Create account

replied 2268d
Sk8eM dUb
That is not the definition of national sovereignty at all.
1 / 20
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2268d
Local people being democratically in charge of what the laws etc. are in their own countries according to their National customs/ethic etc. isn't national sovereignty?
replied 2268d
No, that is just a way of forming government. That is not national sovereignty at all.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2268d
Then what is your definition? Perhaps we agree.
replied 2268d
Essentially the right for a government to be independant of the rest of the world. The right of a government to represent/control it's people. North Koreas right to enslave its people.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2267d
You're only begging the question. If you're not independent then youve given up some control. Some aspect of life is controlled by people outside your country. Exactly what I said.
replied 2267d
I am talking about government, and you were bringing up people. Yes I want governments restricted. That doesn't mean people are restricted.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2267d
If a government is not "of the people" then what is it? Answer: of SOME people. Same as globalism.
replied 2267d
Not every nation has democratically elected leaders...

Did you even think before posting that?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2266d
Yes. I'm saying that what you advocate for is exactly that - an unelected system of defacto royals. A global dictatorship.
replied 2266d
... their representative. This would likely be s con session so that non-democratic nations can choose how they wish. Some nations could make it an elected position.
replied 2266d
How do you come to that conclusion? I never said anything about an unelected system. I talked about each nation sending a representative, with each nation deciding how they choose
replied 2267d
a less contentious/obvious example would be legality of drugs. some places outlaw alcohol & others allow it. One ‘rule book’ forces everyone to the same set of rules.
replied 2267d
Not so much one rule book, but a global constitution limiting governments different rule books.
replied 2265d
This was the purpose of the constitution + bill of rights. Limit what gov can do.
replied 2265d
Yes, and we could use them on a global scale to give reason to come down on the harsher governments. Like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel.
replied 2265d
point being, it didnt work for the US. gov expanded anyway.
replied 2267d
& before you say these would just be basic rules (no murder) gov always grows. US started with limited set of rules & look where it is today.
replied 2267d
Oh I get that it would likely expand its powers over time. By then we would likely be facing such global issues that people would want that, just like the US government.
replied 2265d
people want expanded state power for their pet issues. it always gets out of control & ends up punishing castes of people for petty minor things (eg personal use of drugs like weed
replied 2265d
Or requiring thousands of hours of experience & thousands of dollars for a license to braid hair. Or allowing MPAA & RIAA & patent trolls to run wild. Punishing whistleblowers.


About Privacy Terms Stats