Main Objectives And Basic Setting New Civilization

MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE NEW CIVILIZATION
(Draft for keeping the discussion at the Forum)

The Movement for the rational organization of the world or the Movement for a rational society would have the task to formulate its basic goals and preferences.
As possible the main objectives of the Movement would be the prevention of conquest wars or the aggressor, the eradication of terrorism and other forms of violence, maintaining a healthy environment for people, plants and animals, balanced development of all parts of the world, improving quality of life of all people on earth and so on.


BASIC SETTING FOR NEW CIVILIZATION

I Peacekeeping, violence, terrorism and war

- Planning, organizing and carrying out war against a country or nations on a contrary to justice and the law is the worst crime against international peace and humanity.
- Conquest wars have always been a criminal act, from 1945. have become meaningless and dangerous to the survival of mankind.
- Individuals who plan, prepare and conduct a war against other countries is essentially no different in behavior from that which is characterized by wild animals
- The international community can intervene militarily in a country only if it jeopardise world peace, security, world, carried out the genocide, or ... except that decision can be taken at least 70% of the deputies of the Parliament or the Security Council unanimously.
- When some state officials undoubtedly notice attack on any country, this country has the right to initiate preventive war in defense.
- Every civilization circle, in principle, has the right to possess nuclear and other modern weapons in order to save themselves from a war of attack, and from possible destruction.
- The citizens of the state of offenders are responsible morally, financially and politically for all the damage that their country is applied in other states and nations.
- Violence in all its forms should be eradicated as much as possible.
- Terrorism is the killing of civilians to achieve a political goal.
- A collective whose act or omission enables the planning, organization or execution of terrorist acts is responsible morally, financially and politically for the consequences that arise because of this his behavior.
- The Nazis applied various forms of violence against individuals who do not belong to their collectivity, and the most difficult form of a partial or complete extinction of a collectivity.
- In addition to politicians, the situation in the country and around the world, the most responsible journalists and experts on the basis of whose opinion the decision is critical.


II protection of soil, water and air pollution

- A new civilization must use materials and technologies that do not pollute the area of man, plants and animals.

III Nation, race, class, caste and religion

- Collectivity to which is applied violence or military actions have the unalienable right to return to the area from which is expelled.
- Apply violence against members of a collectivity in order to change religion or attitude towards religion is an act which endangers the foundations of civilization.
- Workers of the world have an inalienable right to a portion of profits earned by businesses in which they work.

IV States, legality and fight against crime

- States should not further divide, but rarely national and religious collectivities are entitled to their autonomy.
- Nobody has the right to enter the country on contrary to its laws.
- The legal system in the state's chief regulator lifestyle of its citizens and all others who live on its soil.
- The State and as many laws should be made by citizens.
- The citizens of each state are responsible for their own quality of life.

V The rule of the people and freedom of man and the citizen

- Democracy as a form of government can be improved and the autocratic system fails.
- Voters in the constituency vote and recalled without a third of MPs, councilors and other officials who will set out on their behalf to perform state jobs.

VI International Organization, World 'level of state and nation and its agencies

- The peoples of the world would be elected by the Parliament of the World community and to every 10 million voters would have elected an MP.
- Each round of civilization (the West, Russia, China, Islamic countries, India, Africa, Latin America) would have chosen one representative to the Security Council World who would have the right to veto certain decisions Parliament. The states should independently decide on the appropriate background civilization.
- Young people, especially highly educated, the most powerful force that will build a new civilization, like all others who believe in this idea.

VII International law

- No respect for international law the world is becoming an ordinary jungle and looks like the traffic without rules.
- The law must be above any ideology, religion, politics, race, ethnicity, class, caste


VIII Economic development of nations and the world

- Globalization allows migration of capital from rich to poor countries, thereby enhancing their development.
- All income and all property acquired by an individual belonging to any place for himself and his country.
- Taxes on consumption and property taxes should be the main income countries, and as little tax the capital and in the business sphere.
- Every country in the world is obliged to provide information about money and other property of a foreign citizen who is present in its territory when it asks for its state tax or conduct of the trial.
- Economic stable state can have coins made of gold, platinum and other precious metals.
- States that have too high population growth can hardly make a good life for its citizens.

IX Employment and social class relations

- It is immoral that an individual chooses a job and therefore doing nothing.

X Raising Children and Families

- Parents are responsible for raising their children to their training.
- The state must take care of individuals unable to work who have no assets and income and that no
one to provide.
- The working families of their own earnings, the related part of the profits and other income of the self-serving its members, solving the housing problem, pay their children's education, retirement and health insurance and the cost of treatment to the prescribed level in a year and other necessary expenses.
- Drug Addicts are very ill, and therefore the state must take care of them through licensed health care organizations and other entities to their healing, but in principle the costs will be borne by them and their families.
- State of the world should impose an absolute monopoly over the production, trade and use drugs if the medical profession to conclude that opiate addicts cannot live normally without them and their healing.


XI Education, culture, art, science and technology

- A man has such a mind that could grasp the essence of supreme power (God, gods, spirit, spirits, Nature, Energy, Force ...) and overall way of being and of their origin.
- High school students and students from poor families will use state loans for my education

 

For years, I stand for the establishment of the Movement for rational organization of the world. Am I on the right track?

 

World War III could start West or some Muslim country.

 

For years, helping to found the Movement for the rational organization of the world. Am I on the right track and that the possible construction of a new civilization? Do we ordinary, little people need to fight or to surrender all powerful individuals in the world today?
On this you will find over the internet if you type the name of the Movement.
Is it all pre-adjudicated, or we can shape their own futures?

 

Amnin Maluf (writer) have said ”Either a mutual civilization or fall in barbarian way of live” (Politika, Beograd 11.11.2009.).
Does the lack of discussion indicate that people in west are satisfied with existing civilization?

 

"Workers of the world have an inalienable right to a portion of profits earned by businesses in which they work".

Do you agree with stated preferences?

 

They have the right to whatever their contract says.

 

The people of the USA are responsible for the suffering of millions of people around the world in the wars led by the state from 1945. up to the present.

The salaries of employees in the USA virtually stopped growing for 30 years, but the profit of capitalists is still constantly increasing.

 

Those are good, but you also need to include (or explicitly include under the "quality of life" heading) freedom and practical individual autonomy.

 

I could only agree with this wholeheartedly if contracts were entirely voluntary. And practically speaking, they're not.

 

In what way are they not voluntary? The necessity of eating does not make a contract any less voluntary.

 

That's what I'm saying. The necessity of eating makes a contract less voluntary.

If you're in the desert and someone else owns all the water, whatever contract you make with that person to get some water is not really, practically voluntary. You can argue, if you take the stance that the person with the water has no obligation to share it with the person that needs it, that they should not be forced into an involuntary contract where they have to share their water. But I find that this argument is sort of a smokescreen, since the legitimacy of the water-owner's claim to owning the water is actually very questionable in the first place. The water-owner's ownership of the water is, in itself, a contract with everyone else, and is that contract voluntary?

To be truly voluntary, everybody has to have water in the first place.

 

Democracy can not be introduced with aggressive wars (Viatnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya ...).

 

The peoples of the West seem satisfied with the present world and therefore do not want to lead a discussion on this forum about the New Civilization

 

Protestants from a Wall Street this topic.

 

And they should have the right to use force if their employer refuses to pay what was agreed, which walmart and other companies do regularly.

 

Normally I don't criticize non-native speakers of English but too often it just isn't clear what you're saying, but from what I can guess it is highly disagreeable.

 

Then there is the fact that ther person who owns all of the water would most likely end up being killed by the people he tries to enslave for it's use.

 

Close but be honest. They use force when the employer doesn't pay what they want. It's called extortion. It's called union thugs.

Walmart and other companies do not regularly, if ever, refuse to pay what was agreed. That's a lie.

And, yes, killing people and taking what you want is the basis of most movements. The basic bowel movement is universally popular but I avoid all other movements.

 

Of course, if someone violates a contract with you that's what civil law is for

 

Well at an estimate I believe that 99 percent of the above is confused nonsense.

 

Explain your opinion

 

Dear Miroslav,

You are on the right track. We are in need of a universal working ideology, but you might want to add a few hundred thousand words to your thing there.

This is not nonsense but it's the plans for the walls of a majestic cathedral drawn on a wet napkin with lipstick.

I will try to explain.
Here's line 1:
Planning, organizing and carrying out war against a country or nations on a contrary to justice and the law is the worst crime against international peace and humanity.

This basically leaves so much freedom to the one who starts the war that it is not even worthy of mentioning. What is this justice and what law? If there is a law that allows war it does go against the whole idea of no-war, right?
And what happens if someone does start a war anyway? If it is against the laws of the new civilization to start a war, how would the violators be stopped?
Why would anybody care? For the sake of the rule? Unlikely.
There will probably be an international contract that would protect all nations from war, but why would the powerful ones who gain a lot from war ever agree to follow such contract?
What if a nation must be confronted? What if a bunch of nationalists from, let's say Redronesia (fictional so it doesn't offend anyone) decide to kill all their people of colour following the idea of 'a better race'. Should their ignorance be tolerated by the other nations? In my opinion, they should be invaded and stopped immediately. + this is contrary to one of the other rules, so it's still a matter of why punish those who break the contract?

Then we have power relations. The few strong nations will know that they are the ones who truly keep the peace stable, so they will have the opportunity to exploit the weak ones if peace is to be sustained.

And many many many more.


This is from the top of my mind, no actual research involved.

You do sound like a nice person but this is too shallow.

 

Weak states against whom the war has been led on the contrary to international law may use chemical, biological and other weapons, which could get a number of civilians hurt of the attacker country. This is the sentence that the people of the country that has led the war against international law must live with. Main goals and setting of a new civilization serve to remind citizens of the attackers states that they are the main offender for the wars conducted on the contrary to the UN. And it is quite normal to suffer if attacked by the patriots state.

For the paragraphs that was set out, a broader explanation can be found on the Internet and in following books: "The civilization of the third millennium" and "Serbia and the global world"

 

The New Civilization (legal society) = Folks capitalism or capital owned by the state - folks.