Sovereigntist

Do you actually want me to tell you how we intend to enforce the rule of law or are you just joking? I can explain it if you want me to, but if you are just going to shut me down then I am not going to even bother.

He is not using it to fix grammar and spelling errors, but to add and remove sentences in order to deliberately cover up what he previously said. If someone wants to correct their spelling mistakes I welcome it, but when their intention is to distort what they previously said I am going to point it out. Just look at what he actually said when I quoted him and compare it to what is there now.

To Rue, you do realize that by going back and constantly editing your comments to favor your baseless opinions only shows your hypocrisy.

To Iceni warrior, the inspiration for our motto actually comes from Ephesians 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" but without any religious context.

You are the one that brought up Star Trek--and for someone that does not watch the show even I know that Earth has a global government and that it is part of the "United Federation of Planets." You demand that we answer your questions, but when we do you get even more upset for no reason. The best part is that we are not even referencing the book, as you requested, when answering your questions. It is clear that you do not want to have a civil conversation and are only out to criticize things you have no understanding of.

To Rue, you do realize that Star Trek has a global government? Anyway, I will clear up a few of your misconceptions, but be prepared for lengthy responses. First, there will be no political parties but instead politically independent individuals who have completed the four years' course of political education and therefore are qualified to be in office. Since there will be no political parties, there will be no seats divided among them. This new government will not be divided into corrupt parties all fighting with each other for a majority, but instead positions of office will be filled whenever vacant by way of vote and these newly elected politicians will do what the Declaration of Independence states: serve the people. How can we guarantee that they will do this? Because we are going to make it impossible for them to work in secrecy. We are going to make sure that every major political act is carried out openly and every small political act is thoroughly assessed by an independent court. To put it simply, if someone wishes to become a public official they will basically have to forfeit their privacy. Now I know what you are going to ask, has this ever been done before? Yes, it was tried in Greece and achieved modest success. It was known as Athenian democracy and it called for every Greek candidate to be carefully examined before they were allowed to become an official. What made Athenian democracy unique was that these Greek officials could be immediately removed from their positions at any time if the people were unsatisfied with their performance. There was even a death penalty for any Greek official who performed poorly or betrayed the trust of the people while in office. This is also touched upon by John Acton when he said “You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.” Even Acton seen that people had a double standard when it came to punishing common criminals vs corrupt politicians.

To Infidel Dog, by skipping over half the book I am not surprised you are confused. Voting is an essential part of democracy and we defend the election process throughout the entire book. We are not saying that voting should be done away with, but that political candidates should meet certain qualifications before they can run for office. In fact, if you continued reading from where you pulled that quote the very next chapter (“Process of Election”) addresses the election process.

To Rue, I am trying to answer your questions as best I can, but the truth is that they are very broad and difficult to answer. For example, your first question regarding the symbol is short and right to the point. And the answer I gave you would have been the same regardless of whether I quoted it from the book or not. But look at your second question. It is is very long and somewhat confusing, but I understand what you are asking. The problem is that the answer would be (once again) taken directly from the book because there is no other way to explain it. Not to mention it would be a very, very long answer which is unnecessary when you can just read the book. I apologize if you think I am being condescending, but I try my best to simplify what I am saying because even I found these things very difficult to understand the first time I learned about them (which may be the case for those reading this as well). It would be wrong of me to assume that others know exactly what I am talking about. All I can say is that it is impossible to condense an entire book into just a few sentences. But even if it was possible you have already said that I am not allowed to reference from it. How else can I answer your questions then?

To Argus, you are correct which is why borders will remain until undeveloped nations (provinces) reach a stage in which they can sustain themselves. For example, the border between Canada and the US should be dissolved because it is unnecessary and both of them would actually benefit more by sharing their resources with each other. Afterwards, this new State would assist any bordering provinces (in this case Mexico) with reaching their own stage of economic sustainability. This new State would start by sending basic resources (food, water, clothes, etc.) to meet the needs of the people before sending them more essential resources (building materials, equipment, engineering teams, etc.) to help build their up their existing infrastructure. Once the province has reached economic sustainability and can begin producing these things themselves it should be allowed to amalgamate into the new State. This process would then continue to the next bordering province and so on. All of this can be done without any additional taxation to the people within developed provinces or by allowing people from underdeveloped provinces to just flood in. Keep in mind, I have simplified a very complex process into a few sentences in order to make it easier to understand, but the book goes into greater detail on this matter. And just to be clear, underdeveloped provinces will not reach economic sustainability right away—it can decades for them to accomplish this. But for anyone doubting the possibility of this just look at how much Dubai has developed in 20 years.

To Rue, we are happy to answer any questions you may have, but the real irony is that all of your questions are answered in the book. Anyway, ask and you shall receive. This quote was taken directly from the book, "We Sovereigntists regard our flag as being the symbol of human solidarity. The flag represents the Alpha and Omega, in other words, the beginning of Sovereigntism and the end of nationalism. The colors of the flag are also symbolic to us; in the red we see the will of the people, in the black the responsibility the State has to the people, and in the white the moral obligation we all share for the betterment of society." Your next question, however, is very broad and includes many complex issues (all of which are addressed in great detail in the book), but if I understand you correctly you are asking how we are going to make the government accountable to the public. To quote the book again, "This new system of governance intends to secure responsibility in the public service by (1) replacing the electoral system with a responsible system and by (2) creating a program that will prepare individuals, to the best extent possible, for the public service. The first measure would ensure that those who are currently in the public service will be properly supervised and held accountable for their actions, while the second measure would establish educational requirements for those who wish to become public officials."

To Infidel Dog, the creation of a single State with a global government rests exclusively in the hands of the people. Sovereignty just outlines the best path forward to making it a reality.

To Rue, Sovereignty believes in the separation of church and state. It does not control people or demand anything of them--they are free to decide for themselves. No, we are not Freemasons because we absolutely oppose any kind of secrecy.

To Zeitgeist, today's institutions are completely broken which is why most public officials are corrupt. And it has nothing to do with electing officials who will behave but making sure they must behave or else they will be removed from office. It is a fallacy to think that the electoral system secures leaders who will be accountable to the people because it does not and never will.

To Infidel Dog, we are not trying to take over anything and absolutely reject all forms of violence. And if we could give you 10 steps on how to fix the government then we would not have had to write an entire book. And it is simply impossible to limit the answer you want to a single page because each chapter addresses a different issue and how to approach it.

To Zeitgeist, the greatest opposition to global governance is and always has been national leaders. The reason why is because these so-called leaders know that a global government would put an end to their lies and nationalist propaganda. Also, I do agree with you that it would be a great thing if everyone adhered to a code of ethics, but the problem is that not everyone will and no government actually does. If a government can do something criminal and get away with it--they will. Just look at how many elected officials claimed to be working in the interests of the people only to be caught doing something dishonest or fraudulent.