[iNow]

If we had another constitutional convention in modern times, which would be better in the long-run...

(1) To make it local to the US (similar to the one which took place in the 18^th century, except with all 50 states), or
(2) To include the global population in recognition that the world is now flatter than ever, and getting flatter still with each passing day?

This post has been edited by iNow: 27 December 2011 - 07:24 PM

[Phi for All]

In the long run, I think it would be best to include the global population. In reality, I think, if we were able to agree to have the convention in the first place, I can't see the majority agreeing to allow foreign countries to participate, even just to put their two cents in. We can't even adopt successful policies from foreign countries, no matter how many problems they would solve.

[iNow]

Phi for All, on 28 December 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:

In the long run, I think it would be best to include the global population.

I tend to agree. Where I get somewhat apprehensive is when I think about cultures that are still stoning women to death for adultery, or all of the challenges we have regarding who is in power and who gets to make decisions.

[Phi for All]

iNow, on 28 December 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:

I tend to agree. Where I get somewhat apprehensive is when I think about cultures that are still stoning women to death for adultery, or all of the challenges we have regarding who is in power and who gets to make decisions.

I think it would be fantastic if we could announce to the world that we are holding this convention to address the state of our republic/democracy/political system, and that, while all decisions about the future of our country will be made by us, we welcome the input of any country that is currently trying to improve the lives of its citizens. This would seem to be a logical first step, and if it's successful, perhaps others could hold their own conventions with the same caveats. Eventually, this might lead to a global convention where any lingering abuses can be addressed.

[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.

[Phi for All]

doG, on 28 December 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:

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.

And that's why I think it would be best to start it here in the US, invite others to address issues where US policy affects their country, and use that as a platform for others to emulate. I'd love to hear from other countries how our policies affect them, beneficially and adversely. Correct the adverse ones that don't cause us more problems and we just made a better friend.

For me, the idea would be to eventually show how much better things get in the US with an update of our Constitution (or perhaps a redefining of our goals with regards to the existing Constitution). Other countries citizens pressure their leaders for something similar and more countries benefit, showing the rest that they are being left in the dust. If we all look like we're moving towards some kind of unified global understanding, I think even those who presently would demand concessions others would deem unacceptable might start to bend so they don't break.

[JustinW]

Quote

And that's why I think it would be best to start it here in the US, invite others to address issues where US policy affects their country, and use that as a platform for others to emulate. I'd love to hear from other countries how our policies affect them, beneficially and adversely. Correct the adverse ones that don't cause us more problems and we just made a better friend.

Hello Phi, I was reading through here and wondered what policies affect other countries? And I'm willing to bet that it would either have to do with money or military. Both would have to be taken into great concideration as to our position of strength and stability.
And forgive me for asking this in two different threads. It was touched on in both. What is it about our constitution that needs to be updated? Or what goals need to be redirected? I keep hearing this but no one ever says why.

[Phi for All]

JustinW, on 28 December 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

Hello Phi, I was reading through here and wondered what policies affect other countries? And I'm willing to bet that it would either have to do with money or military. Both would have to be taken into great concideration as to our position of strength and stability.
And forgive me for asking this in two different threads. It was touched on in both. What is it about our constitution that needs to be updated? Or what goals need to be redirected? I keep hearing this but no one ever says why.

It may not be that we need changes to our Constitution. As I said before, we may just need to redefine our goals with regards to what's already in the Constitution.

I'm not really all that qualified to talk about military matters. Personally, I think there is a huge conflict of interest in the way we acquire our weapons, but I also acknowledge that there is still a need to defend ourselves. I think the military is used to further the interests of certain business sectors, and I disagree with that use vehemently. I think if you remove the conflicts of interest, you might find that conflicts as a whole will decrease as well.

Money, though, that's a different matter. The US economy is so huge that it can't help but affect the rest of the world.

Foreign aid, as an example, affects other countries tax rates and how they perceive us. While we currently give aid in order to help economies avoid needless poverty, much of our aid only affects a relatively small number of people in these countries, and does very little to reform policies that perpetuate the destitution.

Since the US started growing sugar after the Louisiana Purchase, we have imposed tariffs on foreign sugar and subsidized our own growers with a bizarre and labyrinthine program that is supposed to protect us from the volatility of the world's sugar markets. They have done so by keeping US sugar prices at the very top, higher than any other country (so we avoid the ups and downs by remaining constantly UP). A Department of Commerce study shows that a 1-cent increase in US sugar prices adds between $250-300M to consumer food bills. The program itself, regardless of price hikes, costs the taxpayers more than $3B each year in handouts to growers who are already making 2-3 times world average for sugar production. Foreign quotas are set at the whim of those who control the programs, and we often put foreign growers out of business, then flood their markets with free food (with policies like Reagan's Quota Offset Program), which makes it almost impossible for the former foreign sugar growers to switch to other crops to eke out a living.

In other words, our policies are supposed to promote free enterprise and abolish poverty, yet they only promote our own businesses, impoverish foreign economies and only alleviate hunger for short amounts of time while forcing local foreign food growers out of business. We look like huge hypocrites to a good portion of the world, especially when our military gets involved in helping "the spread of democracy".

[JustinW]

It seems that the US isn't the only ones that do this. The EU also have their hands in the perverbial cookie jar. What do you think? How bad would it hurt or help the US agriculture and manufacturing markets of these products if we abolished these subsidiary programs? If we cut these subsidies it isn't likely the manufacturing of these products would grow before we felt the impact on the agricultural market.

[Phi for All]

JustinW, on 29 December 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

It seems that the US isn't the only ones that do this. The EU also have their hands in the perverbial cookie jar. What do you think? How bad would it hurt or help the US agriculture and manufacturing markets of these products if we abolished these subsidiary programs? If we cut these subsidies it isn't likely the manufacturing of these products would grow before we felt the impact on the agricultural market.

It's a hypocritical practice no matter who does it.

The first thing that would happen in the US after abolishing sugar subsidies is that sugar prices would come down and all the manufacturers who currently use more expensive alternatives (but less expensive than current sugar) like high-fructose corn syrup would switch to sugar. For a brief time these manufacturers would enjoy more profit from their products, and then someone would start using the savings to discount and undersell their competition. Soon prices would come down and the market would be less restricted and more free than it's been since the early 19th century. Platform Republicans, rejoice! Consumers, rejoice!

The sugar barons wouldn't lose as much money as you think, considering they would no longer have to pay out all the resources to keep this antiquated, complex and counter-intuitive system alive. They would scream for a while, then they would merely sob, and eventually they would embrace it and claim it was their idea in the first place.

After lifting our foot off the necks of the rest of the world, we'd still be free to negotiate trade tariffs to make sure our own markets don't come to too much harm. And the world would be a fairer place to live.

[iNow]

Help me tie this back to the topic, guys. Is it that trading partners should not be able to participate in such a convention? Is it that any new constitutional documents would need to have explicit guidelines for trade? How does all of this loop into the OPs question about whether or not such a convention should have a global versus local set of participants?

[JustinW]

Quote

The first thing that would happen in the US after abolishing sugar subsidies is that sugar prices would come down and all the manufacturers who currently use more expensive alternatives (but less expensive than current sugar) like high-fructose corn syrup would switch to sugar. For a brief time these manufacturers would enjoy more profit from their products, and then someone would start using the savings to discount and undersell their competition. Soon prices would come down and the market would be less restricted and more free than it's been since the early 19th century. Platform Republicans, rejoice! Consumers, rejoice!

That makes sense. I never thought about it from that angle, but it does seem like the path of least resistance and a reasonable solution. As for the barons, they might not take too much heat, but what about the smaller farmer? From what I've read on the subject the top 10% use over 70% of the subsidies. That to me seemed outrageous even considering that the top 10% probably had more operational costs. But you would figure the other 30% of subsidies might help out the small farmers. They might have to switch cash crops if the programs were ever abolished. Assuming that they couldn't hold out through the turmoil.


I also wanted to comment more on the subject of this thread. Why in the world would we ever want to frame our constitution around building policy with the rest of the world? I know it seems like a nice idea to have the whole world together in unity, but I'll have to agree with a point DoG made above about other countries wanting to impliment ideas and ways of life that don't exactly jive with the US and our principles. It would be hard no matter how much pressure was put on them by the rest of the world. Some would definitely not give in without a fight and it would give some others an excuse to fight. I mean, you see how pressure from the public is taken by some of the governments around the world now.

This seems like it would also put us on the path to some sort of new world order, which would make me nervous. Me as an American, and more so as a Texan, feel that our independence and diversity from the majority of the world is something to be proud of. I would have to have a darn good reason to want to go in that direction.

Sorry iNow will get back on topic.

Quote

Help me tie this back to the topic, guys. Is it that trading partners should not be able to participate in such a convention? Is it that any new constitutional documents would need to have explicit guidelines for trade? How does all of this loop into the OPs question about whether or not such a convention should have a global versus local set of participants?

I don't see why foriegn policy needs to be included in the constitution any more than it already is. We can change the way we do business without having to change our constitution.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 29 December 2011 - 07:23 PM

[Phi for All]

iNow, on 29 December 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:

Help me tie this back to the topic, guys. Is it that trading partners should not be able to participate in such a convention? Is it that any new constitutional documents would need to have explicit guidelines for trade? How does all of this loop into the OPs question about whether or not such a convention should have a global versus local set of participants?

Ultimately, any kind of world peace is dependent on a common authority. Trade is one of the elements that keep nations friendly when that trade benefits all partners, so I don't think we can eliminate that element from a global convention. The common authority is going to be the biggest obstacle in any kind of global government. It must represent all peoples without becoming too large and unwieldy.

People should be the ultimate authority, even above those that govern the country they live in. People should be allowed to send delegates to a global convention even if their governments choose not to participate.

This is a lot more complicated than I thought at first. Almost every thought I have about it is fraught with more complications.

[iNow]

JustinW, on 29 December 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:

Why in the world would we ever want to frame our constitution around building policy with the rest of the world? I know it seems like a nice idea to have the whole world together in unity, but I'll have to agree with a point DoG made above about other countries wanting to impliment ideas and ways of life that don't exactly jive with the US and our principles.

<...>

This seems like it would also put us on the path to some sort of new world order, which would make me nervous. Me as an American, and more so as a Texan, feel that our independence and diversity from the majority of the world is something to be proud of.

In what ways do you think americans are fundamentally different from inhabitants in other parts of the world that would warrant a need for separateness in borders and government, and what experience do you have that informs your conclusion? I'm not talking about the extreme poor or fundamentalists, but the majority of the worlds population.

JustinW, on 29 December 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:

It would be hard no matter how much pressure was put on them by the rest of the world. Some would definitely not give in without a fight and it would give some others an excuse to fight. I mean, you see how pressure from the public is taken by some of the governments around the world now.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the Arab spring, what is driving it, and what it means?

[JustinW]

Quote

In what ways do you think americans are fundamentally different from inhabitants in other parts of the world that would warrant a need for separateness in borders and government, and what experience do you have that informs your conclusion? I'm not talking about the extreme poor or fundamentalists, but the majority of the worlds population.

Why, culture, history, and basic commradery of course. A fundamental feeling of pride for your fellow countrymen and the land we live in. I know that people in other countries share these things with eachother also, but I was talking from the perspective of an American about America.

Quote

I take it you're unfamiliar with the Arab spring, what is driving it, and what it means?

That wasn't exactly what I was insinuating. The protestors get shot in the streets in contries like Syria, Iran, etc... When people get together in mass in some parts of the world to protest their government it tends to get nasty sometimes. I was even further talking about countries like Iran and North Korea. I doubt they would follow anything we have to do with and further might give them an excuse to get hostile.

This post has been edited by JustinW: 30 December 2011 - 08:16 PM

[iNow]

JustinW, on 30 December 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

Why, culture, history, and basic commradery of course.

Sorry, but as much as you may wish it so, this is not unique to citizens of the US.

JustinW, on 30 December 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

A fundamental feeling of pride for your fellow countrymen and the land we live in.

Again, not unique to citizens of the US.

JustinW, on 30 December 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

I know that people in other countries share these things with eachother also, but I was talking from the perspective of an American about America.

Essentially, an artful dodge of my question, then. We're talking about all inhabitants of earth living under a shared system of rules, values, and governance. You said, "Nuh uh... no way... we're too different." (I've obviously paraphrased)... I propose we're not that different. You've essentially made my case for me with your response.

JustinW, on 30 December 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

That wasn't exactly what I was insinuating. The protestors get shot in the streets in contries like Syria, Iran, etc... When people get together in mass in some parts of the world to protest their government it tends to get nasty sometimes. I was even further talking about countries like Iran and North Korea. I doubt they would follow anything we have to do with and further might give them an excuse to get hostile.

I'm still not seeing a reason why the global community could not band together successfully to advance ourselves into the future with a shared set of values. If we did another convention, and made it global this time... Perhaps Iran and North Korea will simply be like South Carolina was here in the 18th century.

[doG]

iNow, on 30 December 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

I'm still not seeing a reason why the global community could not band together successfully to advance ourselves into the future with a shared set of values. If we did another convention, and made it global this time... Perhaps Iran and North Korea will simply be like South Carolina was here in the 18th century.

That would be nice but....

Are you suggesting a Global Constitution is possible that the rest of the world agrees to and is also one that Iran and North Korea would agree to? The legislature of South Carolina ratified the U.S. Constitution on it's own accord, without coercion, with a message of some suggested changes. I'm not convinced a Global Constitution that Israel agrees with is one that Iran would agree to ratify itself.

[iNow]

Yes, I think it's possible. Maybe not today, and perhaps not even tomorrow... but soon, and the possibility is not IMO insignificant.

[Phi for All]

iNow, on 31 December 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

Yes, I think it's possible. Maybe not today, and perhaps not even tomorrow... but soon, and the possibility is not IMO insignificant.

The benefits to forming a Constitution that involved as many countries as possible would need to be dramatic and universal to attract those that would normally oppose it. Unrestricted (or less rigorously restricted) travel would be a big benefit, but I don't see that as a likely concession in the beginning. Trade is always tricky and I'm not sure the best humanitarian approach would be considered the best business approach. Access to education and medicine would seem to be natural benefits, but they also might be touchy subjects with some of the more fundamentalist countries.

What would be the best, most basic place to start with regards to why a global Constitution is a great idea? What is going to attract the most countries to the round table?

[iNow]

Phi for All, on 31 December 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

What would be the best, most basic place to start with regards to why a global Constitution is a great idea? What is going to attract the most countries to the round table?

Most probably some sort of opportunity or threat off world.