditional Authority".

[Absurd Ramblings]

No.

Troll detected.

I think the troll is you, with your insinuation that anarchy implies human-on-human violence.
Anarchy does not mean no rules - it means no rulers. It means people ruling themselves. Incidentally, all the worst shit that's been pulled off in the world has been done by everyone EXCEPT anarchists.

The only thing you can blame (some) anarchists for is their utopian sense of pacifism.

[Old Tyrannia]

Washington has no authority over the Russian administration and Russia has no authority over the United States. As in all federal or decentralized polities, the central administration would not allow two internal regional authorities to go to war with each other, and the regional authorities would have no military to fight with in the first place. Problem solved.

The traditional laws and codes of protocol of the region in question would be used to solve the dispute.

Then you don't have "Traditional Authority".

I'm sorry, once again I'm completely failing to see your point.

[Norsklow]

Washington disagrees with Russia. On ANYTHING. That's the entire premise of our discussion. Your statement is allowing for traditional authority, and that includes the authority to war.

Washington has no authority over the Russian administration and Russia has no authority over the United States. As in all federal or decentralized polities, the central administration would not allow two internal regional authorities to go to war with each other, and the regional authorities would have no military to fight with in the first place. Problem solved.

The traditional authority over the The colonies is King George.
However, the seditious locals don't agree and point to their ancient constituted assemblies.

The traditional laws and codes of protocol of the region in question would be used to solve the dispute.

I'm so sorry. That is a bit silly. The Region,I claim is dependent, and at it's traditional assemblies are dependent on my delegation of authority over them.

Now. as for my right to reign over you:

I took the throne of England
Just 'cause I was protestant
A German prince whose English stank,
King George number one

We were born to rule over you
King George four, three, one and two
You had to do what we told you to
Just because our blood was blue

Your traditional assemblies have no authority,other than what I delegated unto them, in my mercy.

[Old Tyrannia]

Washington has no authority over the Russian administration and Russia has no authority over the United States. As in all federal or decentralized polities, the central administration would not allow two internal regional authorities to go to war with each other, and the regional authorities would have no military to fight with in the first place. Problem solved.

The traditional laws and codes of protocol of the region in question would be used to solve the dispute.

I'm so sorry. That is a bit silly. The Region,I claim is dependent, and at it's traditional assemblies are dependent on my delegation of authority over them.

Now. as for my right to reign over you:

I took the throne of England
Just 'cause I was protestant
A German prince whose English stank,
King George number one

We were born to rule over you
King George four, three, one and two
You had to do what we told you to
Just because our blood was blue

Your traditional assemblies have no authority,other than what I delegated unto them, in my mercy.

Region was perhaps the wrong phrase. Culture may have been better.

[Norsklow]

Region was perhaps the wrong phrase. Culture may have been better.

Possibly, but how does that alter the basic question?
There are 2 bodies that claim to have traditional authority. They both have a reasonable weight of arguments at their side...

[North California]

If there is a one world government, we need a right to rebel and fucking slaughter every last globalist on the planet and bring back everyone's country.


Also, nuking the capital of the world would be nice, for good measure.

[Divair]

fucking slaughter every last globalist on the planet

Thanks.

[Yewhohohopia]

If there is a one world government, we need a right to rebel and fucking slaughter every last globalist on the planet and bring back everyone's country.


Also, nuking the capital of the world would be nice, for good measure.

Ah the old Third-Generation RAF approach to fighting fascism.

[North California]

fucking slaughter every last globalist on the planet

Thanks.

I'm sorry but I refuse to live under a planetary corporate police state.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Then you don't have "Traditional Authority".

I'm sorry, once again I'm completely failing to see your point.

Putting aside my opposition to world government in the first place, I think the key principals of my ideal global constitution would be:

1) The upholding of traditional authority throughout the world.
2) The right to freedom of speech and thought.
3) The right of all people to the basic neccesities of life, as well as to life itself.
4) The right of all living things to be treated with respect, and the condemnation of all forms of cruelty.
5) The obligation to protect the Earth's natural environment.

And no, I must confess that I do not believe any hypothetical constitution I would draw up for a united human race would be deemed acceptable to the rest of the human race.

The bolded, underlined, and italicized. My point is that you're wrong, and I've been trying to get you to see how and why you're wrong.

[Divair]

Thanks.

I'm sorry but I refuse to live under a planetary corporate police state.

Who says it'll be a police state?

[Yewhohohopia]

Thanks.

I'm sorry but I refuse to live under a planetary corporate police state.

Of course the way to escape a pseudo-fascist society is to create change through massive retaliation and violence against one's ideological foes. Because it's important that revolutions do exactly the kind of thing they were pissed off about in the first place, or else humanity might change for the better or whatever.

[Great Nepal]

Fuck that shit. Just have one rule, "nothing shall be unlawful unless it directly harms or damages interests of non-consenting individual."

[Divair]

Fuck that shit. Just have one rule, "nothing shall be unlawful unless it directly harms or damages interests of non-consenting individual."

Way too vague and open to abuse. Imagine if a party like the GOP only had to abide by a rule like that.

[Wolfine]

Let's add a time in which you must sit with your entire family and enjoy a tasty snack, if you don't you'll be shot to death. Famille sur soi-même.

[Yewhohohopia]

Fuck that shit. Just have one rule, "nothing shall be unlawful unless it directly harms or damages interests of non-consenting individual."

My parents having decent jobs directly harms and damages the interests of yours, unless they have better ones, in which case mine become the slighted party.

Your continued being ruins my global environment. I didn't consent to that.

Do you see the problem here?