http___yvesmarineau.com_blog_ga_2005_07_01_manifeste-pour-une-vraie-democratie-mondiale__1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1 24.2 25.1 25.2 26.1 27.1 27.2 28.1 29.1 30.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 33.2 34.1 35.1 36.1 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 38.1 39.1 40.1 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 42.1 43.1 43.2 44.1 44.2 45.1 46.1 47.1 47.2 48.1 49.1 50.1 50.2 50.3 50.4 51.1 52.1 52.2 53.1 54.1 54.2 54.3 55.1 55.2 56.1 56.2 56.3 57.1 57.2 58.1 59.1 60.1 60.2 61.1 61.2 62.1 62.2 63.1 63.2 64.1 64.2 64.3 65.1 66.1 67.1 67.2 68.1 69.1 69.2 69.3 70.1 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 72.1 72.2 72.3 73.1 73.2 73.3 74.1 75.1 75.2 75.3 75.4 75.5 75.6 76.1 77.1 77.2 78.1 79.1 80.1 81.1 82.1 82.2 82.3 83.1 84.1 84.2 84.3 85.1 85.2 86.1 87.1 88.1 89.1 89.2 89.3 90.1 90.2 90.3 91.1 92.1 92.2 93.1 94.1 94.2 94.3 95.1 96.1 97.1 97.2 97.3 97.4 97.5 97.6 98.1 98.2 98.3 99.1 100.1 101.1 101.2 102.1 102.2 102.3 103.1 103.2 104.1 104.2 104.3 104.4 105.1 105.2 106.1 107.1 108.1 109.1 110.1 111.1 111.2 112.1 113.1 113.2 113.3 114.1 115.1 116.1 117.1 118.1 119.1 120.1 120.2 121.1 122.1 123.1 123.2 123.3 124.1 124.2 124.3 125.1 125.2 125.3 126.1 126.2 126.3 127.1 128.1 128.2 129.1 130.1 130.2 131.1 131.2 131.3 132.1 132.2 132.3 133.1 133.2 133.3 134.1 135.1 136.1 137.1 138.1 139.1 140.1 141.1 142.1 143.1 144.1 145.1 146.1 147.1 148.1 149.1 150.1 151.1 152.1 153.1 154.1 155.1 156.1 157.1 158.1 159.1 160.1 161.1 162.1 163.1 164.1 165.1 165.2 166.1 167.1 168.1 169.1
Manifesto a true Global Democracy Or Of democracy usurped Yves Marineau Version beta 1,2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 3 1- The economic 5 1,1- The environment 6 1,2- Health 8 1,3- Grants 11 2- The cultural 16 3- The political 27 Conclusion 24 All rights of reproduction, translation and adaptation without permission reserved for all countries. © Qualitas Publishing, 2005 2146 Montgomery, Montreal, H2K 2R8. Introduction. Who says globalization of markets says global problems. On global issues requires a global solution. Political issues, economic, environmental protection and culture are now the same everywhere on the planet. States are now competing direct financial (with subsidies, for example, or the low rate of corporate taxation, the anti-pollution standards, etc.) and must go against their wishes to avoid capital flight. When they should have common objectives to promote healthy competition financially respecting all citizens, their crops and the environment. The economic dogma is now the new church of the ideology of the modern world. The scale of values has now developed to reverse the economic front such fundamental values as respect for life. "Democracies" of representations, too largely financed by multinational, have contributed to excess this reversal of values. Yet the vast majority of world citizens are supporters of direct democracy[1] International. All citizens of the world have advocated a true global democracy. Is not this the best way to define tags within which the economy must grow? 1- The economic The field of economics has quietly taken over the culture and politics since the French Revolution. Everything is subordinate to it since the establishment of "democracy" representation. Democracy "Democracy" modern, "democracy" representation, has usurped to ancient Greece the term "democracy". In true democracy, democracy of ancient Greece, or democracy "ideal", they are all citizens who were entitled to rule on all decisions and pass laws. Bourgeoisie The bourgeoisie has replaced the monarchy with an elected representation, widely favored financially by the bourgeoisie, and now countries are run by parties financed by multinational. Multinational It is therefore not surprising that governments are subject to the guidelines of multinational. Some governments have no choice but to meet the needs of multinationals to be reelected. Today, political success depends first and foremost by the visibility, So by advertising, So the party financing. In some countries, the visibility provided by advertising alone is sufficient to focus attention on 1 or 2 parties financed by multinationals and to sink into oblivion third parties. Programs of third parties, as the interests of individuals, So go second behind the interests of the representatives who want to be reelected, and their funding sources, or multinationals. Therefore, any economic measure, Environmental, political and cultural life that unanimity among all citizens can not be implemented because, up to now, no authority could impose international standards. Hence the need for a global power to frame tags for economic development. By Who? But who should define these international standards? The World Trade Organization (WTO)? The United Nations (UN)? A representative democracy? Or be a True Global Democracy, direct democracy? - 1,1- The environment The environment is the big loser of the power of economic. As states compete with each other, rather than cohesive ties, no State would regulate too stringently or organizations, or individuals in their daily practices. As it is urgent and that self-regulation of polluting emissions is a short-term failure, only coercion can be effective but, any State that would be too harsh face competition from other states would take in the foot economically. Any fight against pollution that would increase production costs would make any non-competitive company that would be in the country the most restrictive pollution. States may therefore, or to harm their own economy, is to boycott products from polluting countries at risk of being themselves victims of economic reprisals or so, States must agree on respect for common international environmental standards and apply. Unfortunately States, which parties are funded by multinationals, seem less committed citizens to move forward. Yet it is a pollutant, or a level of pollution, banned in one country is less polluting in another? Il est moins and-nocif? Faced with a serious pollution problem worldwide, which is amplified so exponential, is there other solutions that a global solution ? - 1,2- Health Not only the costs of health care in industrialized countries explode because of the aging population but, on top, near 20 million people die prematurely each year because of pollution according to World Health Organization. This means that tens of millions of new people are affected by diseases, respiratory diseases such, each year. With social costs that follow (medical expenses, productivity losses, loss of tax revenues for various levels of government, etc.) And these costs will grow exponentially if the level of pollution increases are predicted. This means that we participate collectively so all the greatest genocide in history. Never have so many people are dead "murdered" every year because of some individuals. If we kill 20 million people per year it means that we "execute" collectively, during an average life of 80 years old, 1,6 Milliard of individus! This means that each individual in the major industrialized countries is a murderer responsible, at different levels, death of a person during his life. At current levels we will all be responsible for the death of a person and if the pollution levels continued to increase exponentially the number of dead could increase tenfold. This would mean that we may be responsible for the death of 4 people, each, in the 40 years. Needless to say, some of these people could be close, since pollution is higher in industrialized countries and one of his people might be ... oneself! As there are emergency, and we can not wait 50 years to change people's habits the most conservative[2] should we not impose taxes on Harmful Products and Services (TPSN)? To reduce pollution to a level more than acceptable and, at the same time, pay the income of TPSN to fund health care required because of pollution? Is it not normal that polluters pay for their damages? We can not still ask those who make an effort to reduce their emissions to pay for medical expenses caused by businesses and individuals "polluters-murderers" carefree, manipulated by advertising automotive example, s who "self-suicide" in their car to "Gino-in-self"? Or, to ask the citizens of the Third World to pay for environmental damage done by businesses operating abroad to take advantage not only of labor but cheap and more lax environmental standards. But, once again, no state can afford to take steps that would make them uncompetitive and would move companies in countries where standards are more permissive. That would only relocate the problem without set. Single international power would establish standards that do no more disadvantageous to the state over another and would ensure standardization of environmental standards around the world. Although most companies are willing to pollute less, provided that their international competitors, do the same. 1,3- Grants. WTO and grants? The WTO can not regulate itself. Let us take the example of subsidies, all multinationals would never consider abolishing them so that all citizens and governments oppose such practices. All multinationals would never consider abolishing since, even to cover costs of research and development, Grants are all about cost savings that would have required a debt, with all the costs that follow, such interests. Subsidies thus avoid the costs for transforming the first productions of profits, and even some grants can turn into profits when research costs are lower than expected or illegally inflated. If companies paid their share of taxes and duties, companies could, perhaps, require a fair return for what they pay. But, in the current context are individuals who pay the most taxes and who see these billions of dollars paid in "gifts" to multinationals. While in a real international direct democracy all citizens and governments would oppose such practices, and subsidies would be prohibited. In the limit, States could invest in companies, provided to receive their share of the dividends as well as all shareholders with the opportunity to resell the shares issued. So as to recover the money invested in selling the shares at market price. But until there will be no international power, there will be a dictatorship of international multinationals that perpetuate the "theft" of subsidies to citizens. Third World And the Netherlands who suffer most are the Third World countries would normally be the most favored in terms of economic development because of their low wages but are penalized because they lack resources. Poor states can not pay grants, it results in a vicious cycle that limits their development because, on top, local markets have an unemployment rate too high to create a regional market worth. WTO and Taxes Same with respect to income taxation. There is no reason that the wealthy benefit from a tax rate lower than the middle class. In true democracy international direct, all citizens and governments would oppose such practices and tax rates for the wealthiest would equal or exceed that of the middle class. But the multinationals take advantage now of the lack of international standardization and competition resulting between states seeking to attract capital in their country. Even in the case of States or party financing by businesses is prohibited, governments are subject to international competition which gives no latitude in their economic policies. All citizens and all governments want to abolish subsidies to business and establish a corporate tax rate at least equivalent to that of individuals. But, no government can do if all other governments do not. If such a state increased the tax rate for corporations or if it significantly increases its anti-pollution standards, or, if increased taxes on polluting, such as oil and coal, or if abolished subsidies, it would be economically suicidal for any government. Becauseompanies were moving to the state most favorable to their economic interests. While the end of subsidies and taxation of multinational enable States to withdraw the taxes to which they would normally be entitled and above would make the competition more healthy with small and medium enterprises (SME) that, they, in "snapped" against multinationals since they must pay taxes at individual rates. Making it much less competitive SMEs, profitable, and prevent them from growing as fast as multinationals, this leads too often to bankruptcy, to low wages, the depletion Regional, etc.. This has the effect that the goods are exported from one end to another world by multinational corporations that pollute many times fatally instead of being produced regionally, thereby avoiding over-pollute. And do you think that is favored by the taxation of small and medium enterprises at the rate of individuals? Multinationals! The very ones who fund parties which in turn promote the dictatorship of large industries and large landowners. 1,5 Of democracy in enterprises. When will democracy in enterprises? When is that shareholders will vote the major administrative decisions, including salaries of executives? When will more democracy? Is there not no justice in this way? In the interest of shareholders and citizens? Rather than seeing everything be done first in the interest of business executives and majority shareholders? 2- The cultural. Regional culture is threatened by economic. The dictatorship of multinationals being the primary cause, while the economy should be subject to cultural norms of each state-regional-cultural. If the economic standards were decided by all citizens, rather than multinationals, multinationals pay taxes, they would grow less rapidly than SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) that, they, develop locally and respecting local cultures. All agree, it is the cultural beacons which must govern the economic, not otherwise. But the steamroller and uniformisateur multinationals would, here also, impose its diktat. 3- The political The policy should govern the cultural and economic. But now the powers are reversed. These are the multinational, if the rich, decide which cultural and economic laws and policies. While in a true democracy, would give all citizens the rule of law on winning political and cultural power of economic law. But watch a true democracy would not be anti-capitalist. A true democracy would determine the limits within which capitalism can develop. And one of the first value is the requirement that life must take precedence over profit. Life before profit. Economic development must be in compliance with the right to clean air before profit, respect for the environment, of Clean Water, etc.. Is the opposite of the "so-called current democracy," which can produce at the lowest cost rather than the cleanest and respectful of our environment is possible. True democracy or "democratic dictatorship"? On a scale of 0 to 10, or 0 mean a dictatorship and 10 a true democracy, direct democracy, we can say that we live (in occident) in a "democratic dictatorship". A dictatorship where one can choose a dictator for a few years. The level 1 of democracy. In other words, a note 1 on 10, which means a failure of democracy. And that is precisely what we see in our societies, called "democratic", disinterest or rather one of disenchantment with the political sphere in its current form is, representative democracy. All citizens want more democracy. And not a dictatorship to a democratic one advantage of a dictatorship, is the power to change a dictator it is too "bad guy". Anyway, democratic dictatorship is a dictatorship or the interests of certain individuals takes place primarily, as political parties rely on the wealthy to provide funds to be used in their media exposure that will lead to their re-election and everyone's interest then passes. Of democracy improved. Democracy could be improved in one or more of the following : - 3,1 Proportional elections. - 3,2 The ban on corporate donations, organisations, unions, and even individuals, since it is always the richest who fund parties with maximum contributions permitted by law. There are not many welfare recipients, students, of unemployed or low wage earners who manage to give a maximum contribution! Unlike the better-off. - 3,3 Pour equal funding to parties or even better, equal to all candidates. - 3,4 Equal visibility for all media. - 3,5 The ban on parties. Not for the establishment of a single party, on the contrary, for all elected officials can vote freely on all issues and create a party on a bill at a time. Otherwise what is the point of electing representatives if they all vote as a single person or as party leader decides? If we elect more representatives, This is to ensure that they vote for good laws and that everyone can exercise critical judgments to introduce amendments that will enhance the laws. Not to follow the party line that is too close to one-party dictatorships. Better 100 elected to the critical spirit that modify the proposed laws for the better, than having a single opposition party. - 3,6 Ban advertising and send to all citizens a summary of the program of all candidates in each county. For citizens to vote based on candidates' platforms, ideas, in a word, not the content of the container, visibility, advertising and posters on poles! Whether one last appeal to human intelligence to vote and that one takes more voters for idiots. - 3,7 Have a minimum of referendums (together with the election, measure savings) on major decisions. - 3,8 Have at least referendums to determine a normative law which must yield all leaders. - 3,9 Or postal referendums on all legislative and administrative decisions and decisions on the Internet that are almost unanimously in polls. And possibly any, permanently, Internet when security permits. A true democracy. What would be much simpler and efficient would be to, that all citizens want, be a true democracy. Where all could participate in legislative and administrative decisions and elect the executive. All debates would occur in the population. The main issues would move the population much faster than when they are submitted and discussed in the parliamentary chamber only. All citizens are increasingly concerned about the political and increasingly non-partisan. Increasingly disappointed with representative democracy and increasingly ready for a real democracy, direct democracy. And even if only 100 000 people were prepared to vote on an issue, on a population of several million or billion people, the vote could only be more representative than that of 100 elected officials who vote according to special interests in order to be reelected. 100 000, 1 million ou 1 billion people may vote only in the interest of all citizens and make almost impossible any form of bias or corruption legislation. Some oppose the fact that citizens are less progressive than the elected, others might oppose that things are moving much faster when the debate is in the population. And it is better to a changing society in practice, in everyday life, in its practices and attitudes, only in its laws. Reality changes more quickly and no elected government can never take the reality, the " Reason "[3], and the public can not follow that if the debate descends into the population. Usurpation of democracy. Pending, as we will not ask all citizens if they prefer to live in a direct democracy or representative, any constitution that has not been approved in this sense constitute a usurpation of democracy. Because all citizens of the world's sovereign democracy in the type of food they want. - Conclusion The dangers to the rapid changes require quick decisions to counter the devastating and irreversible effects that may occur. The effects of pollution today on the greenhouse effect only become apparent in 35 years old. We must therefore provide at least 40 years in advance in order to avoid disaster. We can no longer live in a "society of the precipice". We can no longer run to the empty and we stop at the last minute when we have one foot over the precipice, because the precipice comes to us 35 times faster than we are going to him. This means that the environmental, we should be back now rather than going faster forward. Since only the most progressive people change their habits quickly, it will act quickly to ensure that all coercion to submit to the new realities that are changing too fast to wait for people to change habits that are outdated and, and will increasingly, disastrous for all. As problems are now global, we must now adjust to the idea that only a true global democracy can help to establish standards with a new international law. Should we wait for governments to set up an international normative power, or, all citizens should not they invest the power that is rightfully theirs? Because if we look after governments to submit their legislative power in the hands of all citizens, we may wait a long time ...! Enter now, in many, all questions of international referendum on the site www.referenduminternational.org Make your voice heard on various major issues of the 21st century and centuries to come. Governments that claim to democratic, and even other, will only accept the decisions taken by all citizens. Otherwise we will know what are the governments that are actually used false democracies that special interests, "democratic" dictatorships. Some of the questions that you can vote : Questions and preliminary results 12 August 2005: -Who should decide international standards? All citizens? 87% An elected government? 13 % I do not know? -Do you support the creation of world government with power to legislate international standards? Yes? 17% I do not know?0 % -Would you rather live in a democracy Direct? Representation? 0% I do not know? -Is that all governments must submit to the International Criminal Court? Yes? 0 % I do not know? -Are all the armies of the world must be under the aegis of UN peacekeepers? Yes? 0% I do not know? -Does the international referendum on the Internet must be permanent and do all people can change their votes at any time? Yes? 0 % I do not know? -All forms of business subsidies are prohibited in all Nations? Yes? 0 % I do not know? -All kinds of weapons and ammunition can not be sold as peacekeepers and police? Yes? 0 % I do not know? -The liberty of a person stops there or freedom of another begins? Yes? 0 % I do not know? And in a true democracy you can submit draft international standards, vote and ... change of ideas at any time on 24 24. Instructions 1- Read the manifesto. 2- Indicate by email if you want to be a signatory to the manifesto? TO : Email -sure to indicate your name, countries and occupations. 3- All comments, Changes and suggestions, are welcome. A financial contribution or volunteer site development www.referenduminternational.org would be much appreciated. Volunteers : Email Thank you Yves Marineau Founder International Committee for true democracy N.B. If you want to translate or correction in your language please contact us. Should we wait for governments to set up an international normative power, or, all citizens should not they invest the power that is rightfully theirs? Because if we look after governments to submit their legislative power in the hands of all citizens, we may wait a long time ...! Vote online at: www.referenduminternational.org Politics is too important to be left in the hands of politicians. It is high time that always(to)s the citizen(not)s are involved : 1- Email to all : http://www.referenduminternational.org 2- Post Free eBook version of the manifesto : http://edition.qualitaspro.net 3- Join the Facebook group : http://on.fb.me/ejrzFG 4- Invite all your friends on Facebook. 5- Follow me on Twitter : http://bit.ly/i1U5xy and on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/h1hyna 6- Volunteer : http://bit.ly/hT1ZOc 7- Donate : http://bit.ly/gDyfLB 8- Contact us for your offer translation services : http://edition.qualitaspro.net/ Movement for a true global democracy [1] A direct democracy or a democracy means the laws are decided by all citizens as opposed to a representative democracy where laws are passed by elected officials too often defending special interests – order to fund their reelection – to the detriment of common interests. [2] Only a minority of people have reduced their energy consumption significantly in recent years. The most progressive people react quickly but the more conservative elements do not change their habits before the majority of the population did so, which can take 25 to 50 years old. [3] In German " Ingenuity » means truth and reality because of course there is no other truth than reality. N.B. Reproduction permitted provided the source is next: http://yvesmarineau.com/blog/?p=280 And stream and download free eBook version of the manifesto : http://edition.qualitaspro.net
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1 16.1 17.1 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1 24.1 24.2 25.1 25.2 26.1 27.1 27.2 28.1 29.1 30.1 31.1 32.1 33.1 33.2 34.1 35.1 36.1 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 38.1 39.1 40.1 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 42.1 43.1 43.2 44.1 44.2 45.1 46.1 47.1 47.2 48.1 49.1 50.1 50.2 50.3 51.1 52.1 52.2 53.1 54.1 54.2 54.3 55.1 55.2 56.1 56.2 56.3 57.1 57.2 58.1 59.1 60.1 60.2 61.1 61.2 62.1 62.2 63.1 63.2 64.1 64.2 64.3 65.1 66.1 67.1 67.2 68.1 68.2 69.1 69.2 69.3 70.1 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 72.1 72.2 72.3 73.1 73.2 73.3 74.1 75.1 75.2 75.3 75.4 75.5 75.6 76.1 77.1 77.2 78.1 79.1 80.1 81.1 82.1 82.2 82.3 83.1 84.1 84.2 84.3 85.1 85.2 86.1 87.1 88.1 89.1 89.2 89.3 90.1 90.2 90.3 91.1 92.1 92.2 93.1 94.1 94.2 94.3 95.1 96.1 97.1 97.2 97.3 97.4 97.5 97.6 98.1 98.2 98.3 99.1 100.1 101.1 101.2 102.1 102.2 102.3 103.1 103.2 104.1 104.2 104.3 105.1 105.2 106.1 107.1 108.1 109.1 110.1 111.1 111.2 112.1 113.1 113.2 113.3 114.1 115.1 116.1 117.1 118.1 119.1 120.1 120.2 121.1 122.1 123.1 124.1 124.2 125.1 125.2 126.1 126.2 127.1 128.1 129.1 130.1 131.1 131.2 132.1 132.2 133.1 133.2 134.1 135.1 136.1 137.1 138.1 139.1 140.1 141.1 142.1 143.1 144.1 145.1 146.1 147.1 148.1 149.1 150.1 151.1 152.1 153.1 154.1 155.1 156.1 157.1 158.1 159.1 160.1 161.1 162.1 163.1 164.1 165.1 165.2 166.1 167.1 168.1 169.1
Manifesto a fíor Daonlathas Domhanda Nó An daonlathais usurped Yves Marineau Leagan béite 1,2 CLÁR NA nÁBHAR Réamhrá 3 1- An eacnamaíoch 5 1,1- An timpeallacht 6 1,2- Sláinte 8 1,3- Deontais 11 1,4- Cánacha 13 2- An cultúrtha 16 3- An pholaitiúil 27 Conclúid 24 Gach ceart ar atáirgeadh, aistriúchán agus oiriúnú gan cead in áirithe do gach tír. © Qualitas Foilsitheoireachta, 2005 2146 Montgomery, Montréal, H2K 2R8. Réamhrá. Cé a deir deir domhandú na margaí fadhbanna domhanda. Maidir le saincheisteanna domhanda a dteastaíonn réiteach domhanda. Saincheisteanna Polaitiúil, eacnamaíoch, cosaint an chomhshaoil agus an cultúr anois mar an gcéanna i ngach áit ar an bplainéad. Stáit atá in iomaíocht anois airgeadais díreach (le fóirdheontais, mar shampla, nó an ráta íseal cánach corparáideach, na caighdeáin frith-truaillithe, srl) Ní mór agus a théann i gcoinne a mianta a sheachaint eitilt caipitil. Nuair ba chóir go mbeadh na cuspóirí is coiteann do chur chun cinn iomaíocht sláintiúil airgeadais urramú gach saoránach, a n-barra agus an timpeallacht. Is é an dogma eacnamaíochta anois leis an séipéal nua ar an idé-eolaíocht an saol nua-aimseartha. Tá an scála na luachanna forbartha anois a athrú eacnamaíoch na luachanna tosaigh bunúsacha amhail meas ar an saol. "Daonlathais" uiríoll, ró-bheag nó a mhór á maoiniú ag ilnáisiúnta, chuir le níos mó ná seo a aisiompú luachanna. Ach tá formhór mór na saoránaigh domhan lucht tacaíochta an daonlathais díreach[1] Idirnáisiúnta. Gach saoránach ar fud an domhain tar éis a mhol an daonlathas fíor domhanda. Nach é seo an bealach is fearr a shainiú clibeanna ar laistigh di a gcaithfidh an geilleagar ag fás? 1- An eacnamaíoch Tá an réimse an eacnamaíocht a glacadh go ciúin ar an cultúr agus an pholaitíocht ó Réabhlóid na Fraince. Tá gach rud subordinate ó bunaíodh "daonlathas" uiríoll. Daonlathas "Daonlathas" nua-aimseartha, "Daonlathas" uiríoll, usurped an Ghréig ársa an téarma "daonlathas". I daonlathas fíor, daonlathas na Gréige ársa, daonlathas nó "idéalach", go bhfuil siad do gach saoránach a bhí i dteideal chun rialú a thabhairt ar gach cinneadh agus dlíthe pas. Bourgeoisie Tá an bourgeoisie in ionad an monarcacht le hionadaíocht tofa, go forleathan bail ar fónamh airgeadais ag an bourgeoisie, agus anois tíortha á reáchtáil ag páirtithe atá á mhaoiniú ag ilnáisiúnta. Ilnáisiúnta Tá sé dá bhrí sin, ní haon ionadh go bhfuil na rialtais faoi réir na dtreoirlínte na ilnáisiúnta. Tá roinnt rialtas aon rogha ach le freastal ar riachtanais na cuideachtaí ilnáisiúnta a reelected. Sa lá atá inniu, Braitheann rath polaitiúil an gcéad dul síos ag an infheictheacht, Mar sin, trí fhógraíocht, Mar sin, le maoiniú páirtí. I roinnt tíortha, Is é an infheictheacht ar fáil ag fógraíochta amháin leor aird a dhíriú ar 1 nó 2 páirtithe maoiniú ag ilnáisiúnta agus ar tí dul isteach páirtithe oblivion tríú. Cláir na tríú páirtithe, mar mhaithe le daoine aonair a, Mar sin, dul an dara taobh thiar de na leasanna na n-ionadaithe ar mian leo a bheith reelected, agus a foinsí maoinithe, nó ilnáisiúnta. Dá bhrí sin,, aon bheart eacnamaíoch, Comhshaoil, saol polaitiúil agus cultúrtha nach féidir d'aon toil i measc gach saoránach a chur i bhfeidhm mar gheall ar, go dtí seo, D'fhéadfadh aon údarás a fhorchur caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta. Dá réir sin an gá atá le cumhacht domhanda chun clibeanna a fhrámú d'fhorbairt eacnamaíoch. Ag Cé? Ach ba cheart a shainiú na caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta? An Eagraíocht Trádála Domhanda (WTO)? Na Náisiúin Aontaithe (Na Náisiún Aontaithe)? A daonlathas ionadaíoch? A bheith nó Daonlathas Fíor Domhanda, daonlathas díreach? - 1,1- An timpeallacht Tá an timpeallacht an fear caillte na himeartha mór an chumhacht eacnamaíoch. Mar iomaíocht stáit lena chéile, seachas naisc comhtháite, ní bheadh aon Stát a rialáil ró déine nó eagraíochtaí, nó daoine aonair i gcuid cleachtas laethúil. Toisc go bhfuil sé práinneach agus go bhfuil féin-rialú na n-astuithe truaillithe le mainneachtain gearrthéarmach, Is féidir comhéigean amháin a bheith éifeachtach ach, Bheadh aon Stát a bheadh iomaíocht aghaidh ró-gharbh ó stáit eile a ghlacadh sa chos go heacnamaíoch. Bheadh aon troid in aghaidh truaillithe a bheadh méadú ar chostais táirgthe a dhéanamh ar aon chuideachta neamh-iomaíoch a bheadh sa tír an truailliú is sriantacha. Féadfaidh na Ballstáit dá bhrí sin,, nó di a eacnamaíocht féin, Is le táirgí bhaghcat ó thíortha truailliúcháin atá i mbaol a bheith féin íospartaigh na bearta díoltais eacnamaíoch nó mar sin, Ní mór do na Stát aontú ar leith le haghaidh na gcaighdeán idirnáisiúnta is coiteann comhshaoil agus iarratas a dhéanamh. Ar an drochuair Stáit, a bheidh páirtithe maoinithe ag ilnáisiúnta, Is cosúil go shaoránaigh níos lú tiomanta chun dul ar aghaidh. Ach tá sé truailleán, nó leibhéal truaillithe, toirmeasc i dtír amháin go bhfuil níos lú truaillithe i mBallstát eile? Il est moins agus-nocif? Ag tabhairt aghaidh le fadhb truaillithe tromchúiseach ar fud an domhain, a amplified mar sin easpónantúil, tá réitigh eile ar réiteach domhanda ? - 1,2- Sláinte Ní amháin na costais a bhaineann le cúram sláinte i dtíortha tionsclaithe sé pléascadh, mar gheall ar an daonra ag dul in aois ach, níos mó, in aice le 20 bás milliún duine ró-luath gach bliain mar gheall ar thruailliú de réir Eagraíocht Dhomhanda Sláinte. Ciallaíonn sé seo go deich milliún daoine nua bhfuil tionchar ag galair, galair riospráide den sórt sin, gach bliain. Le costais sóisialta a leanann (costais leighis, caillteanais táirgiúlacht, caillteanas ioncaim cánach do na leibhéil éagsúla rialtais, srl) Agus beidh na costais seo ag fás exponentially más rud é leibhéal na méaduithe atá tuartha truailliú. Ciallaíonn sé seo go páirt againn le chéile ionas go léir an cinedhíothú is mó i stair na. Ná bhfuil an oiread sin daoine a fuair bás "marbhuíodh" gach bliain mar gheall ar roinnt daoine aonair. Si tuons Nous 20 milliún duine in aghaidh na bliana a chiallaíonn muid "fhorghníomhú" dteannta a, i rith saol an meán 80 bliana, 1,6 Milliard d'duine aonair! Ciallaíonn sé seo go bhfuil gach duine aonair sna tíortha tionsclaithe móra a murderer freagrach, ag leibhéil éagsúla, bás duine le linn a shaoil. Ag na leibhéil reatha beidh muid ar fad freagrach as bás duine agus d'fhéadfadh má lean an leibhéil truaillithe a mhéadú exponentially líon na marbh a mhéadú tenfold. Chiallódh sé seo gur féidir linn a bheith freagrach as an bás 4 daoine, gach, i 40 bliana. Ní gá a rá, d'fhéadfaí cuid de na daoine a bheith in aice, ós rud é truailliú níos airde i dtíortha tionsclaithe agus d'fhéadfadh duine a bheith ag daoine ... an duine féin! Toisc go bhfuil éigeandála, agus ní féidir linn fanacht 50 bliana a athrú daoine nósanna an chuid is mó coimeádach[2] nár cheart dúinn a cánacha a ghearradh ar Tháirgí agus Seirbhísí Díobhálach (TPSN)? Truailliú a laghdú go dtí leibhéal inghlactha agus níos mó ná, ag an am céanna, íoc an t-ioncam de TPSN ar chúram sláinte chiste ag teastáil mar gheall ar thruailliú? An bhfuil sé nach gnáth go n-íocann as a gcuid truaillithe damáistí? Ní fhéadfadh sé a iarraidh ar fós iad siúd a dhéanann iarracht a n-astaíochtaí a laghdú chun íoc as costais leighis de bharr gnólachtaí agus daoine aonair "assassins-truaillithe" míchúramach, manipulated ag shampla fógraíocht ngluaisteán, go bhfuil "féin-féinmharaithe" i gcuid gluaisteán chun "Gino-i-féin"? Nó, a iarraidh ar shaoránaigh an Tríú Domhan chun íoc as damáiste don chomhshaol a dhéanann gnólachtaí ag feidhmiú thar lear leas a bhaint ní amháin de na saothair ach saor agus caighdeáin níos lax comhshaoil. More, arís, ní féidir aon stát acmhainn céimeanna a ghlacadh go mbeadh a dhéanamh neamhiomaíoch iad agus cuideachtaí a bheadh dul i dtíortha ina bhfuil caighdeáin níos mó ceadaitheach. Bheadh sé sin athlonnú ach gan an fhadhb a leagtar. Bheadh cumhacht idirnáisiúnta Aonair a bhunú caighdeáin a dhéanamh níos mó míbhuntáisteach do na stát eile agus go mbeadh níos mó ná caighdeánú caighdeáin chomhshaoil a chinntiú ar fud an domhain. Cé go bhfuil cuideachtaí is mó sásta truaillíonn níos lú, ar choinníoll go n-iomaitheoirí idirnáisiúnta, an rud céanna a. 1,3- Deontais. OAL fóirdheontais et? Ní féidir leis an WTO a rialáil féin. Lig dúinn a chur ar an sampla de fóirdheontais, Ní bheadh gach ilnáisiúnta a mheas dhíothú dóibh ionas go mbeidh cur i gcoinne gach saoránach agus rialtais cleachtais den sórt sin. Ní bheadh Gach ilnáisiúnta a mheas dhíothú ó, fiú a chlúdach costais a bhaineann le taighde agus forbairt, Tá deontais ar fad faoi coigilteas costais a bheadh ag teastáil le fiach, leis na costais a leanann, leasanna den sórt sin. Fóirdheontais a sheachaint dá bhrí sin na costais le haghaidh athrú ar an chéad léirithe ar bhrabúis, agus is féidir fiú roinnt deontas a seal i brabúis nuair a bhíonn na costais taighde níos ísle ná mar a measadh go neamhdhleathach nó teannta. Má d'íoc cuideachta a scair de na cánacha agus dleachtanna, bhféadfadh cuideachtaí, b'fhéidir, a cheangal ar ais cothrom le cad a íocann siad. More, sa chomhthéacs reatha iad na daoine a íocann na cánacha is mó agus féach ar an billiúin dollar a íocadh "bronntanais" chun ilnáisiúnta. Cé gur i daonlathas díreach le fíor idirnáisiúnta a bheadh ag gach saoránach agus rialtais i gcoinne cleachtais den sórt sin, agus go mbeadh fóirdheontais a thoirmeasc. Sa an teorainn, D'fhéadfadh na Ballstáit a infheistiú i gcuideachtaí, ar fáil a fháil a sciar de na díbhinní, chomh maith le gach scairshealbhóir leis an deis a athdhíol na scaireanna eisithe. Mar sin, mar a ghnóthú an t-airgead a infheistiú i díol na scaireanna ar phraghas an mhargaidh. Ach go dtí go mbeidh aon chumhacht ag idirnáisiúnta, beidh deachtóireacht ilnáisiúnta idirnáisiúnta perpetuate an "goid" fóirdheontais do shaoránaigh. Tríú Domhan Agus tá an Ísiltír atá ag fulaingt an chuid is mó a bheadh na dtíortha an Tríú Domhan de ghnáth an chuid is mó bail ar fónamh orthu ó thaobh forbairt eacnamaíoch mar gheall ar a pá íseal ach tá siad pionós mar gheall ar easpa acmhainní siad. Ní féidir deontais a íoc stáit mBocht, is toradh é i timthriall fí go teorainn lena bhforbairt mar gheall ar, níos mó, Tá margaí áitiúla ráta dífhostaíochta ró-ard a chruthú sa mhargadh réigiúnach fiú. 1,4- Cánacha. WTO agus Cánacha Céanna i ndáil le cánachas ar ioncam. Níl aon chúis go bhfuil an sochar saibhir ó ráta cánach níos ísle ná an rang lár. I fíor daonlathas díreach idirnáisiúnta, Bheadh gach saoránach agus rialtais i gcoinne cleachtais den sórt sin agus rátaí cánach a bheadh an saibhre cothrom le nó níos mó ná go bhfuil an rang lár. Ach na cuideachtaí ilnáisiúnta leas a bhaint anois ar an easpa caighdeánú idirnáisiúnta agus mar thoradh ar an iomaíocht idir stáit ag lorg caipitil a mhealladh ina dtír. Fiú go bhfuil i gcás na Stát nó maoiniú páirtí ag gnólachtaí toirmiscthe, rialtais atá faoi réir ag iomaíocht idirnáisiúnta a thugann aon domhanleithead i a mbeartas eacnamaíoch a. Ba mhaith gach saoránach agus gach rialtas chun deireadh a chur le fóirdheontais le gnó agus le ráta cánach corparáide a bhunú coibhéiseach ar a laghad leis sin de dhaoine aonair. More, ní féidir aon rialtas a dhéanamh más rud é nach bhfuil gach rialtas eile. Má méadaithe den sórt sin a luaigh an ráta cánach do corparáidí nó más rud é go méadaíonn sé go mór ar a frith-truaillithe le caighdeáin, nó, má cánacha méadaithe ar truaillithe, amhail ola agus gual, nó más rud é fóirdheontais ar ceal, go mbeadh sé go heacnamaíoch féinmharaithe d'aon rialtas. Mar gheall arompanies bhí ag bogadh chun an stát is fabhraí dá leasanna eacnamaíocha. Cé go deireadh na fóirdheontais agus cánachas na Stát cumasaigh ilnáisiúnta a tharraingt siar na cánacha a mbeadh siad i dteideal de ghnáth agus os a chionn go mbeadh a dhéanamh ar an iomaíocht níos sláintiúla le fiontair bheaga agus mheánmhéide (SME) go, siad, go "clib" in aghaidh ilnáisiúnta ós rud é ní mór dóibh a cánacha a íoc ag an ráta de dhaoine aonair. Fhágann go bhfuil sé i bhfad níos lú iomaíoch fiontair bheaga agus mheánmhéide, brabúsach, agus cosc a chur orthu ó fás chomh tapa is a ilnáisiúnta, seo mar thoradh ar ró-minic le féimheacht, le pá íseal, an ídiú Réigiúnach, srl. Tá sé seo á rá go n-earraí a onnmhairítear ó cheann ceann eile ar domhan ag corparáidí ilnáisiúnta go truaillíonn mhéad uair go marfach in ionad iad a tháirgtear sna réigiúin, rud a sheachaint ró-truaillíonn. Agus a cheapann tú go bhfuil bail ar fónamh orthu ag cáin a ghearradh ar ghnóthais bheaga agus ag an ráta daoine aonair a? Ilnáisiúnta! Na cinn an-páirtithe a mhaoiniú ina dhiaidh sin a chur chun cinn an deachtóireacht de thionscail mhóra agus úinéirí talún mór. 1,5 An daonlathais i bhfiontair. Beidh Nuair a daonlathas i bhfiontair? Nuair a bhíonn a scairshealbhóirí vóta a chaitheamh ar na cinntí móra riaracháin, lena n-áirítear tuarastail na feidhmeannaigh? Beidh Nuair a daonlathas níos mó? Níl nach bhféadfadh sé aon ceartais ar an mbealach seo? Ar mhaithe le scairshealbhóirí agus saoránaigh? In áit a bheith ag féachaint ar gach rud a dhéanamh den chéad uair ar mhaithe le feidhmeannaigh ghnó agus scairshealbhóirí formhór? 2- An cultúrtha. Tá cultúr Réigiúnach faoi bhagairt ag eacnamaíoch. An deachtóireacht na cuideachtaí ilnáisiúnta a bheith ar an chúis bunscoile, agus ba cheart an geilleagar a bheith faoi réir noirm chultúrtha atá ag gach stát-réigiúnach-chultúrtha. Má bhí cinneadh na caighdeáin eacnamaíoch ag gach saoránach, seachas cuideachtaí ilnáisiúnta, ilnáisiúnta cánacha a íoc, mbeadh siad ag fás go tapa níos lú ná fiontair bheaga agus mheánmhéide (Fiontair Bheaga agus Mheánmhéide) go, siad, fhorbairt go háitiúil agus meas ar chultúir áitiúil. Gach aontú, is é an rabhcháin cultúrtha ní mór a rialaíonn an eacnamaíochta, ní ar shlí eile. Ach bheadh na cuideachtaí ilnáisiúnta steamroller agus uniformisateur, anseo freisin, fhorchur a diktat. 3- An pholaitiúil Ba chóir an polasaí rialú cultúrtha agus eacnamaíoch. Ach anois na cumhachtaí atá droim ar ais. Is iad seo na ilnáisiúnta, más saibhir, cinneadh a dhéanamh ar dhlíthe agus beartais cultúrtha agus eacnamaíoch. Cé gur i ndaonlathas fíor, Ba mhaith a thabhairt do gach saoránach an smacht reachta a bhuaigh chumhacht pholaitiúil agus chultúrtha an dlí eacnamaíoch. Ach ní bheadh ag breathnú ar an daonlathas a bheith fíor frith-caipitlí. Bheadh an daonlathas fíor a chinneadh de na teorainneacha inar féidir capitalism fhorbairt. Agus is é ceann de na chéad luach ar an riachtanas go gcaithfidh an saol áite ar bhrabús. Saol roimh bhrabús. Ní mór forbairt eacnamaíochta a bheith i gcomhréir leis an gceart aer a ghlanadh roimh bhrabús, meas ar an timpeallacht, Uisce Glan, srl. Is é an os coinne an "daonlathas reatha" mar a thugtar air is féidir a tháirgeadh ar chostas níos ísle ná an chuid is mó glan agus meas ar ár dtimpeallacht agus is féidir. Daonlathas Fíor nó "deachtóireacht daonlathach"? Ar scála 0 go 10, nó 0 ciallóidh dheachtóireacht agus 10 daonlathas fíor, daonlathas díreach, féidir linn a rá go bhfuil cónaí orainn (in Iarthar) i "deachtóireacht daonlathach". A deachtóireacht nuair is féidir le duine a roghnú deachtóir ar feadh cúpla bliain. An leibhéal 1 an daonlathais. I bhfocail eile, nóta 1 ar 10, rud a chiallaíonn teip an daonlathais. Agus is é sin go beacht an méid a fheiceann muid inár sochaithe, ar a dtugtar "daonlathach", Is neamhshuim nó in áit ar cheann de na disenchantment leis an sféar polaitiúla san fhoirm ina reatha, daonlathas ionadaíoch. Ba mhaith gach saoránach daonlathas níos mó. Agus ní deachtóireacht go daonlathach buntáiste amháin a bhaineann a dheachtóireacht, Is é an chumhacht a athrú ina deachtóir má tá sé ró-"olc". Ar aon nós, Is deachtóireacht daonlathach ina deachtóireacht nó ar mhaithe le daoine aonair áirithe a bhíonn ar siúl go príomha, mar brath páirtithe polaitiúla ar an saibhir a chur ar fáil cistí a bheidh le húsáid i n-nochtadh sna meáin a bheidh mar thoradh ar a n-ath-toghcháin agus do gach duine chun leas pasanna ansin. An daonlathais feabhas. D'fhéadfaí daonlathas a fheabhsú trí cheann amháin nó níos mó díobh seo a leanas : - 3,1 Toghcháin Chionmhar. - 3,2 An cosc ar shíntiúis corparáideach, eagraíochtaí, ceardchumainn, agus daoine aonair fiú, ós rud é go bhfuil sé i gcónaí ar an saibhre páirtithe ciste atá le ranníocaíochtaí uasta a cheadaítear le dlí. Níl go leor faighteoirí leasa, mic léinn, na saothraithe pá dífhostaithe nó íseal a bhainistiú a thabhairt ar an ranníocaíocht uasta! Murab ionann agus an-uaire níos fearr. - 3,3 Maoiniú cothrom Doirt le páirtithe nó níos fearr fós, comhionann le gach iarrthóir. - 3,4 Infheictheacht Chomhdheiseanna do gach meán. - 3,5 An cosc ar pháirtithe. Níl sé ar fáil a bhunú de chuid páirtí amháin, a mhalairt ar fad, do féidir le gach oifigigh tofa vóta a chaitheamh faoi shaoirse ar gach ceist agus páirtí ar bhille a chruthú ag an am. Tá Seachas sin cad é an pointe na n-ionadaithe a thoghadh má chinneann siad go léir vóta mar dhuine aonair nó mar cheannaire an pháirtí? Má roghnaíonn againn ionadaithe níos mó, Tá sé seo chun a chinntiú go bhfuil siad vótáil ar son dlíthe maith agus is féidir go bhfuil gach duine a fheidhmiú breithiúnais criticiúil a thabhairt isteach a chuirfidh le leasuithe ar na dlíthe. Gan leanúint na líne páirtí go bhfuil ró-gar do aon-pháirtí dictatorships. Níos Fearr 100 tofa chun spiorad ríthábhachtach go mhodhnú na dlíthe atá beartaithe le haghaidh an níos fearr, ná mar a bhfuil páirtí freasúra amháin. - 3,6 Cosc ar fhógraíocht agus achoimre ar an gclár na n-iarrthóirí a sheoladh chuig gach saoránach i ngach contae. Chun saoránaigh vóta a chaitheamh bunaithe ar iarrthóirí ardáin, smaointe, i focal, ní ábhar an coimeádán, infheictheacht, fógraíochta agus póstaeir ar chuaillí! Cibé ceann achomharc deiridh chun faisnéis duine chun vótála agus tógann sé go bhfuil ceann vótálaithe níos mó le haghaidh idiots. - 3,7 An bhfuil ar a laghad de reifrinn (mar aon leis an toghchán, coigiltis beart) maidir le cinntí móra. - 3,8 An bhfuil ar a laghad reifrinn a chinneadh dlí normatacha a chaithfidh a teacht isteach go léir ceannairí. - 3,9 Nó reifrinn poist ar gach cinneadh reachtaíochta agus riaracháin agus cinntí ar an Idirlíon go bhfuil beagnach aon toil i pobalbhreith. Agus b'fhéidir aon, Buaine i, Idirlíon nuair ceadanna slándála. A daonlathas fíor. Cad é a bheadh i bhfad níos simplí agus éifeachtach a bheadh chun, gur mian gach saoránach, a bheith ina daonlathas fíor. I gcás go bhféadfaí go léir páirt a ghlacadh i gcinntí reachtaíochta agus riaracháin agus feidhmiúcháin a thoghadh. Bheadh gach díospóireachtaí tarlú sa daonra. Ba iad na príomhcheisteanna a bogadh an daonra i bhfad níos tapúla ná nuair atá siad isteach agus a phlé sa seomra parlaiminte amháin. Gach saoránach atá i gceist níos mó mar gheall ar an polaitiúla agus éirí níos neamh-páirtíneach. Ag éirí níos díomá leis an daonlathas ionadaíoch agus ag éirí níos réidh le haghaidh an daonlathas fíor, daonlathas díreach. Agus má fiú amháin 100 000 Ullmhaíodh ar dhaoine vótáil ar shaincheist, ar dhaonra na ndaoine nó roinnt milliún billiún, D'fhéadfadh an vóta a bheith ionadaíoch amháin níos mó ná sin de 100 oifigigh tofa a vóta a chaitheamh de réir leasanna speisialta chun a reelected. 100 000, 1 milliún ou 1 Is féidir billiún duine vótáil ach amháin ar mhaithe le leas na saoránach go léir agus a chur ar aon chineál reachtaíocht laofacht nó éilliú beagnach dodhéanta. Tá roinnt cur i gcoinne an bhfíric go bhfuil saoránaigh níos lú ná an forásach tofa, d'fhéadfadh daoine eile i gcoinne go bhfuil rudaí ag bogadh i bhfad níos tapúla nuair a bhíonn an díospóireacht sa daonra. Agus tá sé níos fearr ar shochaí atá ag athrú i gcleachtas, sa saol laethúil, ina gcleachtais agus dearcadh, ach amháin i lena dhlíthe. Ní féidir athruithe Réaltacht níos gasta agus gan aon rialtas tofa a chur ar an réaltacht, an " Vernunft "[3], agus ní féidir leis an bpobal a leanúint go má descends an díospóireacht ar an daonra. Usurpation an daonlathais. Ar feitheamh, mar nach mbeidh muid ag iarraidh ar gach saoránach, más mian leo cónaí i daonlathas díreach nó ionadaí, aon bhunreacht nach bhfuil ceadaithe sa chiall seo ina usurpation an daonlathais. Mar gheall ar mian gach saoránach de phobal an domhain daonlathas ceannasach i an cineál bia siad. - Conclúid Éilíonn na contúirtí do na hathruithe gasta cinntí tapa chun dul i ngleic leis na héifeachtaí devastating agus dochúlaithe a d'fhéadfadh tarlú. Éifeachtaí an truailliú inniu ar an iarmhairt cheaptha teasa a bheith le feiceáil ach amháin i 35 bliana. Ní mór dúinn a chur ar fáil dá bhrí sin, ar a laghad 40 bliain roimh ré chun tubaiste a sheachaint. Is féidir linn a thuilleadh beo i "cumann ar an precipice". Is féidir linn a thuilleadh a reáchtáil chun an folamh agus muid ag stopadh ag an nóiméad deireanach nuair atá againn cos amháin thar an precipice, mar a thagann an precipice dúinn 35 huaire níos tapúla ná mar a bhfuil muid ag dul dó. Ciallaíonn sé seo go bhfuil an chomhshaoil, ba cheart dúinn a bheith ar ais anois seachas dul ar aghaidh níos tapúla. Ós rud é a athrú ach amháin an chuid is mó daoine go comhleanúnach a gcuid nósanna go tapa, ngníomhóidh sí go tapa chun a chinntiú go bhfuil gach comhéigean a chur faoi bhráid na réaltachtaí nua atá ag athrú ró-thapa chun fanacht ar dhaoine a athrú nósanna atá as dáta agus, agus beidh sé ag éirí níos, tubaisteach do gach. Toisc go bhfuil fadhbanna domhanda anois, Ní mór dúinn a choigeartú chun an smaoineamh anois nach féidir ach le daonlathas fíor domhanda cabhrú le caighdeáin a bhunú le dlí idirnáisiúnta nua. Ar chóir dúinn fanacht ar rialtais a chur ar bun le cumhacht normatacha idirnáisiúnta, nó, Níor chóir gach saoránach siad infheistíocht a dhéanamh an chumhacht go bhfuil rightfully-inniúlacht siúd a? Toisc má táimid tar éis an rialtais a chur faoi bhráid a n-chumhacht reachtaíochta i lámha na saoránaigh uile, is féidir linn fanacht ar feadh i bhfad ...! Cuir isteach anois, in a lán, na ceisteanna go léir de na reifrinn idirnáisiúnta ar an suíomh www.referenduminternational.org Déan do guth éisteacht a fháil ar shaincheisteanna móra éagsúla de chuid an 21ú haois agus na gcéadta bliain atá le teacht. Rialtais a éileamh go daonlathach, agus fiú amháin eile, Beidh glacadh ach na cinntí arna ndéanamh ag gach saoránach. Seachas sin beidh a fhios againn cad iad na rialtais a úsáidtear iarbhír daonlathais bréagach go bhfuil sainleasanna speisialta, dictatorships "daonlathach". Tá cuid de na ceisteanna is féidir leat vóta a chaitheamh : Ceisteanna agus réamhthorthaí 12 Lúnasa 2005: -Cé ba chóir cinneadh a dhéanamh na caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta? Gach saoránach? 87% An rialtas tofa? 13 % Níl a fhios agam? 0 % -An bhfuil tú ag tacú leis an rialtas a chruthú domhan a bhfuil cumhacht chun reachtaíocht a caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta? Is ea? 83% Gan? 17% Níl a fhios agam?0 % -Ar mhaith leat cónaí in áit i ndaonlathas Díreach? 100%. Ionadaíocht? 0% Níl a fhios agam? 0 % -An bhfuil nach mór gach rialtas a chur faoi bhráid na Cúirte Coiriúla Idirnáisiúnta? Is ea? 100 % Gan? 0 % Níl a fhios agam? 0 % -An bhfuil Ní mór gach airm an domhain a bheith faoi choimirce na peacekeepers na Náisiún Aontaithe? Is ea? 67 % Gan? 0% Níl a fhios agam? 33 % -An gcaithfidh an reifreann idirnáisiúnta ar an Idirlíon a bheith buan agus nach féidir le gach duine a gcuid vótaí a athrú ag am ar bith? Is ea? 100 % Gan? 0 % Níl a fhios agam? 0 % -Gach foirm de na fóirdheontais gnó atá toirmiscthe i ngach Náisiún? Is ea? 100 % Gan? 0 % Níl a fhios agam? 0 % -Ní féidir le gach cineál na n-arm agus lón lámhaigh a dhíol mar peacekeepers agus póilíní? Is ea? 100 % Gan? 0 % Níl a fhios agam? 0 % -Stopann an saoirse duine ann nó a thosaíonn an tsaoirse eile? Is ea? 100 % Gan? 0 % Níl a fhios agam? 0 % Agus i ndaonlathas fíor is féidir leat a chur isteach dréacht caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta, vóta a chaitheamh agus ... athrú smaointe ag am ar bith ar an 24 24. Treoracha 1- Léigh an forógra. 2- Luaigh trí ríomhphost más mian leat a bheith ina shínitheoir leis an forógra? Sa : Ríomhphost -cinnte a chur in iúl d'ainm, tíortha agus gairmeacha. 3- Gach comments, Athruithe agus moltaí, Tá fáilte roimh. Ranníocaíocht airgeadais nó forbairt suíomh deonach www.referenduminternational.org Bheadh a bhuíoch. Oibrithe Deonacha : Ríomhphost Go raibh maith agat Yves Marineau Bunaitheoir Coiste Idirnáisiúnta do daonlathas fíor Más mian leat a aistriú nó ceartúcháin i do theanga déan teagmháil linn. Ar chóir dúinn fanacht ar rialtais a chur ar bun le cumhacht normatacha idirnáisiúnta, nó, Níor chóir gach saoránach siad infheistíocht a dhéanamh an chumhacht go bhfuil rightfully-inniúlacht siúd a? Toisc má táimid tar éis an rialtais a chur faoi bhráid a n-chumhacht reachtaíochta i lámha na saoránaigh uile, is féidir linn fanacht ar feadh i bhfad ...! Vóta ar líne ag: www.referenduminternational.org Polaitíocht ró-tábhachtach a fhágáil i lámha na polaiteoirí. Tá sé in am go ard i gcónaí(go)s an saoránach(Ní)s i gceist : 1- Seol ríomhphost chuig gach : http://www.referenduminternational.org 2- Post a leagan eBook saor in aisce ar an léiriú : http://edition.qualitaspro.net 3- Bí ar an ghrúpa Facebook : http://on.fb.me/ejrzFG 4- Tabhair cuireadh do gach do chairde ar Facebook. 5- Lean mé ar Twitter : http://bit.ly/i1U5xy et sur Facebook: http://on.fb.me/h1hyna 6- Bí i do oibrí deonach : http://bit.ly/hT1ZOc 7- Síntiúis : http://bit.ly/gDyfLB 8- Déan teagmháil linn le haghaidh do chuid seirbhísí aistriúcháin a thairiscint : http://edition.qualitaspro.net/ Gluaiseacht le haghaidh daonlathas fíor domhanda [1] Ciallaíonn an daonlathas díreach nó daonlathas na dlíthe atá arna gcinneadh ag gach saoránach i gcomparáid le daonlathas ionadaíoch ina bhfuil dlíthe a rith ag oifigigh thofa ró-mhinic a chosaint leasanna speisialta – ordú a mhaoiniú a reelection – chun aimhleasa na leasanna comónta. [2] Ach mionlach de na daoine a bhfuil a n-úsáid fuinnimh a laghdú go suntasach le blianta beaga anuas. Imoibríonn na daoine is mó go comhleanúnach go tapa ach nach bhfuil na heilimintí níos coimeádach a athrú a gcuid nósanna sula raibh an chuid is mó den daonra sin, is féidir a ghlacadh 25 go 50 bliana. [3] Gearmáinis " Vernuft " ciallaíonn fhírinne agus réaltacht mar gheall ar ndóigh, nach bhfuil aon fhírinne seachas réaltacht. Ceadaithe ar fáil Atáirgeadh é an fhoinse eile: http://yvesmarineau.com/blog/?p=280 Agus an leagan eBook saor léiriú a íoslódáil agus a dháileadh : http://edition.qualitaspro.net