Has the time for 'national history' passed?

In an age of globalisation should schools still be teaching history with such a heavy focus on national history? Is it right that many of todays children and adults alike can tell you obscure facts about their own national histories and yet don't have a clue about major global developments?

Are there such things as "inalienable rights" & "self-evident truths"?

An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken or given away from/by the possessor. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supposedly such rights, as indicated by the US Declaration of Independence, which says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This second sentence of the declaration also refers to "self-evident" truths. So a second question is can any truths be self-evident?

Should we intervene in Libya?

A no-fly zone has now been authorized by the UN, and this starts with the bombing of Libyan air defences i.e. it's direct military action. Bearing in mind no one is calling for an intervention in Cote d'ivoire, or any other states where the people are calling for the leader to step down, should we be going ahead? And if the no-fly zone fails what then?

Also, since the UN authorisation for a no-fly zone Gaddafi has said that it has declared a ceasefire. Could this change anything?

Also, see this link for more info: http://nickandtheworld.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/the-gesture-politics-of-a-no-fly-zone/

Is the internet an "obstacle to free speech"?

Those were the words of Julian Assange of Wikilinks.

"It is not a technology that favours freedom of speech," he said. "It is not a technology that favours human rights. Rather it is a technology that can be used to set up a totalitarian spying regime, the likes of which we have never seen."

What do you think?

Is existence, in all its entirety, good and proper? Or would you change things?

This is a very difficult subject to put into words, and could get either an infinite number of different responses, or just complete confusion. But let me explain.

People often cite many problems with reality e.g. the problem of evil, death, misery etc. It is my belief however, that the science of reality is the way it has to be. In other words given the chance to end death I would not do it. But do you agree? If you were a supernatural, all-powerful God, would you change anything? If so, what? And why?

Is 'inner peace' the one aim we all share in common regardless of religion?

A Muslim theologian recently said that whoever he talks to, be they Athiest, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, Hindu etc everyone agrees that the one true goal we're all trying to get toward is 'inner peace'. He places that goal above all others and says that all others are subordinate to it.

Do you agree?

Should all countries be republics?

Republicans argue that republicanism is the next logical step toward a fully democratic constitution, which answers a number of key issues. The British Pressure Group Republic argues that the "monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power."

They say that it does this is in a variety of ways:

1 - Royal Prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties without a vote in Parliament.

2 - The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

3 - The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning liberties can never be guaranteed.

They say monarchies:

• Contradict democracy
• Deny the people a basic right to elect their head of state, and for every citizen to be eligible to hold that office.
• Devalue democratic legislatures through giving Monarchical prerogative powers to political elites to circumvent the normal democratic process with no accountability.
• Are a form of ethnic-discrimination by virtue of their hereditary nature
• Are often gender-discriminative e.g. The British Royal Family uses male primogeniture, which means that the crown is inherited by the eldest son, and is only passed on to a daughter if the monarch has no sons.
• Demand deference. Under a monarchy people are 'subjects' rather than citizens.
• Are the enemy of merit and aspiration, due to the fact that people become monarch iregardless of their talents and qualifications. They also receive honorary military titles and such that they never earnt
• Condemn each heir to the throne to an abnormal childhood. This was historically the reason why the anarchist William Godwin opposed the monarchy. Johann Hari has written a book God Save the Queen? in which he argues that every member of the royal family has suffered psychologically from the system of monarchy.
• Lack impartiality and accountability
• Are expensive. Republicans claim that the total costs to taxpayers in the UK, including hidden elements (e.g., the Royal Protection security bill) of the monarchy are over £100 million per annum

On the other hand those in favour of monarchies say they:

• Uphold generations of tradition
• Bring tourists to the country
• Provide a safeguard against government instability. Examples of this include the 1981 April Fool's Day Coup in Thailand and the El Tejerazo coup in Spain when King Bhumibol and King Juan Carlos I respectively stepped in to restore democracy in their countries.
• Provide an impartial arbiter. People like that their Head of State is not aligned to any particular political, commercial and/or factional interests
• Provide a focal point for national unity. The monarch is a symbol of the country
• Monarchs promote the image of their country around the world, having already inherited a reputation and network of contacts ready to exploit
• Monarchies allow training from an early age

What do you think?