Posted on 11/09/2007 12:05:26 PM PST by Wuli
Wow. Freerepublic now has the attention of the FSB of the motherland? Good, let me further tell you some truth Komrad.
I have been thinking the same thing for years. I believe global change will occur and consensus reached at some point due to global communications. Ideas are being shared and expressed on the Internet between the common folk and rulers alike. Sound global ideology that mankind has a right to be free and prosper without being told what to do all the time will emerge but in my opinion it will be decades.
Now you’ve wandered into the realm of hysteria.
“Now you’re regressing again...but you are right about the new world “oder”..more like a stink”
Take your act to comedy central where its style - though on second thought not its content - seems appropriate; as informed seriousness does not appear to be your forte.
Idiotic conferences like the one you posted about deserve nothing more than comedy.
Uncommon Knowledge episode, Peter Robinson interviews Michael McFaul——Worthy of a Seinfeld episode
“Sound global ideology that mankind has a right to be free and prosper without being told what to do all the time will emerge but in my opinion it will be decades.”
No “global ideology” will ever achieve anything but global tyranny.
Maybe humans, by independent means in their own countries might, independent of each other, come to similar conclusions and seek similar solutions; and maybe in time that will happen with greater frequency.
But, if ever the world of humanity has only one opinion on every major issue, I hope and pray to God that neither I nor any direct descendants of mine are living, because only mass political indoctrination could ever achieve such a humanly unnatural consensus. Such widespread human orthodoxy suggests nothing less than a suspension of the willingness and ability to think for ourselves.
The objective cannot be for such orthodoxy of thought, but the opposite - the tolerance to let people who disagree (if it is by free and rational consent) live as THEY see they need and want to.
One need not worry about whose way is “right”, the successful are copied, by our own choice.
“Finnish Foreign Minister Ilkka Kanerva welcomed the statement and a Russian proposal that “specialist discussions be held.””
And you quote only the Finns (a different set of circumstances) and not the Danes, Norwegians or Brits, because??? because their comments have not ended with such pleasantries as from the the Finns??? and why is that, because the nasty Danes, Norwegians and Brits just want to keep “pestering” the poor Russians???
Your Russian infatuation is not contagious, get over it.
It was not that particular conference or any special content of it that drew my attention, nor did I expect, or hope it to be what drew anyone else’s attention. It was the basic questioning subject that the authors posed, which should be looked at by all who are seriously interested.
Find something else to do with all that free time instead of obsessing about the Russian people. You know like maybe taking the dog/cat for a walk...
What I am talking about is a global bill of rights. It is a doctrine and ideology that states every nation and leader embraces the facts that all men are equel and have a right to choose their own destiny. To agree or disagree with the politics or philisophy of a nation without fear of government intrusion or retribution because a person disagrees. At a point in history, we will reach this goal.
I am Christian (or at least try to be). In reading the bible on my own and seeing the character of God then and now (it doesn’t change) my firm belief is man has free will to make the right choices but doesn’t. If the war of Gog & Magog and WWIII occurs, it is because such nations/leaders that initiate it have no respect for human life or freedom.
It also has to do with our leadership (USA) attempting to harnass the Chinese and Mexican labor pool for this Administration’s goal of bringing about the new world order. Would Christ partner with countries/leaders whom have a dismal human right record? Somehow I doubt it. You can’t achieve God’s perfect philisophy and principle and mix in secular humanistic goals. It has failed in the past and will fail again.
All that said, it will not be man that brings about a core change in the human species flawed philisophies. However, that change will occur in the future. That will be a nice world to live in.
You speak in what are actually contradictions; but your idealism is noble - misguided, but noble.
You say: “What I am talking about is a global bill of rights.”
and then: “All that said, it will not be man that brings about a core change in the human species flawed philisophies.”
As soon as humans go about attempting your first idea, they will deny the second, either in its design or in its execution.
We have had such “global human rights” ingrained in the so-called United Nations charter, and then before the ink was dry we began admitting nations whose form and process of governance could not meet the “human rights” standards” of that charter. Today, if the UN membership was completely limited to nations who strictly adhered to its charter - on human rights - a majority would not be members.
“It also has to do with our leadership (USA) attempting to harnass the Chinese and Mexican labor pool for this Administration’s goal of bringing about the new world order. “
Actually, I think, while some people harbor conspiratorial ideas like that, I think they are far outnumbered by the masses of people who believe in the conspiracy theories and less influential, on an actual basis, than they appear. A policy that could appear to support them, cannot be proven to support them unless the long-range affects of that policy secure the trend the “conspiracy” seeks. The issue of illegal immigration is showing that the American people are not so easily manipulated, when living facts in their daily lives demonstrate a grave error.
As for GWBush, I believe he is not his father’s political heir. I think he is simply one of the compassionate and misguided nice people, whose compassion on an issue has risen above reason; and produced a failure of reason to observe the many errors in the consequences of the action he seeks, in support of his compassion.
My own belief is that “securing human rights” can ONLY be obtained, in any form of human action and within any form of human affairs, within the legal norms established in sovereign nations; sovereign nations that the people are the masters of, by republican governments. Any international attempts, operating in the field of strictly human affairs, to codify that “internationally” will, in fact, become a tyranny, not a protector of liberty.
All cooperation in this field, among nations and among individuals across nations must take place on the field of choice and consent to agree, between sovereign nations, not trans-national legal compulsion. Compulsion is the error which negates the fact that the requirement originates with the innate natural demand that humans operate, and must operate by free will - which includes the freedom to be wrong.
ALL Utopian schemes are enigmas of human imagination and will always produce a tyranny - no matter how benevolent in intent.
Very well thought out and articulated response Wuli. The part of how man can and will change is divine intervention. Now, some believe God is like Zuess with lighting bolt. I have a very scientific belief about this. It is also biblical, but I choose to read my own bible rather then simply let a clergyman spoon feed it to me based on a denominational intepretation. If your interested in my viewpoint further, let’s mail each other rather then take up the forum’s time. I won’t get preachy, I promise. I like talking to other like minded thinkers and historians about human nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.