|
A structure of reason recognizes tolerance
Frank HOUCK
Friday, 4 April 2003 19:49:15
ººº Abstract: A structure of reason recognizes tolerance, difference of opinion, and must include all views. True power is always in the hands of the people. Either we use it or delegate it to our governments is what will determine our end. A global voice requires global communication and a method to project that voice to officials to act on it. ººº
Hello all,
I hope Marie-Christine BERNARD that elegant listing you just posted and the fact that many of us agree with it. Is enough to keep your voice with us.
I happen to believe that the true power in all government come from the people. Our governments fail us now because it has lost our voice. We have become silent in the bureaucracy of national political power. And we all now suffer from our own past ignorance. That's the bad news. the good news is we are waking up and that silence has now become deafening and is being heard around the world. That unified voice is good and bad. On the one hand it is good that the people stand up and demand their will be listened to. Bad because it is without reason. What happened at the UN was a travesty. An organization for peace became the instrument of war. Make no mistake, it was the UN's inability to create a solution that meant something, that set nation against nation and now the people against the people. The commercial news papers in its efforts to increase sales catapult the news to new levels of spectacle, the media escalating the rage to almost unbearable levels.
What was once promising to be a true democratic world has now been lowered to the mentality of a mob. I am a Vietnam veteran, and in my entire life I have never heard nuclear weapons as being an option, not ever by our people. Two weeks ago even joking of such things was unacceptable and disgusting.
Today even as a joke was acceptable. I fear for what is happening. If the media does not stop its hype and start to focus on the real issues. I believe we are witnessing the beginning of world war three.
If you have really listened to the current war issue. On the surface it appears to be two distinct positions. But in reality there is really only one.
To attain peace and harmony is really the goal of both sides. The world is split on how exactly you can achieve that. And that's because there was no other choice.....And that is where I believe the WP could have changed everything. A single seat at the UN without veto power, But the will of the people expressed as a third option a proposal that satisfied everyone.
If a person breaks the law you don't send a tank to their house and blow it up
In all the countries of the world, even in Iraq. If a person breaks the law you don't send a tank to their house and blow it up. So why is it on a national level we feel we need to do it with countries. To my knowledge in all countries of the world, law is enforced gradually and increased only to achieve compliance.
This is a simple compliance issue it should have been dealt with the same way.
The Iraq issue is far more complicated then just disarmament, and I don't want to get into that discussion. But I use it to set the stage for how a structure of reason can be established and achieve the results we all want.
I propose a voice of the people to be achieved through a simple single seat at the UN.
The seat of the people will have no opinion, no vote, and no veto power. Totally non threatening. The less threatening it is, the easier it will be to achieve.
The power in the seat will be literally the will of the world population. The method is to present well thought out and reasoned solutions to world issues that are well balanced and create a win win situation for all countries involved, suggests the simultaneous policy concept. The seat itself is just a launching pad for all the work and study done on all issues that represent the people.
The WP has to look like a UN bureaucracy, but it doesn't have to be one
That would be the end game. But much more work has to be done. Rob and others have made excellent arguments for traditional systems, for what I call recognizable bureaucracy, it is necessary and lends credibility for all the WP will stand for. I believe the WP has to look like a UN bureaucracy, But it doesn't have to be one. The declaration or constitution of the WP should be simple and global. it should state clearly very basic concepts of human needs, The rights for food, shelter, health care, an opportunity to advance and a right to be free. These are universal globally recognized rights of all people, and the responsibility of a civilized world to insure they are obtained.
The WP would then be a gathering place for NGO's, Issues of the world, and intensive study to create workable solutions, that a unified world can agree on.
In WP the problem should determine the method, in a policy that keeps its doors wide open
I don't think the world Parliament should spend any time trying to determine what needs to be done on acquisition of projects from the people. I believe the WP would be best served by a policy that keeps its doors wide open, for all issues no matter how small or how big.
As information starts to come in, methods to find resolve can be started. That can be through NGO's colleges academics what ever. The information or problem will determine the method. There is no way to know in advance what will need to be done in the world, even if we did, tomorrow is a new day and certainly there would be new problems we had not thought of.
On the language issue. To be sure this is an issue
On the language issue. To be sure this is an issue. But not much of an issue as I watch the media around the world it would appear that communication of a thought is certainly do able. Which suggests to me that the media itself could be in a large part a method for translation and should be considered.
The media can be used as a method of polling the proposals which would secure five concepts. First it would express the proposal in clear and recognizable language and secondly would produce a known level of acceptance from that area of the world and third, put the issue in front of the UN before it even gets there.
The fourth would be to create controversy and discussion for and against, invaluable information that could be used to recreate the original proposal to be more globally accepted. And five, to acquire global acceptance, a clear and resounding global voice.
God bless us all and keep us from ourselves.
Frank Houck
WP21 Alliance Forum on a World Parliament for the 21st Century
E-mail : world-parl@forums.alliance21.org
Fax 1 717 264 5036
Information, inscriptions, désinscriptions: germa@alliance21.org
|
|
|
english ·original·
[FORUM]
[DISCUSSION]
[SYNTHESES]
[DOCUMENTS]
[CALENDAR]
[PARTICIPANTS]
[SUBSCRIBE]
[CONTACT]
[HOME]