Thursday, May 18, 2006
Speaking American English has to be a Requirement to live in the USA
It is simple, we all have to speak English because it unites us as Americans. It is one common bond we can all share with one another. Speaking a common language turns a stranger into someone you feel comfortable with. It breaks down the barriers to understanding our differences. Otherwise I could care less what language you speak.
Just look how divisive the French speaking Quebec people are. For all practical purposes Canada is two different countries. Ever few years Quebec tries to secede from Canada and form its own country. One day they will do so.
I rest my case.
Jack Shaft
Just look how divisive the French speaking Quebec people are. For all practical purposes Canada is two different countries. Ever few years Quebec tries to secede from Canada and form its own country. One day they will do so.
I rest my case.
Jack Shaft
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Can a Country be Sovereign Without Borders?
From a practical point of view; If a country has borders, the government declares itself a sovereign entity up to the limits of those borders. It gives itself the right to impose its laws on the people residing within the limits of the borders. It also has the primary responsibility to defend the people with in its borders.
Is it possible to be a country without borders? What would happen if a country declared that It didn’t have borders? Or a large group of like minded people got together and declared it to be a sovereign state. It would then seize the right to impose its laws and authority on any member of the group no mater where they reside. In other words it could extend its laws and authority to all parts of the world. Its authority would inevitably be in conflict with any society its citizen finds themselves in. So far, this seems like an absurd argument. In reality, all that is required, is to have the support of a large body of people. Support means that the citizens of this Border-less Country(BC) buy into the institutions of the BC and that they financially support the BC.
If a sovereign state doesn’t defend its borders it means that any other nation that allows it citizens to cross the border into it, can impose its sovereignty on its citizens that crossed the undefended border. Meaning that its sovereignty has been expanded up to the point where the other nation decides to defend itself.
So from a philosophical point of view; a government can be sovereign only if its people validate the sovereignty, abide by its laws, and support the enforcement of its laws. This is valid for BC’s as well as standard countries.
Can a group of people get together and declare sovereignty over any peoples of the world they want? The answer is yes. But they have to defend that notion. If they can’t it is absurd.
Looking back in time, you will see the middle ages. A time where religion usurped sovereignty from the bordered countries. It was indeed a dark time in history. In western cultures, this lasted until the age of enlightenment. Enlightenment means that the people rejected religion as a source of knowledge because it did not correlate to the facts of the universe that surrounded them. By default the bordered countries became the only sovereignty. In recent history, only countries with borders have had the means to defend their sovereignty.
What about the East and other parts of the world where they still look toward religion for knowledge? It is pretty obvious that all over the Muslim world enlightenment hasn’t happened. The inhabitants of these countries place religion first, as their source of knowledge. Democracy comes second or third. There are countries with borders but they are meaningless. The laws and institutions of these countries come from Islamic law or are based on it. Democracy in Islamic countries is doomed to failure! Why, because it derives its laws and institutions from the free will of the people. Since the people have not rejected the Koran as the source of knowledge, giving them the freedom to choose at the ballot box only results in voting their freedom away to the Islamic leaders. Democracy in these countries can only be maintained by force. By oppression of the religious leaders who will loose their power. That is why very few true democracies exist in Islamic countries. Only Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey come to mind as precariously democratic. These countries are among the Islamic countries that have the highest literacy rates and the most educated people in all of Islam. Enlightenment is starting in these countries but can easily be snuffed out.
Along comes Usamah Bin Laden. The leader of the modern Islam. Using the power of religion he has proclaimed sovereignty over any part of the world where he has Islamic citizens. Because his constituents are not enlightened and have been humiliated by the modern world, they have become a potent force. So potent that they can impose the will of the most influential Islamist, Usamah Bin Laden, no mater where they reside. How do they do this? By using the ultimate weapon, the suicide mission in the praise of Allah. To an unenlightened Muslim, pleasing Allah by being a martyr is the most pleasurable experience you can have. Even more when you kill horrendous amounts of non Muslims. Believing you have Allah’s
blessing allows you to do it with no guilt whatsoever. So ask yourself the question. Is any country containing Muslims, as sovereign as it was before Islam flexed its muscles???
Jack Shaft
Is it possible to be a country without borders? What would happen if a country declared that It didn’t have borders? Or a large group of like minded people got together and declared it to be a sovereign state. It would then seize the right to impose its laws and authority on any member of the group no mater where they reside. In other words it could extend its laws and authority to all parts of the world. Its authority would inevitably be in conflict with any society its citizen finds themselves in. So far, this seems like an absurd argument. In reality, all that is required, is to have the support of a large body of people. Support means that the citizens of this Border-less Country(BC) buy into the institutions of the BC and that they financially support the BC.
If a sovereign state doesn’t defend its borders it means that any other nation that allows it citizens to cross the border into it, can impose its sovereignty on its citizens that crossed the undefended border. Meaning that its sovereignty has been expanded up to the point where the other nation decides to defend itself.
So from a philosophical point of view; a government can be sovereign only if its people validate the sovereignty, abide by its laws, and support the enforcement of its laws. This is valid for BC’s as well as standard countries.
Can a group of people get together and declare sovereignty over any peoples of the world they want? The answer is yes. But they have to defend that notion. If they can’t it is absurd.
Looking back in time, you will see the middle ages. A time where religion usurped sovereignty from the bordered countries. It was indeed a dark time in history. In western cultures, this lasted until the age of enlightenment. Enlightenment means that the people rejected religion as a source of knowledge because it did not correlate to the facts of the universe that surrounded them. By default the bordered countries became the only sovereignty. In recent history, only countries with borders have had the means to defend their sovereignty.
What about the East and other parts of the world where they still look toward religion for knowledge? It is pretty obvious that all over the Muslim world enlightenment hasn’t happened. The inhabitants of these countries place religion first, as their source of knowledge. Democracy comes second or third. There are countries with borders but they are meaningless. The laws and institutions of these countries come from Islamic law or are based on it. Democracy in Islamic countries is doomed to failure! Why, because it derives its laws and institutions from the free will of the people. Since the people have not rejected the Koran as the source of knowledge, giving them the freedom to choose at the ballot box only results in voting their freedom away to the Islamic leaders. Democracy in these countries can only be maintained by force. By oppression of the religious leaders who will loose their power. That is why very few true democracies exist in Islamic countries. Only Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey come to mind as precariously democratic. These countries are among the Islamic countries that have the highest literacy rates and the most educated people in all of Islam. Enlightenment is starting in these countries but can easily be snuffed out.
Along comes Usamah Bin Laden. The leader of the modern Islam. Using the power of religion he has proclaimed sovereignty over any part of the world where he has Islamic citizens. Because his constituents are not enlightened and have been humiliated by the modern world, they have become a potent force. So potent that they can impose the will of the most influential Islamist, Usamah Bin Laden, no mater where they reside. How do they do this? By using the ultimate weapon, the suicide mission in the praise of Allah. To an unenlightened Muslim, pleasing Allah by being a martyr is the most pleasurable experience you can have. Even more when you kill horrendous amounts of non Muslims. Believing you have Allah’s
blessing allows you to do it with no guilt whatsoever. So ask yourself the question. Is any country containing Muslims, as sovereign as it was before Islam flexed its muscles???
Jack Shaft
