|
| Thread: Would the US be better or worse if it was broken apart? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted October 18, 2010 06:16 PM |
|
|
@Markkur
Mind you, I never had anything against the American people itself - or any other people on the globe. I'm fully aware that if it wasn't for the USA, we'd probably all be either dead or, even worse, Germans right now. But Stalin also played a huge part in taking Hitler down, yet I can hardly say I like him too much. Please note, I'm not comparing you to Stalin or anything, I'm just giving an example how gratitude for things in the past, and attitude on the current situation, are different things, and if I don't like recent American policies, that doesn't mean I'm not grateful for all the good things they did.
The only thing the American public, as a whole, is guilty of, is not really thinking too much. The majority accepts what it's told; and that is often very far from reality. Like that time they told you Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Playing world police is all nice and swell, but one can't help but notice that the USA helps countries very selectively. All those starving folks in Africa aren't getting nearly enough aid, and they're getting molested and shot by various rebel groups in thousands, while the American world police government constantly spends millions on inventing new high tech satellite turbo tanks to fight Arabs with AK-47s.
When Milosevic made the lives of both the Serbs and Kosovo Albanians a living hell, the Americans came over, helped the Albanians, bombed the Serbs, and left Milosevic to rule them. I mean, what the ****, man.
Also, what's up with the international court of law not applying to the USA? Come on. You're right, Americans really die overseas believing they're fighting for freedom and helping people. That's the saddest bit.
@Vok
Sorry, man, I'll stop now 'till posts are transferred somewhere else.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted October 18, 2010 06:25 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 18:37, 18 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
@Vok
Sorry, man, I'll stop now 'till posts are transferred somewhere else.
OK. It was just done. About the EU discussion please post here. Nothing of the discussion is going to be lost, since all was copied.
Quote:
Also, what's up with the international court of law not applying to the USA? Come on. You're right, Americans really die overseas believing they're fighting for freedom and helping people. That's the saddest bit.
As I know USA do not let's it's citizens to be judged by any other court than the USA courts. The USA government have this politics to sign the treaties about the international courts, but they are never ratified. So they are never in force for the USA. The Court do not work for them. That's all. I'm not sure but this (that citizens of the USA can be judged only by USA jurisdiction) is in the Constitution of the USA. If not it's main principle. I need more time to reach this part of the international law 
____________
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 19, 2010 05:16 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 17:21, 19 Oct 2010.
|
Quote:
@Markkur
Mind you, I never had anything against the American people itself - or any other people on the globe. I'm fully aware that if it wasn't for the USA, we'd probably all be either dead or, even worse, Germans right now. But Stalin also played a huge part in taking Hitler down, yet I can hardly say I like him too much. Please note, I'm not comparing you to Stalin or anything, I'm just giving an example how gratitude for things in the past, and attitude on the current situation, are different things, and if I don't like recent American policies, that doesn't mean I'm not grateful for all the good things they did.
Don't forget this insufficient way of communicating we are currently using I had not taken ANY offense. I only WISH that what you typed was not Truth. What you replied is exactly our problem. Even the part, although you did not expand on it; that the Russians bore the brunt of the war against Hitler in destruction and loss of life. However I am fully aware of that too. By chance, today, I am reading a book written by a Pole that is detailing the 'largest battle in History'; The Battle for Moscow. In hindsight (backward-vision is always much clearer) America could be considered by some, suspect to have made Stalin...an Ally.
Quote:
The only thing the American public, as a whole, is guilty of, is not really thinking too much. The majority accepts what it's told; and that is often very far from reality. Like that time they told you Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Bak, Zero argument here. What I have found out is that most people in Europe and elsewhere are lviing with the same problems as we in the USA. Greed in government and Foreign Nationals over-running the Nation just to name Two things. Same salad with a different dressing.
Quote:
Playing world police is all nice and swell, but one can't help but notice that the USA helps countries very selectively. All those starving folks in Africa aren't getting nearly enough aid, and they're getting molested and shot by various rebel groups in thousands, while the American world police government constantly spends millions on inventing new high tech satellite turbo tanks to fight Arabs with AK-47s.
When Milosevic made the lives of both the Serbs and Kosovo Albanians a living hell, the Americans came over, helped the Albanians, bombed the Serbs, and left Milosevic to rule them. I mean, what the ****, man.
You live there you should know. I wrote a college paper nearly 20 years ago about not wanting our troops to be the worlds police because sooner or later "we would be seen as the bad guys." What I will add though and it sounds very lame, is this world has gotten far more complex than in the 1940s and there are even fewer easy answers. Many times a country tries to do something right and it ends up wrong and not always with an easy explanation. Propaganda is bigger than ever and now has infinite tools!
Quote:
Also, what's up with the international court of law not applying to the USA? Come on. You're right, Americans really die overseas believing they're fighting for freedom and helping people. That's the saddest bit.
I would think most Americans would agree with one and all. Remember, this extremely high-tech world has gotten very good at making sure the good folks, wherever they are in the world, do not see a clear picture and have to make huge decisions on little evidence. I do not believe that is limited to American shores.
I add this; <imo> If We, the American states were to 'Divide' and become 50 little nations? The world would really see and know 'trouble' then.
Make a great day...anyway
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 12:15 AM |
|
|
Not to sound ethnocentric, but I wasn't overly interested with how it would affect the globe as a whole . I was more interested in exploring how it would affect the internal make-up and politics of the American region.
This thread went pleasantly off-topic talking about the EU, but it's interesting to compare the two, and realize that the US is oddly far more socialist than Europe, in so far as the region as a whole is concerned, not when it comes to policy itself. The wealth in Europe is concentrated in the western regions, especially the northwestern regions, where a sparse population of people enjoys an abundance of land and valuable resources. Compare that to the less fortunate landlocked Eastern Europe, that suffered an economic kick-in-the-balls from communism on top of it, and you have a far lower standard of living.
When you pretend that the USA is likewise a cluster of nations rather than a federation, I suspect it would be a very similar situation. The sub-arid, inner heartland area would be the 'Eastern Europe' of America, whereas California and the Northeastern Coast would be akin to western Europe, with select places becoming significantly wealthier than ever. The state I live in only gets ~0.79 dollars for every dollar it gives to the federal government. It is getting consistently ripped off in order to help equalize the entire federation.
On the whole, although certain places are in essence "trapped" in the USA in order to help other areas, I think it is better off united, and those places that are exceptionally supported have in turn helped out the coastal regions indirectly. I don't think the highly efficient and developed agriculture of inner sub-arid America would ever have come to be if they weren't part of the US, and if you had an underdeveloped agriculture there, it would affect the coastal regions and the world as a whole. 1/3rd of the entire world's grain comes from the midwest US, so it would be interesting if we could see how the world would have adapted if that area remained far less developed due to a lack of capital.
I think one of the inadvertent negative consequences of having all the States united is that it has made it the superpower of the world, and as a rule of thumb, an abundance of power inevitably leads to more corruption and more aggression, whereas a lack of power inevitably leads to less corruption and less aggression. With weakness comes virtue. If the US was a cluster of nations, you might have a lot of corruption within certain countries, but it would likely be isolated within those countries.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 02:11 AM |
|
|
Sounds like someone watched Wild Wild West recently.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 05:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not to sound ethnocentric, but I wasn't overly interested with how it would affect the globe as a whole . I was more interested in exploring how it would affect the internal make-up and politics of the American region.
You don't. One of the problems is that it appears everything is so connected these days. I would enjoy a day when I did not hear everything that went sour yesterday in the other 49 states. But , I'm an old codger, way outta date and a tad cantankerous.
Quote:
This thread went pleasantly off-topic talking about the EU, but it's interesting to compare the two, and realize that the US is oddly far more socialist than Europe, in so far as the region as a whole is concerned, not when it comes to policy itself. The wealth in Europe is concentrated in the western regions, especially the northwestern regions, where a sparse population of people enjoys an abundance of land and valuable resources. Compare that to the less fortunate landlocked Eastern Europe, that suffered an economic kick-in-the-balls from communism on top of it, and you have a far lower standard of living.
I have seen those that predict (different topics) what will happen here and it is largely based on what happens there. I have to admit, sometimes anyway, it's seems they are about a half-step ahead on a timeline.
Quote:
When you pretend that the USA is likewise a cluster of nations rather than a federation, I suspect it would be a very similar situation. The sub-arid, inner heartland area would be the 'Eastern Europe' of America, whereas California and the Northeastern Coast would be akin to western Europe, with select places becoming significantly wealthier than ever. The state I live in only gets ~0.79 dollars for every dollar it gives to the federal government. It is getting consistently ripped off in order to help equalize the entire federation.
The YOU was a general term I hope. I'm taking it that ways. You...We <imo> could take your point a step farther. What you described happened here for years and the dividing line was rural vs urban. Money taken from rural schools to address urban problems, done all nice and legal like.
Quote:
On the whole, although certain places are in essence "trapped" in the USA in order to help other areas, I think it is better off united, and those places that are exceptionally supported have in turn helped out the coastal regions indirectly. I don't think the highly efficient and developed agriculture of inner sub-arid America would ever have come to be if they weren't part of the US, and if you had an underdeveloped agriculture there, it would affect the coastal regions and the world as a whole. 1/3rd of the entire world's grain comes from the midwest US, so it would be interesting if we could see how the world would have adapted if that area remained far less developed due to a lack of capital.
I have seen first-hand, those grains you speak of and known many of growers over the years. I've never understood why grain/food is not used, to counterbalance the oil-hostage-bit that's used against US and keeps making powerful dictators.
Quote:
I think one of the inadvertent negative consequences of having all the States united is that it has made it the superpower of the world, and as a rule of thumb, an abundance of power inevitably leads to more corruption and more aggression, whereas a lack of power inevitably leads to less corruption and less aggression. With weakness comes virtue. If the US was a cluster of nations, you might have a lot of corruption within certain countries, but it would likely be isolated within those countries.
And yet Europe has banded-together in, I wont say what. and doing just the opposite?
For what its worth I would like to live in a state/country where certain life-styles or certain crimes are not legal. Where gambling is not allowed or illegals are illegal. Where government offices are not for elitists with an agenda for covert legacy manufacturing. Where livelyhoods are created; not sent overseas and lastly, everyone is treated the same. Which state is going to be that? I'll move there. I should add; I am not interested at all, in clamping down on anyone else and their chioces in living. I just long for a way to live without 'their choices'. I have my own as to what I want my brain to have to deal with. I agree that all the marbles in one bag makes possible one 'supreme marble player' However ,I think if there was a state/country here in the US that was the place I wanted to live, the very same people that would say that I would ditate how they have to live, would cross my new home's borders and demand that we there...live their way. Maybe one day in the distant future, folks will live whatever way they choose without the intrusion of the other, but I will not live to see it.
It's a good topic but answers/ideas are difficult. Seems like everything is these days. 365/24/7 hasn't made it any easier.
Make a great day...anyway.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:17 AM |
|
|
What really is stupid about some of the states is inconsistent law. I can have sex with a 17yo girl in California and go to jail for that, yet in a different state within the same country I can have sex with a 16yo girl and it's completely fine.
It's pretty stupid, don't you think?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 03:26 PM |
|
|
Maybe you should hold off on having sex with minors until they are adults, Doom.
Sex can wait, masturbate!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 03:26 PM |
|
|
Not really stupid, because each state is semi-autonomous. In fact, federal law only applies for "crimes" which take place between states or in more than one state. In other words, from a legal perspective, each state can be viewed as a separate nation, and federal law exists only to regulate disputes between each of those nations. Furthermore, federal (Constitutional) law exists to ensure that the individual laws of each state do not violate the agreement that each state made to become part of the greater union. See, you see the US as a single nation, but that's not really the way it was set up. Back when the Constitution was written, citizens of each state saw their state as a separate nation which joined a greater federation for mutual protection from the (at the time) considerably more powerful european empires. States rights were much more important then than now - but the old structure still exists.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 06:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Maybe you should hold off on having sex with minors until they are adults, Doom.
Sex can wait, masturbate!
Well, I'm a little biased here  But on what basis you can say "adult" age? what age is good then? Who is to decide? Why don't support Tunisia (age of consent: 21)? Why not Spain? (Age of consent: 13)? Are those countries wrong and who's to say they are, and why?
it's an example of a good idea (A way of fighting the abuse of children as well as outlawing pedophilia) bureaucratized to a point of stupidity (so I'm doing illegal things here in this state but wait another state is 2km away and I'm legal there... what's the moral basis of such law? If it's based on "it has been set here and it works, obey it and don't ask questions, we don't know why another city WITHIN THE SAME COUNTRY allows it while we put you in jail for it" ?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 06:59 PM |
|
|
I don't understand why you think it's stupid.
First, any law about age of consent is bound to be arbitrary. One solution would be to make age of consent a federal law. But to do that would require a complete overhaul of the United States legal system - and I mean a fundamental overhaul. Besides which states would never go for it and it would never pass Constitutional challenges in the S.C.
More than that though is that a federal national-wide law about age of consent would require a massive centralization of federal power. Before you know it, the federal government would be standardizing other laws across all states. The laws in California, for example, are supposed to be made by Californians - not by Washington bureacrats hundreds of miles away that don't know anything about what Californians want. There's too much centralization of federal power as it is - now you think its stupid if we don't hand over MORE power, especially powers that are supposed to be reserved for local governments that represent what local people want?
I mean, you wouldn't want all the laws that govern Polish behavior being written by people in London, would you?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 07:06 PM |
|
|
|
Frankly, if it were up to me, I'd not only have a minimum age of 18 for consent, I'd also require an extensive, 10 hour test to determine if people were smart enough to handle the responsibilities of parenthood. While that would put me out of business, it would be well worth it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 07:53 PM |
|
|
Actually in most cases there is the chance of requiremental laws which could be federal.
For example, a federal law might be that generally, for all Americans the age of consent should be at least, say 15 and at most 20 years, with every state being able to make their own law within these borders.
It's not like federal law has always to be specific for everything.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 09:02 PM |
|
|
|
Granted, I'm not a supreme court justice, but the US Federal Govt can't just pass any law it wants. There's really no difference between the federal govt passing an absolute age of consent or a "range" that states have to abide by. State governments would likely see either one as a violation of state sovereignty and sue the federal govt accordingly if they thought it was worth their time and money.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 09:58 PM |
|
|
What I mean is this.
Take Utah. It might (have) be(en) conceivable that the State of Utah would allow multi-marriage.
Federal law might decide, no member state of the union may allow multi-marriage. That's not to say that every state may make their own marriage laws.
It's like, just as STATE law is binding for all members of the state, federal law might be considered the smallest common denominator for union member states. Constitution may not be planned that way, but it's only logical.
You don't want to have states in any union that are COMPLETELY different.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:42 PM |
|
|
I like the setup of federal laws and then state laws here. State laws have been valuable for field testing so that other states can study the effects of certain laws or regulations and decide if it's good for them to imitate, as opposed to just smacking down a gargantuan federal law or standard that applies to the entire nation. Some states, like Texas, make a regular use of capital punishment, other states have it but don't typically use it, some others have outright scrapped it. Although I personally feel it should be scrapped everywhere, I like the progression of it as states willingly embrace it, rather than a sudden and unexpected deepthroating by the people in Washington all at once. Gradual, bite-sized evolution and micromanagement is good imo.
Besides, if for some reason you really don't like a state, largely because of certain laws, it's not like you're stuck there.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 11:19 PM |
|
|
Not to mention, as opposed to European nations, the US is BIG. I don't think a lot of non-Americans realize how big and diverse this country is. People from different regions of this nation have very different cultures, and regional laws and regulations reflect this. It's easy to point to, say, Germany and say how all the laws everywhere are the same (maybe they aren't - i don't know). But the US has some states that are several times the size of Germany.
Sure, the federal government should and does set guidelines, but its role isn't really to ensure that regional laws are all standardized. The federal government exists to ensure mutual protection of all states and to ensure that all states provide a general set of basic rights and freedoms to their citizens. I think a lot of our federal government officials forget this. My guess is that some of the founders would be horrified at how much federal power has become centralized over the last two centuries.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 11:43 PM |
|
|
That's not an excuse. Russia is bigger and has unified law. China has more people and also has unified law. US is pretty much the only country with so much fragmentation of the rules. I'm not saying it's bad, but it can't be justified by size, amount of inhabitants OR cultural diversity.*
I find it strange because there is no rule set in a nation as a whole. A country is a "top-level" government unit, no? And it should regulate most of things as it represents the nation. If we start to break the rules between the states/regions, why not go further, divide them between cities? Districts? Streets? Individual houses? At every place, people differ at each other. Even in Poland, as unified as it is, people of different cities represent different mentality. Should we make a law for big cities and small villages? No. Why? because too much decentralization leads to nothing, right? Only more beaurocracy and nonsense such as being put to jail for something perfectly legal for your neighbor living 10 km away from you, only in a different state.
Well, tell me that's not nonsense. What's the basis for a law? Morality, right? Some sort of protection against ethically incorrect or harmful actions. Those are outlawed for the greater good of people. But what if we start to produce "what ifs"? The law itself starts to be ambiguous. A person put in jail for a sex with an "underage" person may as well feel innocent because around your border, he would do this legally and without repercussions. Within the same culture, bah, even within the same nation. Such a law lacks a moral backbone to it and is highly questionable.
I'm a strong supporter of a "global law" sort of thing - we are all humans and the same actions can be outlawed for all of us. We share the same conscience after all and shouldn't be villified based on geography, I guess.. isn't ethics more important? I agree that absolute morals never did any good but in this case...
Well if I were put to jail for carrying a ton of marijuana with me, legal in Netherlands, if I recall correctly... I would feel the law is not just. Because, if its just, why isn't it respected in a border country of the same "civilization score"? They don't have such law for some reason, and why is my nation different? Is it any better than theirs at moral judgement whether something should be outlawed or not?
I don't think so.
Hence, even more fragmentation makes things more dire, if you ask me...
Bah, I could rant about it forever. I wish some things were less ambiguous. If the law doesn't represent ethics, what is it good for? Subjective opinion of a few oligarchs that this should be allowed and this shouldn't? At what basics? Isn't this what most of "intelligent" people are bashing - almost religious rule with things banned for no logical/ethical reason, "just because" it's considered BAD?
Think of it.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 22, 2010 02:57 AM |
|
|
@Forge:
Quote:
That's not an excuse.
Russia is bigger and has unified law. China has more people and also has unified law. US is pretty much the only country with so much fragmentation of the rules. I'm not saying it's bad, but it can't be justified by size, amount of inhabitants OR cultural diversity.*
What do you mean "justified"? It's not about justification, it's about what works.
Different tiers of administration become far less purposeful if there's an island nation with 100 people living on it. In such a setting, even anarchy is a feasible form of government, where decisions are informally made by a group of people that are considered wise and have respect, whereas in any real modern country, that would be idiotic.
And your claim is untrue. I would guess most countries in the world have different administrative levels that have limited decision-making capacities, although it is more expansive and distinct in the US than any other place that I'm aware of. I know Mexico is a group of 31 states unified by a federal government.
Places like Russia, India, or China might not have as much decentralized micromanagement, but this can all largely be accredited to historical circumstances. All three of these places are ancient nations that have throughout most of history, excluding times of division by warlords, been ruled by a central throne. It would require a complete political and cultural overhaul for them to suddenly adopt something similar to the US. For countries in Europe, it's simply not as necessary because they're so little and cute. Mark my words though: if the EU survives and continues to grow in power, I suspect it will be a United States in its own way.
Quote:
I find it strange because there is no rule set in a nation as a whole. A country is a "top-level" government unit, no? And it should regulate most of things as it represents the nation. If we start to break the rules between the states/regions, why not go further, divide them between cities? Districts? Streets? Individual houses? At every place, people differ at each other. Even in Poland, as unified as it is, people of different cities represent different mentality. Should we make a law for big cities and small villages? No. Why? because too much decentralization leads to nothing, right? Only more beaurocracy and nonsense such as being put to jail for something perfectly legal for your neighbor living 10 km away from you, only in a different state.
Well, tell me that's not nonsense. What's the basis for a law? Morality, right? Some sort of protection against ethically incorrect or harmful actions. Those are outlawed for the greater good of people. But what if we start to produce "what ifs"? The law itself starts to be ambiguous. A person put in jail for a sex with an "underage" person may as well feel innocent because around your border, he would do this legally and without repercussions. Within the same culture, bah, even within the same nation. Such a law lacks a moral backbone to it and is highly questionable.
I'm a strong supporter of a "global law" sort of thing - we are all humans and the same actions can be outlawed for all of us. We share the same conscience after all and shouldn't be villified based on geography, I guess.. isn't ethics more important? I agree that absolute morals never did any good but in this case...
Well if I were put to jail for carrying a ton of marijuana with me, legal in Netherlands, if I recall correctly... I would feel the law is not just. Because, if its just, why isn't it respected in a border country of the same "civilization score"? They don't have such law for some reason, and why is my nation different? Is it any better than theirs at moral judgement whether something should be outlawed or not?
I don't think so.
Hence, even more fragmentation makes things more dire, if you ask me...
Bah, I could rant about it forever. I wish some things were less ambiguous. If the law doesn't represent ethics, what is it good for? Subjective opinion of a few oligarchs that this should be allowed and this shouldn't? At what basics? Isn't this what most of "intelligent" people are bashing - almost religious rule with things banned for no logical/ethical reason, "just because" it's considered BAD?
Think of it.
There's 195 recognized countries in the world and none of them have identical laws. Law is not math. You can never say "This is correct and I am 100% positive that all alternatives are an incorrect approach". The best you can do is study, assess, and test to make the system more effective at its function.
You say that there should be universal law based on what "should" be done. What authority will you draw this from to decide what laws to have? Your omniscient knowledge? The Law of Doomforge? It's a common symptom of people to assume their way must be the best way. Now of course, whether we have a perfect authority to draw from or not, we still have to have some sort of orderly system in place, but do you really need to go to the extreme of having a central top-level government mandating absolutely everything?
Now mind you, I am an advocate of a world, and universe, without national borders. Countries are an unnecessary dead-weight to progress, peace, prosperity, and parties. However, at the same time I recognize that even if you take national borders away, it doesn't mean you're going to take disagreement away. Law and political theory is a constantly changing field, and I feel it's best to accept the fact that our wisdom is limited. You can have an overseer government to enforce the "core" rights and laws (though even that will never be fully set in stone), but I think it's better to have limited autonomy among territories. It allows customization that suits the region, and it accelerates the evolution of law and politics if you have several sub-governments trying out different things. Do you think European countries don't borrow ideas off of each other? They do it all the time.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2010 09:54 AM |
|
|
By making law you already enforce some will of majority on people who may not like this.
By breaking this law apart, the moral backbone behind that enforcement weakens. It becomes questionable - well highly more than a law that is like thou shallt not murder - which is the same in every country and there is no doubt it should be there.
If you however broke the murder law into separate variants for every country... it would be no longer that strong and non-dubious. Breaking it further down - for example in this state you can murder but only Scotsmen and with a bow and in that it's allowed half past midnight of second night of saturday - one may start asking: why. Why is the law not unified, why the variations? What makes the law then if we're allowed to kill under circumstances? Shouldn't there be more circumstances? Why was I put to jail, my life ruined, criminal etiquette plastered on my forehead when my brother living in the next state did this and he's fine?
such a law may be seen unjust, actually. If you were to put in prison for something trivial (not murder obviously) because your local law forbids it you would feel hurt, I think. Seeing that the rest of the world - or at least part of it - sees nothing wrong in what you have done and allows it - weakens the basics for such laws to exist. One may even say it is there to limit your freedom - humanity has a strong distaste for ethically wrong things already and doesn't in general make exceptions - if what you were put to jail for isn't one of those things, it's disputable whether it should even allow others to destroy your life. I think not.
I do believe in the mind of a collective. Not communism or something like that, but humanity as a whole can discard the local blindness that makes individuals, for instance, hate gays, and make law accordingly to the universal thought that they do not hurt anybody and thus should be allowed to do whatever they will. A big lot of people in Poland would outlaw gay couples, and nobody sets a local law here because our culture demands so. There are more important things than cultural bias - ethics.
In other words, I disagree with you 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
| |
|
|
