doG

With the diversity of cultures, beliefs and traditions around the globe I don't think a consensus could ever be reached for a single document to government the populations of the world. One world, one people would be nice but I don't see it as a real possibility with the people of the world today. One example that comes to mind is the fact that some populations would never ratify it without the inclusion of Sharia law and others populations wouldn't do so with it included.

Please provide a link to the exact post where I claimed we are a democracy. When people vote for the representatives that promise them handouts they are causing our system to accomplish the same failures that a direct democracy results in. All that's needed now if for the majority to vote in a bunch of socialist representatives.

That's the problem now. We give unqualified people a say in the important issues that affect all of us. People for for a presidential candidate just because he/she promises to pay their bills even though the candidate couldn't do that if they wanted if they were elected. This is not a way we should pick the Commander In Chief. Certain issues should be decided by qualified representatives bound to act the best interests of the people. Polling the public at large undermines this completely. No stretch at all. It's a Republic with democratic traditions. It was designed to be a representative system steered by democratic principles and methods but that doesn't it a democracy. It is intended that the representatives will generally follow the will of the people. Following the will of the people is not always a good thing though. For example the process of selecting a President was never intended to be one where the population at large was polled. The Electoral College was supposed to be a body of representative electors that met at an appointed place and time and debated whom was the best qualified candidate and to vote in blocks by state for an executive officer of the union following those debates. Now we have a situation where all of the states have passed laws directing their electors to vote according to the popular vote of their respective states and qualifications are meaningless. Polling the people has corrupted the whole process and yields only those candidates that are popular regardless of their qualifications to do a job that most of the voters don't even understand.

No, really it does. Once 51% of the electorate wants to vote themselves a livelihood from thge taxpayer's kitty they can and will do so. Look at the Occupy Wall Street movement. You actually have people in that group that believe everyone should get a check for $40,000 annually regardless of employment. When a majority of voters feel this way they have the power to make it happen and the minority won't be able to stop them. This is a common problem with democratic systems through the ages. I personally have not voted FOR anyone for President since Reagan. I've voted against all of them by writing myself in because we haven't had a qualified candidate run for the position in all that time. It's been a steady string of incompetent morons. None of them could make it through the traditional hiring processes of a major corporation to be the CEO. The resume of the current President has no real executive experience. Further, representation of the people is incredibly diluted and increasingly so. We are capped with 535 representatives of one kind or another for a growing population of 300,000,000+ people. That's less than a hundred thousandth of 1% of the population. We might as well be a kingdom. Solutions? All I can imagine at this point that would be effective would be a Constitutional Convention to modernize the principles intended by the founders.

Start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic Notice that Article IV Section 4 of the Consitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." See government type at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html to see the U.S. is a Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition Federalist Paper 39, The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, details the reasons for designing a republican form of government in the discussions leading up to writing the Constitution. See also Republic vs. Democracy to understand why a republic is not a democracy. There is another comparison here.

That's a good question and I don't claim to have an explicit answer. Admitting we have a problem is a big step in the right direction though and everyone should be just as responsible to suggest ways to fix the problem as I. IMO, we also need to ask ourselves if what we really want is popular leaders or qualified leaders and answer ourselves honestly. I personally would rather have quality leaders regardless of their popularity. Pure democracy is true democracy. Indirect democracies are not really democracies at all. They are representative systems. An example is the U.S. which is technically a Constitution based Federal Republic with a democratic tradition, not a democracy. Town hall meetings are great for the populations of towns, not countries with 300,000,000+ people. FWIW, I think our republic is a fine form of government, we just need a better way of choosing qualified representatives instead of the self-serving incompetent leaders we keep getting.

The very government that is elected by the people. Technology is not the problem, government is and the means we use to choose that government is a big part of the problem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pure%20democracy Take it up with Merriam Webster. I didn't write the definition, I just passed it on. True democracy is usually interpreted to mean 'mob rule'. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy "Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." Source - Larry Jay Diamond, Marc F. Plattner (2006). Electoral systems and democracy p.168. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

None of those are true democracies. They are of the following government types: U.S. - Constitution-based federal republic Switzerland - Federal Republic (formerly a confederation) Denmark - Constitutional Monarchy New Zealand - Parliamentary Democracy, a representative democracy like a republic Australia - Federal Parliamentary Democracy Sweden - Constitutional Monarchy Iceland - Constitutional Republic Britain, actually the United Kingdom - Constitutional Monarchy Canada - a Parliamentary Democracy, a Federation, and a Constitutional Monarchy In a true democracy every single citizen has an equal say in everything that effects their lives. The smallest issues are decided by the people at the polls, not by constitutions or representatives. The founders of the U.S. intentionally avoided creating a democracy because it creates a tyrannical rule of the majority over the minority.

Yes, all true democracies have failed eventually since true democracies are effectively mob rule and all forms of mob rule eventually collapse. Try finding successful democracies in history. I'm not aware of any.

There's no derailment. The politics of the United States is a direct result of the american voter. When our system gets to the point that the majority of voters are dependent on government subsidies for their livelihood then that majority will vote for the politicians that promise the greatest subsidies to their constituents. As it is now our system continuously chooses the most popular politicians for office, not the most competent or capable. IMO, the democratic traditions of our republic will eventually lead to the same demise that all democracies have suffered.

Huh? Something unclear about that? Perhaps http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Article_DownfallDemocracies.htm will explain the trend I am pointing out. P.S. No intention to support the apathetic voter with that link, It was just the first article I found about voters voting themselves gifts from the public treasury.

IMO, you should be most afraid of the system we use for choosing the leaders that enable such an inept leadership, voting. When a majority of the masses are morons they will elect whatever moron promises them the most. When a majority of the voters want to live off the taxpayer's dole they will vote for whomever promises them that and as a majority they will win and the taxpayer will lose. Our Republic is headed for the same anarchy that eventually destroys all democracies.

Yeah, I realize all that. I'm not much of a believer that's there's anywhere in the Universe that a body in motion would not encounter external forces, particularly when the time frame we're discussing is eternity.

No. Earth will eventually become tidal locked with the sun as Mercury has. Theory predicts the sun will enlarge to engulf the Earth as it runs out of fuel. Didn't Newton effectively state in his first law that all motion is perpetual until acted on by an external force?

No you didn't. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octal

The top secret stuff starts with an 'S'...

Do you realize that even if you made a suit that could survive a 700km/h impact the wearer would not survive the 700 km/h impact they would have inside the suit when the suit comes to a sudden stop?

Really. iNow said 'sometimes...' and you imply that trespass should never be forgiven? Is that what Jesus would advocate? I would not even assume that a trespasser is necessarily a killer. Why do you and does that assumption fall under the category of judging others?

I'll second that. I do many things for others that Jesus of Nazareth would advocate. It's often said how Christian I am when the truth is that most of the so called Christians in this region wouldn't lift a finger to help others. FWIW, I've literally given away scores of The Jefferson Bible to educate these so called Christians on what their mentor advocated.

Mods, you might as well close this one. It's going in circles. It's incredibly obvious at this point that Greg cannot and will not support his claim. He is in clear violation of the forum rules.

Don't let it bother you. I get a lot of that here in the southern baptist bible belt. I am also referred to as an angel by many, most that enjoy my help to them in one way or another and have no idea I'm atheist. I'm sure most of them assume I'm Christian and I let them believe what they want. I wouldn't want the knowledge that I'm a humanist atheist angel to ruin their day after they've made mine.

Switching claims in the middle of a debate is not supporting your claims. You well implied in your original post that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption for anyone. Now you want to dig up sources showing that excessive use is unsafe for teenagers or pregnant moms or some other group of society. You need to get back to supporting your original claim or withdraw it.

8000 years? Can you support that claim? Factually? With scientific evidence?

Still no support for your claim. Again, you said, "Recent studies have indicated that there is no safe level of consumption of alcoholic beverages." Again, where are those studies?