A pamphlet I'm working on

[Alex_P]

So far, I don't think your manifesto has really said much. It's easy to hide all kinds of complications under multi-faceted abstract ideas like "freedom".

Moar substance!

-- Alex

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

So far, I don't think your manifesto has really said much. It's easy to hide all kinds of complications under multi-faceted abstract ideas like "freedom".

Moar substance!

-- Alex

This is only the first part of a planned 3 part pamphlet. The next two parts will go more into specific ideology and methods.

 

[Inverse Skies]

The USA is an imperialistic state, resembling Rome or Britain, in which the citizens live with relative freedom (although throughout the years it has been abridged many times, most recently through the USAPATRIOT Act) and in wealth at the expense of the exploitation of the third world.

Imperialism - A policy of extending your rule over foreign countries.
Democracy - A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

So by your logic, because the USA has gotten involved in the affairs of other countries it is no longer a democracy? They did install a democratic government in Iraq after all, they're not extending their rule out over that particular country. And your country didn't vote for Barack Obama as President? I don't see where your argument is coming from, other than you don't like the way things are now and want to change them for whatever reason that might be.

 

[Good morning blues]

This pamphlet does not actually say anything. It has a lot of pretty words and strategic capitalization, but it fails to offer anything other than a statement that we need to "unite" and "take the power away from the super-wealthy and political elite and put it back in the hands of the people," without any sort of statement on how we are supposed to do so, what we are supposed to replace that system with, and is pretty unclear on why we should even do so (yes, yes, because equality is important, but why is equality important, what are the negative effects of inequality, and how can we get rid of inequality?).

Basically, this pamphlet is incapable of inciting anyone to action because it does not specify what action they should take, or why they should take it. It needs to devote some space to those concerns.

This is the first part of a pamphlet that will contain what you said was lacking. My only intention with this part was to state a need for a removal of the current system to preserve our liberties. Part 2 will discuss specific ideology and possibly method of revolt.

Well, even if that's the case, I'm certainly not convinced that we need to remove the current system to preserve our liberties, because for the most part you've just made that statement literally. Give us examples. Tell us which liberties we're losing out on and why it is impossible IN PRACTICE to maintain them in the current system.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

This pamphlet does not actually say anything. It has a lot of pretty words and strategic capitalization, but it fails to offer anything other than a statement that we need to "unite" and "take the power away from the super-wealthy and political elite and put it back in the hands of the people," without any sort of statement on how we are supposed to do so, what we are supposed to replace that system with, and is pretty unclear on why we should even do so (yes, yes, because equality is important, but why is equality important, what are the negative effects of inequality, and how can we get rid of inequality?).

Basically, this pamphlet is incapable of inciting anyone to action because it does not specify what action they should take, or why they should take it. It needs to devote some space to those concerns.

This is the first part of a pamphlet that will contain what you said was lacking. My only intention with this part was to state a need for a removal of the current system to preserve our liberties. Part 2 will discuss specific ideology and possibly method of revolt.

Well, even if that's the case, I'm certainly not convinced that we need to remove the current system to preserve our liberties, because for the most part you've just made that statement literally. Give us examples. Tell us which liberties we're losing out on and why it is impossible IN PRACTICE to maintain them in the current system.

I will certainly keep your advice in minds when writing parts 2 and 3

 

[Inverse Skies]

Using elected officials, who, in turn gain a higher class because of it make the decisions for a people not fully involved in the process is, in essence, the first perversion of a true democracy. However, what Canada and the US have is one of the only feasable ways to provide a democracy, seeing that keeping everyone in the loop about everything is a tad... well... absurd on a large scale.

The very fact that people do not have full, equal say in what goes down in the legal system shows that democracy(As being true, consider the current system neo-democracy) has failed in its roots.

It would still constitute a democracy then, just not one in the fullest extent of the word. It's kind of like saying you're Christian when you don't follow the ideals of the Church to the exact letter - you're still Christian just in the same sense the USA is still a democracy even though it is not the 'exact' democracy it could theoretically agree (which as you agree, would be an impossible task to have).

 

[countrysteaksauce]

Let me introduce you to either Mr. Mearsheimer and Realism, or Thomas Hobbes.

Let me ask you a question: Do you lock your doors at night or when you leave the house?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The USA is an imperialistic state, resembling Rome or Britain, in which the citizens live with relative freedom (although throughout the years it has been abridged many times, most recently through the USAPATRIOT Act) and in wealth at the expense of the exploitation of the third world.

Imperialism - A policy of extending your rule over foreign countries.
Democracy - A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

So by your logic, because the USA has gotten involved in the affairs of other countries it is no longer a democracy? They did install a democratic government in Iraq after all, they're not extending their rule out over that particular country. And your country didn't vote for Barack Obama as President? I don't see where your argument is coming from, other than you don't like the way things are now and want to change them for whatever reason that might be.

The age in which official imperialism is acceptable is over. So, when I say that America is an imperialistic state, I refer to its network of worldwide bases larger than that of any empire before it. I refer to the free reign given to American corporations to install sweatshops throughout the world, sometimes after first driving out already existing business that, while not exactly vital, created an opportunity for the advancement of the area rather than its continued subjugation.

Two of Americas last three presidential elections have evidence of being decided by a rigged vote and, (although the margin Obama won by was so large that he would have won regardless) there is some evidence that perhaps there was some unethical dealing in that election.

Also, in the case of electing people to represent us, things such as the USAPATRIOT act (a very recent act in the scope of our history), voted in to remove our rights, is not representing us, but furthering fascism

 

[Clyde]

To be candid, it sounds preachy and unrealistic. A summary depicting how to solve would help.
But those are just my opinions, pathos never motivated me.

 

[Inverse Skies]

The age in which official imperialism is acceptable is over. So, when I say that America is an imperialistic state, I refer to its network of worldwide bases larger than that of any empire before it. I refer to the free reign given to American corporations to install sweatshops throughout the world, sometimes after first driving out already existing business that, while not exactly vital, created an opportunity for the advancement of the area rather than its continued subjugation.

Two of Americas last three presidential elections have evidence of being decided by a rigged vote and, (although the margin Obama won by was so large that he would have won regardless) there is some evidence that perhaps there was some unethical dealing in that election.

Also, in the case of electing people to represent us, things such as the USAPATRIOT act (a very recent act in the scope of our history), voted in to remove our rights, is not representing us, but furthering fascism

America is seen as military power and a lot of it's allies are quite happy to have military bases within their borders. I know we are, our army will occasionally conduct training exercises with your army. No-one cares. Countries also welcome large multinational corporations because it provides valuable stimulus the economy and helps create and foster jobs. Some small business are always going to lose out when it comes to larger ones, that is inevitable, you can't blame America on that because it happens globally to all countries.

You're going to need to provide a reputable link to such 'evidence', it's hard to see America rigging an election for some reason or another.

So an act which makes it easier for the government to protect it's citizens from the acts of terrorism is now removing the rights of those citizens instead of fostering their safety? I'd rather my privacy be invaded than to have a terrorist attack kill someone that I love or care about. Besides, with the rise of social networking privacy is becoming less and less anyway and most people don't care in the slightest.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

To be candid, it sounds preachy and unrealistic. A summary depicting how to solve would help.
But those are just my opinions, pathos never motivated me.

This first part of my pamphlet is mostly based on pathos, I will admit. I do venture into logos for a stretch when discussion the correlation between equality and freedom, but the rest is almost pure pathos. In the rest of my pamphlet, I will try to make use of mostly logos as I myself prefer it to pathos as well.

 

[emmy83]

I agree with Clive - preachy. If you want people to unite, you can't begin by talking down to them. Phrases like "Such a flame of liberty started by a spark may sound absurd to you. Indeed, you have been born and bred to believe such revolutionary flame impossible in anything but the past tense" or "Or perhaps you will not be able to afford to eat by yourself in an afternoon what many would consider lucky to have in a week" are off-putting. People don't like being the object of assumptions, and I doubt anyone would follow someone who obviously thinks so little of them. This whole thing is about everyone being equal, so you should start off by addressing us as equals.

That said, it's flimsy, a lot of florid language with no substance. Could you finish the whole thing and then post it when it's done? I think our feedback would be a lot more helpful if we could all read the entire pamphlet.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The age in which official imperialism is acceptable is over. So, when I say that America is an imperialistic state, I refer to its network of worldwide bases larger than that of any empire before it. I refer to the free reign given to American corporations to install sweatshops throughout the world, sometimes after first driving out already existing business that, while not exactly vital, created an opportunity for the advancement of the area rather than its continued subjugation.

Two of Americas last three presidential elections have evidence of being decided by a rigged vote and, (although the margin Obama won by was so large that he would have won regardless) there is some evidence that perhaps there was some unethical dealing in that election.

Also, in the case of electing people to represent us, things such as the USAPATRIOT act (a very recent act in the scope of our history), voted in to remove our rights, is not representing us, but furthering fascism

America is seen as military power and a lot of it's allies are quite happy to have military bases within their borders. I know we are, our army will occasionally conduct training exercises with your army. No-one cares. Countries also welcome large multinational corporations because it provides valuable stimulus the economy and helps create and foster jobs. Some small business are always going to lose out when it comes to larger ones, that is inevitable, you can't blame America on that because it happens globally to all countries.

You're going to need to provide a reputable link to such 'evidence', it's hard to see America rigging an election for some reason or another.

So an act which makes it easier for the government to protect it's citizens from the acts of terrorism is now removing the rights of those citizens instead of fostering their safety? I'd rather my privacy be invaded than to have a terrorist attack kill someone that I love or care about. Besides, with the rise of social networking privacy is becoming less and less anyway and most people don't care in the slightest.

The governments of foreign nations are happy with our presence, but the people are not. The Status of Forces Agreements that we operate under create an atmosphere of the superiority of American soldiers over the citizens of the area they occupy.

Furthermore, we like having bases within our borders- but we have NO foreign bases within our borders. The only military allowed in the USA is the USA. We do not know from experience the problems caused by foreign bases in our country.

 

[Inverse Skies]

The governments of foreign nations are happy with our presence, but the people are not. The Status of Forces Agreements that we operate under create an atmosphere of the superiority of American soldiers over the citizens of the area they occupy.

Furthermore, we like having bases within our borders- but we have NO foreign bases within our borders. The only military allowed in the USA is the USA. We do not know from experience the problems caused by foreign bases in our country.

And the government represents its people, so if there was a major outcry then there would be something done about it. I personally couldn't care less about having US bases on our soil, it helps our economy, strengthens our ties with your nation and doesn't affect us at all.

 

[Epitome]

Not going to happen,,....

serious material wealth is already too unevenly distributed, curing disease was one of the worst things to happen to humanity, what do you do with all the people who are unable to be productive in society. Like it or not people are not born equal, the geographic location of where you are born will determine most of how your life goes, I will have chances every day no starving african child would ever have. Yeah we could produce enough food to fed the needy, but who is going to pick up the tab, besides foreign aid has been shown time and time again to be destructive in the long term. Short of a massive population cull and starting from scratch while removing all weaponry and providing for all through some logisical miracle what you dream of is just not going to happen.
Sorry if thats seems a lil negative alhough i do applaud you at least trying, its the poeple who believe they can change the world that do

 

[Kubanator]

Sweat shops in foreign countries are good. They create economies which drive the country forward. You idea hinges on either minimum wage, which would send 2nd world countries back to the third world, or an isolationist America, which would economically destroy most of the world. The real way to create peace is simply an extremely globalized economy where vital materials like oil can only be obtained through trade. Then if a country declares war, cut it off from oil. Its armies will stop to a crippling halt.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Sweat shops in foreign countries are good. They create economies which drive the country forward. You idea hinges on either minimum wage, which would send 2nd world countries back to the third world, or an isolationist America, which would economically destroy most of the world. The real way to create peace is simply an extremely globalized economy where vital materials like oil can only be obtained through trade. Then if a country declares war, cut it off from oil. Its armies will stop to a crippling halt.

What I propose is a removal of the status of "nations" and a coming together of all people for our mutual survival and benefit

 

[Alex_P]

This is only the first part of a planned 3 part pamphlet. The next two parts will go more into specific ideology and methods.

A good manifesto is cockpunchingly direct. Be terse: it adds fire!

-- Alex

 

[Pimppeter2]

I will not read the rest of it, simply because so far you have only replied to arguments with "Its not done yet, wait till part 2!". Therefore, there is clearly nothing to read here, but a pretty intro that lacks the substance to make a nice juicy manifesto sandwich