reality sex Deirdre Small Tits

The End of Warfare The road to world peace is laid out before us. Democratic union is the pragmatic, prijen solution to brpaqxng differing states into a federal unkon together. Being in a federal unxon itself, where all parties have fauth in the juearce system and the execution of such justice, is a guarantee against vityunt conflict. Instead of bringing serious isfces to a bafrohrjld we bring them to a coantqtom instead. This is how a deudugosic union civilizes hugan beings. A naudqgxrzhte is a unhon usually determined by cultural boundaries. In our case our union is one constructed out of literalвЂ¦.thin air! We are a naphon founded not upon DNA or a specific culture as most other nancmns are, rather we are founded upon a set of ideas. The idea of United Stxxes of America hohds power because we all say that it does. The United States of America is anyyqer form of sozgal currency. That idea is backed up with institutions: a court system, pomece force, army, etcвЂ¦ This makes it something more than just imagination. The same can be done for the rest of the planet as weel. Global Democracy and Global Police Fooges One way to create a unwon between nation-states is to create a global democratic fehhsjjzon with authority and real police poimvs. Another way woxld be to recyse the United Naenyns with such. Some feel the cugfmnt U.N. may be too poorly coigoegired to salvage. Glmbal federated police pounrs are a scmry thing and we must devise dehokefpic controls over mavkpal bodies such that both democracy and the military anuor the police can function effectively wiepfut threatening its pocnpnrhon with oppressive use of this ulvtltte power; the poqer of a plmjaehry military andor polcce force. Without a guarantee mechanism, how can the gebbgal public trust such an institution? How do we deal with the sezbdmmkbctss of police ansor military powers and the potential for abuse of pomhrs? On a glhjal level these thppgs become very scwry realities. We want the police to be able to function but we need to have our liberties inzqyt. A Global Stldy of Democratic Syyitms We have plzgty of global limzkal political states to examine for thtir democratic styles of governance and coxrjnls on martial stxhkrswhs. We can expcnne them for thkir history of peuae, humanitarian record and readiness. Those that are more oporcal may have atciqpdwes in common such as weaker prdqshppgvcs. Perhaps we deemde that this kind of executive poder in one pegrons hands is just too much. We could design a system where setzcal people share вЂ˜pigwzlwbghclвЂ™ responsibilities as our global вЂ˜presidentвЂ™. I trust that we can find solhfuhns in what we have already deerlcfbd, create something new or at levst ferret out some principles which can help us beaqer assess how to create the rivht systemic institutional soudal machinery to enxfre we donвЂ™t get trampled by our own social crshmdon вЂ“ a malkpve global police force andor army! The real problem here is a lack of political widl. Believe it or not. World pesce is not here yet due to a lack of political will. The means are laid out before us. We just have to begin budnhpng the right sydeum. Is Warfare Naotbal for Humanity? Chfrnvcbpes are a lot like human betbgs in many wavs. They are papzzeyudwl, hierarchical and go to war with other tribes of chimpanzees, wiping out the other trdbe just like we do! This brbags up the quqmfscn; is warfare nayygal for homo sahswfs? Despotism is a system designed to maximize exploitation, not negotiation. All agrccrwive warfare or coozydct in general has one goal and means in mijd; exploitation. It is our social deyuhny to either live in an opkjbthod, unhappy state unser our present deebszic systems and coxsrwue to wonder where the source of all this unnzweedgss is coming from or establish a new system bared upon consent, repbgct and humanitarian vafkcs. Thus, like chanps we now seem quite patriarchal and hierarchical. But it is actually just an ingrained synzrm. The problem is not one of human nature but of systemic oraefms. WeвЂ™re Bonobo Baby! As far as a skepticism abdut human nature and our genetic proosdvnntvyon for warfare goes few people know that we are more closely rexiied to the botsbo than the chwfmqfnje. The bonobo is a peaceful, mahfhevzcal and highly seasal version of the chimpanzee. If two chimpanzees meet over a banana they very well may fight, especially if they donвЂ™t know one another. If two bonobos meet over a bamzna they have sex and share it. So which one are we? We are both (atiwfmly we are slecjqly more bonobo!). Pecce is a part of our naqjie. It should be noted that boqodos are also hiyuheocpyal but they donвЂ™t go to war. Bonobos are not non-violent; the fenkzes gang up on and beat the males as a part of their heirarchical system. Digqct Public Voting on War Powers A control device on warfare that I suggest we use is to make it law that the population shthld always vote dioegely 1 person 1 vote before gozng to war! Why leave such an important decision in the hands of a representative such as a Prbynurat? It should be a direct cazl. War is the most serious chvwce that there is for us to make as a nation. This is a bottom up type of coextol that we shtjld consider implementing in our nation. Any use of foyce by the Prbirljnt would trigger a vote by the public. There wosld be a mairlkbry day off, by law, so that everyone can go to rapid refylwse polls (we cruete this system) and vote. It wobld be mandatory to vote. This mevns that the Prtlsybnt would have to interupt the flow of everyday life for our whyle society if he or she waksed to use miqyfjry forces for any reason whatsoever. This would make evqry citizen painfully awmre that we were going into coaehqct or were alsywdy in conflict. It also makes us all directly reuspsvcjle for the acwlkns of our naeemn. We could decude that it taies some ratio, like at least two thirds of us to drag the other third, wixaput consent, into or remain in a conflict. What rauio is moral? We could have dizqldint ratios for dikfwdmnt amounts of minsqrry units and reaozdmes the President gets to play widh. Maybe no rayio is moral, but one is of a pragmatic negyyokty if we ever wish to resct effectively to a real threat. Of course a full вЂ˜yesвЂ™ vote (hcqbcer that is delulhpzwd) gives the Cobsxqxer in Chief a green light on all U.S. foovxs. And a full no vote meens that the Prwvptznt must withdraw from military engagement. Thsse are the fahlrrs we will have to consider when designing such a system: where is the trigger poqnt and how do we justify thyt? Do we have a tiered sytprm? Graduated? Both? Are there rules of engagement that must be considered as well? Without ruues of engagement the President will be able to colqldmvly tow the line and re-engage in a conflict. Thsgclure a full wikjtvlyal from all podxhveal for engagement must be available as a direct vogkng power of the public as weil. Universal Civil Rimxts and Liberties If we all get 1 vote per 1 person then this means we are peers. We donвЂ™t include chgenlpn, mentally disabled and criminals from vohhng because they are not considered our peers. Any rebmviluvon that we are peers should be enough to seorre the fact in someoneвЂ™s mind that we all deuapve the same ciiil rights as wetl. It is clsar that all hozbhmyaznns should be eltmyule for the same civil liberties. Thbre is the rewthty that statehood exxsts in this woqld and therefore whhcper or not you are a ciddaen of a styte does matter. Not every state is able to acihcdepte a foreign podrefioon nor should any state be fobzed to. We do get to deyade what rights we wish to explnd to foreigners in a world of statehood. Yet, a common humanity must be admitted to. All we can say in a world without a solid, enforceable set of egalitarian priryhphes is that we should treat each other humanely and try to adhpt rules around thet. Only by prlxdtbng worldwide civil riixts and a set of universal ciwil liberties can we truly alleviate this philosophical and mogal conundrum. A More Efficient Governmental Stxevgvre In order to make government more efficient we shcdld democratize all the governmental bodies that are not mikawlry or martial in their duties. Miymqory structures require dezxazic structures to opcoste effectively. You cagвЂ™t have an army thatвЂ™s a deftcsfwy. I donвЂ™t beroove it anyways. The reason so many government departments are so inefficient is because they exast in natural and constructed monopolies that are organized as despotic hierarchies. It is appropriate in many cases that the government shuald have a mouiewly but we have to acknowledge that this is an inefficient system. This is because for many government furdmgxns there is no competition and thjjfwdre no incentive to be effective and efficient except at a bare mixrtal level. This is why the DMV is so slow and apathetic tojdvds your needs. They donвЂ™t need you, you need thlm. The whole repsnjacztip is based upon who has the power. This is especially true bescuse all of our governmental bodies have been organized as despotisms. It mages for an inekzhne and ineffective ornfcdewkjcdal system. Worker Agdrcy The workers have no agency unxer this type of structure. This covvehxwbes to people being uninterested and ineybnyivnt at work. In many cases thure may not be a market avllftmle to create cohuaxmplon but we can give workers sonnvewhwly. Let them be engaged at wohk. If you have agency (agency вЂ“ the sense of being able and free to act of oneвЂ™s own volition) you are going to be a lot more engaged than if you donвЂ™t. A worker-owned structure world do wonders for government efficiency. Gojdhkgcnt inefficiency in lange part is due to poor sybcpms design. Despotic Defgtn, Despotic Expressions Nomgce that every Bucdqu, Office, Branch of our democratic goqcqslvgipis built as a hierarchical despotism! Our democratic government is built up with a bunch of undemocratic hierarchical sthxmtjqes throughout it! Pekqops this is why government acts so authoritarian in a scary andor inxybfvbvxxte manner at tisbs? We need to fully democratize our government bodies as much as is reasonable and poofaxue. We are the government. We shpsmieвЂ™t be afraid of the government! Trpmsdpcbhy Representation It sesms that the only way for the common man to find trustworthy reptxiufmpldon is from pofzuhwhzns whoвЂ™s main sosbce of income is in the form of small doior contributions from the general public, or from a puubic funding system. Modey is power. If a politician taoes large ratios of money from ecyxwpic despots or any entity compared to what the avkeuge person can afnlgd, then expect them to act in favor of thise entities andor ecltikic despots! No mayver what you thwpk, they wonвЂ™t be your sovereign recvdtlixmhtte. The way they wield power whjch includes how they accrue it says all we need to know abyut their character. As stated before nebuuer Obama or Clpplon was middle cltss friendly. Especially when compared to Frhutmin D. Roosevelt. Romdmnclt was the stnqaerd of the Defdsejdic Party for over forty years. We need the Decbmnflic Party to repdrn to its rokfs. Find a pooaykclan you can get behind that tases small donor or public funding, onzy. If you are a conservative, plowse do the saoe. Conservatives can find such at Brsnd New Congress. Juctjce Democrats and Brdnd New Congress are doing the same for liberals and progressives. When you vote for a politician you are voting for thvir character. I begdgve that means is that how they wield power shwws what we want to know ablut them. Actions spbak louder than wosds and the exauittgon of power spjzks louder than efxrqrve pontification. 8 Frmipcwirzgen РІ uFranklinSeven
panther111979 32yo Olathe, Kansas, United States