Zoom Rabbit Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 The following text is one of the discourses from the book I mentioned in the Tantive III thread. Do to its...unique character, I have chosen to question whether or not to publish it. I want, therefore, to seek the opinion of others on this matter, and a poll is included. Thanks for your time. The Declaration of Interdependence We the people of Earth, sharing a common history and destiny, who now manifest the will to affect our present circumstances, do declare ourselves to be interdependent. This state of interdependence we affirm as a higher ideal than independence; true independence is anarchy, and that we do not want. To the same degree, any dependences we have formed toward institutions that promise to deliver independence we hold as lower than world interdependence. No man, state, alliance or church--be it of science or faith--holds the keys to humanity's future, and we would not sell ourselves into slavery to that illusion. Let mankind now be truly free of the confinement of institution. The world has one culture, and one fate. Let us affirm that we share that fate together. That's it...relatively painless. Now cast your vote and help me decide if this turkey goes into print or wadded up in the trashcan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted April 22, 2003 Author Share Posted April 22, 2003 Six views and no replies? Lurkers, I accuse thee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold leader Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 I voted "sure, what the hell". Not that I agree with the declaration, but hey, somebody might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Originally posted by Zoom Rabbit No man, state, alliance or church--be it of science or faith--holds the keys to humanity's future, and we would not sell ourselves into slavery to that illusion. This is the part that will never fly. No group that has dedicated it's existance around the premise that they are the sole possesors and purveyors of the only eternal truth will ever knowingly admit that somebody else might be just as right as they are. But then that's always been the catch,.. hasn't it? The source of practically every conflict known to man: "Our (or in some cases 'My') way is the only right way. Your way is false. Come into compliance or be destroyed. We really don't care which." Or,.. in yet other words: "WE'RE NUMBER ONE!!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Swim to Cuba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 I'd buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 I tossed my sister and chose my vote based on the body part she landed on. She ended up bashing her head in on the floor, so I went with the fourth option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Its idealistic, but I like the idea anyways, even though in reality, this could never happen. Although I'm sure we all wish it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 it sounds like a great thing for a book burning party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Gnarly Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 i chose 4 cause the word hippy is in it but seriously you should keep it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Beastie Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 By all means keep it. Sure, some people will probably disagree with it, but you should take advantage of that whole "freedom of speech" idea while it's still around. Besides, by the time people read it, they'll (probably) already have bought the book, meaning that you'll have their money, and that their arguments are thus groundless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted April 24, 2003 Author Share Posted April 24, 2003 Sure. Just because it's in a book you own doesn't mean you buy into it. I mean, I have a copy of the Q'uran in my collection, but that doesn't mean I'm going to Mecca before I die... Admiral: how can one have a book-burning party in cyberspace? I guess my main concern with this piece is this: is it too political? I want it to address social concerns, and invite one to bring some philosophy into politics, but if it goes too heavy and becomes itself political...then it's a monster, which should be destroyed. Ideally, it should appeal to both liberals and conservatives. I guess that would be a good litmus test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 By printing it out then burning it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 seems intresting. though politics to me is kinda like you are to fruit cake. YOu don't mind it, but after getting 3 of them you kinda get sick of it. which kinda begs the question, why the hell did i read The Prince and The Republic. meh, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Beastie Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Originally posted by Cmdr. Cracken which kinda begs the question, why the hell did i read The Prince and The Republic. Because The Prince just rocks in sheer badassitude, and The Republic is more about Plato's (arguably flawed) grasp of human nature than it is an act of attempted utopia. Besides, Plato's community is just such an interesting place to set a story in --it could be utopia or dystopia or both at once. Besides, his Guardians are basically prequel-era Jedi --all secure up in their Temple debating philosophy while the rest of the galaxy goes to Hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Machavelli was a genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Beastie Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Actually, whether or not Machiavelli actually meant everything he wrote in The Prince is open to debate. It's possible that the book was a dystopian satire, directed to the newly established government. On the surface, The Prince is him (being a Florentine official) trying to get in good with the new Medici government by producing an "instruction book" (Government for Dummies). However, the Medici family had already ruled Florence in the past, and Machiavelli may have felt that their time was over, and that renewed dynastic rule would bring about disaster. Kinda how most people felt about Dubbya when he was first "elected." *ponders what would've happened if some ex-White House staffer had published this after the last election* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted April 27, 2003 Share Posted April 27, 2003 Maybe for my PhD thesis thingie, i'll write something on the true nature of the US government. I was appalled when people bitched about the Florida electoral vote. My response to them was usually "at least they let us vote" which really confused them. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article II, Section 1. Doesn't actually say we get to vote for President in the US. If the legislature were so enclined, specially trained monkeys would select the names of the the electors who would then actually vote for the Presidency from a hat. HAHA 'right to vote.' Plus the Constitution didn't actually apply until Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Damn you incorporation doctrine, damn you. And the Miranda ruling. If I was Chief Justice, I'd overturn that one SO FAST... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted April 29, 2003 Author Share Posted April 29, 2003 Nute, if you were chief justice, I suspect that a lot of past rulings would be revisted... Results are running close, with swimming to Cuba slightly in the lead. If you haven't voted yet, do so! I will declare an end to voting oh, say, tomorrow at this time. Wally the space dolphin would like to say that he swims to Cuba all the time, although he then goes on to say that he doesn't exactly swim, and it isn't exactly Cuba, which is the last time he comes close to making sense before launching into a tiresome dissertation on the interrelationship between the Declaration of Independence, the temple symbolism of Greek temples relating to the ancient Cult of the Mysteries, the presence of a disembodied eye atop a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill, and ultimately something that has to do with freemasons and the number thirty-three's prevalence in the city layout of Baghdad. I think Wally voted for the fifth option, 'capture all the wild ferrets and force them to serve humanity.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Actually, Miranda's the only ruling I really don't like. I can't think of anything else I'd like to take out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.