Where is our savior?
Where is the second coming, where is a messiah, a hero, a leader, anything?

Where is our Locke?

Where do we look for an end to the violence, where is a healer to mend the wounds of a world? A nation? Where is a Messiah?

If ever the time was right for such a person, if ever the time was ripe for a hero, if ever there was a time for a Messiah, that time is now. Who can we look to? Where is our Locke? Our savior? Our leader?

Our Hegemon?

-Abyss
 

So many great people have been killed (in body), so many great ideas critisized harshly by those that did not understand, and therefore feared, the greatness. The odd thing is, the greatness such people do not understand is no foreign entity, but within their own souls.
 

I just want to interject and say... you don't get the throne just by saying you want it. You don't heal wounds just because you say you can. We need a just and solemn voice to listen to, and frankly, you aren't giving us one. Want the throne? Come and get it. Want to heal? Start now. Want to progress, Suntranafs? Get moving. You're not helping anyone by arguing on OSC's forum.

I'm all for your "saving the world". Start... by acting like a savior.

[This message has been edited by Steel (edited April 22, 2002).]
 

It says we need a Locke.

YOU, on the other hand, sound like a Demosthenes.

Speaking the truth does little good. You also have to get us to believe it. Get us to act on it. SAVE US! But you can't do that just by preaching at us. Work with us. Accept some humility. The "I will be your Hegemon" approach will only work if you sound like someone we could accept as a Hegemon. Prove to us that you are capable, and the job is yours. The world is willing to accept such a person, but convince us FIRST, become Hegemon LATER.
 

I think Steel was speaking for the whole world. even though we didn't ask him to. Oh well.

"...Previous to this post I have not been arguing. Now, however, you have taken on a cotraversial tone; I have simply matched that tone..."

It seems to me that Steel wasn't arguing with you, just giving you advice. Don't take it the wrong way.

"...But, don't track me down and kill me..."

Ditto.

-Abyss
 

Locke, after all, was Peter Wiggin.

Maybe a Demosthenes is what we really ought to be looking for.
 

Our friend suntra just sounds like he wants a title. No offense, bud, but some humility is in order.
 

It takes Two to say the truth. One to speak and the other to understand. Key word:Two. My audience was one person at a time in most of these posts. I chose to write this way because I believed it would be the most effective. I should also write about the problems of the world, perhaps? In any case, I have intended to "preach" at no one. You wish me to work with you. I am very willing to that. However, the question remains: work with you on what? You also wish me to "accept some humility". Ok. Can do. I am a human. I make mistakes. I am not all knowing or all powerful any more than anyone else is. Satisfied?

On the subject of proving my capability. Since you seem to be attempting to speak on behalf of the entire human race, replacing 'I' with 'we' an 'me' with 'us' and since you insist on recognizable proof before 'we' will give me this job, I humbly request that the all encompasing 'we' tell me precisely what proof is required, what test must be passed before I can get on with my humble but rather daunting and immediately pressing task.
 

I am completely serious when I say this. But decide for yourself.

[This message has been edited by DiffidentVoice (edited April 26, 2002).]
 

No, true leadership *can* conflict, because leadership only reflects on the quality of the persuasion, not the destination they are pushing.

The big difference I see with the thread I referenced is that he is actually leading somewhere. You, suntranafs, are not. You have just asked to lead the parade, and seem blissfully unconcerned with where it might lead.

Peter Wiggin attempted leadership the hard way - by merit. By doing everything he could to bring about the future he desired, and by making it known that the future he worked for would benefit everyone else, too. Leadership, in this model, is not assumed. It can't be. It can only be given by the consent of those you lead. If no one has joined your parade... we get to see just how committed you are to the destination you espouse.

 

In Christian terms, it is easier to be Christ-Like by leading the war on the Anti-christ, than it is by being a good Samaritan.

When the world has leaders who build, who follows their own values of self-sacrifice over demon slaying, who are good Samaritans, we won't need a Hegemon
 

You think I am not leading anywhere. Ah! I see, your friend Redskull wants to conquer the world by military might, and make everything happy daisy afterwards. Just like... who was that? Oh yeah, I remember now, ADOLPH HITLER! MAN THAT GUY WAS QUITE A LEADER! SO CHARISMATIC! SO INSPIRING! SO EFFECTIVE! CONVINCED SO MANY PEOPLE! And, in case you are really history deficient, Hitler was a crazy evil sonofabitch that brought on what was certainly the greatest tragedy of our time. Would you also say Christ led nowhere? Even his enemies would disagree with you on that point. If you look for the easy way out, that is the type of leader you will find. The way to real world salvation is a long, hard one.
However, if you want a accurate opinion on something, if you want advice, if you want a command, a way to follow, then ask and I will grant.
I am leading somewhere. I am leading to the truth and the light. To a people, a world, a universe that is better.

As I have said more times than I would have liked to on this forum(nobody ever seems to pay attention) I did not "Ask to lead the parade". Someone appeared to ask for a leader, and I volunteered for the TASK. For it will be far more struggle than glorification.
 

Second, Redskull isn't interested in conquering the world. If you showed any understanding, you'd know that he *reluctantly* feels that limited military action NOW will prevent extensive military action LATER. He isn't interested in being the leader - he just wants a world that is safe from jihad. You were offering accurate and wise advice. When you can't even summarise a well written essay accurately, what hope do we have of receiving a decent projection of the future from you, much less a plan to turn that future to our advantage?

Third, you have volunteered for the leadership role, but have yet to offer any concrete direction. "The betterment of everyone." Really? Where to you propose to start? Why there and not somewhere else? How will your actions and leadership actually result in a better world? Better in what way?

Fourth, you are remarkably naieve. You imply that YOU are the one that will lead to real world salvation. I believe that from the traditional Christian viewpoint, you have just set yourself up as the anti-Christ. Who also advocates that people give up their opposition, BTW.

Fifth, you compared Redskull to Hitler. Therefore, by the internationally recognised conventions of USENET, you lose the argument. That was a remarkably short time before your attempt at civilized conversation self-destructed. Perhaps you should lurk a while before attempting this again, okay?
 

On the subject of Anti-Christ, discussion is meaningless. I am not in anyway anti-christ. Anyway, Anti-christ is just a phrase. If I seek self-betterment, the betterment of the universe, and moral enlightenment, if my love of the universe gives me courage to seek the truth, then I do not care what people call me. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.
 

Redskull doesn't seek leadership? Probably right. However, if you follow his words, you follow him. Furthermore, if such a person was in a position of power, and acted in such a way, he would in fact, be behaving much as Hitler did.
 

[This message has been edited by Glass (edited April 27, 2002).]
 

Humans are savages. Civilization is a cloak. Betterment with time is the way of the universe. The truth is out there.

Complete world peace is synonomous with complete world destruction. Total peace is not a worthy goal. Total enlightenmnent is. The freedom to think. The freedom to think is the freedom to be, the freedom to be is the freedom to do, the freedom to do is the freedom to create, the freedom to create is the freedom to love, love is true perfection, and that, my friends, is God.

_____________________________________________

...war leads to more war.
_____________________________________________

Hmmm... The U.S. Non-involvement didn't solve WWII, now did it?
 

Suntranafs: this thread should be evidence enough that your current method, posting argumentative responses in Abyss's thread, isn't acheiving "The moral betterment of a people." DiffidentVoice would make a better Locke than you right now, no offense DV, because he simply suggests a course of action, he humbly replys, he leads by example. Where would we be if we followed your lead? Ask yourself that.
 

Everyone: Back on topic. A Hegemon. Is it Possible? Could humanity unite under a single man? An internet persona, such as Locke? Such as Demosthenes? Can a single person rule the world, and do we want them to? How do we make sure that we put our faith in such a person? How do we avoid the "making sure everyone has a bar code on their forehead and wrist" kind of Hegemon and steer towards one that "actually leads somewhere"?

-Abyss
 

The biggest problem with one world leader is that while we only need one good leader to make the world a better place, it only takes one bad leader to make the world a pesthole.

Bad leaders are more likely to will any competition for leadership, because they will cheat.

People want a benign dictator, a divine king, an ultimate father figure who will show them right from wrong, and enforce it.

We also want their morality to be the same as ours. That's quite a gamble.

What I meant about leaders fighting devils can be seen everywhere. Sadaam Hussein has not done anything for his people, but he remains loved by many because he is fighting an evil. It helps when he names whoever he is fighting evil.

Senators do the same, calling Abortionists, Drug Lords, Conservatives, or Liberals evil. They fight evil so they must be good. Think about that the next time you hear a politician say he's hard on crime. Remember Al Capone was hard on crime if you were a different crimminal than his gang.

In Isreal/Palestine right now two sides are killing their children because both sides want to destroy the evil.

Ender succeeded in destroying what the world thought was evil. Only after the destruction did he find out the world was wrong.

Basically, I don't trust any leader who says "You are either with me or against me." nor do I trust any leader who says "Show no merchy on the Evil."
 

a) he is arguing AGAINST you,

and

b) You said you had lost interest in this post. Guess you're not so reliable, huh, Mr. Hegemon?
 

You people want to roughhouse, go to:

http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/Forum2/HTML/007017-3.html

Back on topic: How can we help facilitate a good Hegemon? How can we make sure that someone good has the title?

-Abyss

[This message has been edited by Abyss (edited April 30, 2002).]
 

As for the one man alone, who ever said the hegemon had to be a monarch; why could he not be a president? Maybe we disagree about the definition of hegemon, but I had thought we were just talking about one world leader in general.
 

-Abyss
 

1) Who says the Hegemon has to be a dictator--He could be a president.
Answer) A president is a leader elected by the people. Hitler was a president. Idi Amin is a president elected for life. It doesn't matter what you call a leader--President, Hegemon, Fuhrer, its the power that you give them, and the power that they take, that makes the difference.
Right now there is a hegemon, an elected leader of the world. He is the leader of the United Nations. Anyone know his name? Has he been able to do anything majorly important? He can't even get an investigative group into a massacre site. That is because he is a Hegemon without any power.

2) What we want in a Hegemon is a divine king able to force wrong doers into doing right. How do we define "right". What do you do if you disagree with the Hegemon? If you disagree with the humanist views of your government now, you can go to another country where their religous views may correspond with your own, or you can take over your government--peacefully or violently--and change it. If you prefer a religiously tolerant government, then the same options are open to you. If, however, you have a minority opinion in a one world government, then what choice do you have? Where can you go to get away from thier ideals? The only choice left to the dissenter may be violence, and the only violence available to a disgruntled internal minority is terrorism. The Hegemon will not stop Terrorism, but increase it, unless you give him/her the power and freedom to turn us all into scared voiceless puppets of their will.

3) How do we insure our world leader is good, honest, caring, sensitive, person? What system of governance can we create that is run by imperfect humans that can be guaranteed incorruptable? The same divine right of kings that brought us Arthur and Cleopatra and Constantine also brought us Mad King George, Caligula, and Marie Antoinette. The same election system, of the people, by the people and for the people that brought us Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelts brought us Taft, Nixon, and even Bill Clinton, not to mention the scarier Joe McCarthy, David Dukes, and other lesser known evils.

Basically what I am saying is that it would be nice to have a super John Smith emerge to lead us all to the promised land of peace and prosperity. The problem is that there are far more Mordreds, Jim Jones, and Adolph Hitlers than Arthurs, Peters, or Buddahs.
 

Suntranafs: Excellent point! Now, you don't sound like a Wiggin, but at least you don't sound like a moron! (Don't take this the wrong way... this is a compliment.)

Since no one else has done so, including the threadmaster(or whatever), Abyss, I'd like to define the job of the "Hegemon" or world leader. The moral, physical, economical, and intellectual progression of the world should be his/her function. Not godlike power and benevolence (or the opportunity/danger of becomeing Adolf Hitler), but just those things. Of couse, anyone else can define it however they like, but I personally defer to Abyss as threadposter guy.

Dan:

1) The UN is NOT a Hegemony, or even a world government. It does not have lawmaking power or war-stopping power, unlike the Hegemony of OSC's SotH. (which, while being a work of fiction, is a good goal to shoot for... Peter says something that resounds in me as an excellent quality for a ruler or Hegemon to have... I'm paraphrasing, but: "I want to be in a position where I have the power to make good laws and get rid of bad ones." If the UN can't do that, then let's reform this planet. Yeah!

2) Ditto. Change bad laws and make good ones, but attempt to leave nations as sovreign as possible, in a laiz a faire, or however you french people say it, sort of democracy. the Hegemon would have just enough power to stop things like 9-11 and the conflict in the Middle East. A single world leader wuldn't be neccesary; by all means, a World Senate could be arranged.

3) We've got, what, 6 billion people on this planet? And not one of them is an Arthur, Peter, or Buddah? As long as a hegemon does his job(the moral, physical, economical, and intellectual progression of the world) it doesn't matter if he's a Mordred or a Duke of Hazard. He does his job, it's fine with me.
 

"...If the UN can't do that, then let's reform this planet. Yeah!..."

Steel said if. and frankly... people are still dying out there. My hearts go to them. I hope everyone's does.

Steel... Good definition, I think, and I like your

"...attempt to leave nations as sovreign as possible..."

So, I would say that a Hegemon's job is:

"The moral, physical, economical, and intellectual progression of the world" while also maintaining the cultural diversity(i.e. "...If you disagree with the humanist views of your government now, you can go to another country where their religous views may correspond with your own...", as mentioned in Ravens post.) and a sovereignty of nations while still performing the other duties. So basically, what Steel said, only plus cultural diversity.

-Abyss
 

This is what we are looking for in our Hegemon:
>>"The moral, physical, economical, and intellectual progression of the world" while also maintaining the cultural diversity<<

I can run down a list of the difficulties in determining what the majority of the world would believe is progress in all of those areas, and cultural diversity where so many cultures have as their core value their own supremacy, is impossible.

A true democracy would lead to cataclysmic results. Excuse me as I plot out a book here. A democracy is based on # of people. The country/culture with the largest number of people would control the world. Either a massive population explosion would occur as patriotism = childbirths, or the ruling society would pass laws limiting the number of children allowed saving the world from overcrowding, but also locking in their majority.

I know there are ways around this problem but man does it make a setting for a good story.

 

Raven definitely has a good point, but that has been shown in this country to be effectively solved by our bicameral legislature. I.E. the Senate and the House of Representatives. Everybody clear on that?
 

Does a baby boom happen with each american eleciton? No, becuase its easier and quicker to increase party size by stealing voters from your opponents. After all, democrat or republican we are all from the same culture.

When new cultures emerge on the playing fields panic does ensue. The Jim Crow voting laws of the old south, the white supremist movements, the anti-immigration laws are all attempts by the powerful white males to limit the impact of their losing grip on the US majority. I have seen some paphelets from "white supremesists" which demands that white women have as many kids as possible to keep up with the other races. The politician of Tammany Hall and every other political machine strove to keep their power by keeping thier base of voters pure from other minorities--either disallowing them from voting or running them out of town.

If a vote of every person in the world were to happen today, it is much more likely that someone from China or India would be Hegemon than an American named Peter Wiggins.

Again, these problems can be overcome and a Hegemon could be arranged safely. I just had a story idea in the middle of a post, so that's where it was first plotted.

What I don't see happening without a "Bugger" sized emergency is sitting people of power surrendering thier supreme positions to a world governement. The US, a fair and just society as exists, refuses to accept an international court for fear we will have our own people put on trial.
 

First, at this point in time and dont think the world is in really horrible shape, and I dont think we are in need of a "Locke".

Second, its not the right time for someone to come into a position of power right now. Look at the way Hitler (not that we need another person like him) came into power. Germany was in a time of high inflation, many homeless, and when poverty was a problem for them. People thought of him as their only hope to save Germany. He used it to his advantage to come into the high position of power he was in. Not to say that the world is even close to being perfect right now, it just isnt the right time for someone to come along and unite the world.

There are three questions. 1) Do we need a hegemon? 2) What kind of Hegemon do we need? 3) Can we get a Hegemon? This forum was orginally started asking question 1.

I believe a Hegemon, or some kind of world government is inevitable. However, it is also dangerous to make such a government to powerful, and to make any one person too powerful. This leads us to question 2.

We've argued about what we need in a Hegemon--some president or congress that is controlled by a constitution, laws, and a congress. Details on this are unimportant at this point.

Why, because we've fallen to question 3, can we get a world government. Do we want to argue that here, or find another forum. I believe a world government will emerge as things like Nafte, The Common Market, NATO, and regional organizations begin to grow and develop. For it to work, we need to bring up the standards of education and freedom to everyone everywhere. I don't see it happening next year, with some wonderful charismatic leader emerging on the world scene forcing everyone else out.

 

-Abyss
 

The world crisis that spawned the Hegemon was needed to force those in power to surrender that power to a world government.

Many humans find it difficult to surrender power. Some don't trust others, some enjoy it too much, some are just convinced they will do better.

If the whole world were somehow given the choice to elect a leader, do you think that Sadaam Hussein will abide by his dictates? Do you think Isreal would back down? Do you think Bush would bow the American independence to it?
 

If you want to look at how a world government might rise in the future, I think the unfolding of the EU gives us our closest analog, particularly since its early stage was similar to NAFTA and the WTO.
 

Its also taken over 50 years to merge 15 countries. These countries are some of the best educated, most liberal, and least tied to conservative religious/ethnic boundries. How much longer will it take spread to places like Afghanistan, Lybia, China?

There are growing movements in almost every country with in the union for freedom from it. Farmers demanding bigger subsidies, purists demanding ethnic/cultural defences, employees afraid of losing their jobs to immigrants. France had a close call just this week. The Netherlands has seen one of their outspoken anti-immigrant candidates shot. This road to the Hegemon will not be clean or easy or accomplished within our life time.
 

[This message has been edited by BootNinja (edited May 08, 2002).]
 

Bootninja... What? I know that. Where did I say otherwise? Sorry 'bout that.
 

A Hegemon. Someone who would (theoretically) contribute to the moral, physical, economical, and intellectual progression of the world while also maintaining the cultural diversity neccesary to keep people happy. A Locke. An impartial judge in matters of world politics. A solemn voice to which people will listen without feeling preached to or manipulated. Can humanity produce such a being? Can we make sure that they are one and the same? Can we avoid a Hitler or Stalin while we look for our Wiggin (for lack of better term, forgive my use of a fictional character)? Could humanity sustain such a beneficial system without discord or dissent?

-Abyss
 

-Abyss
 

However... why do you say that? Why would a commercial body rather than a governmental body rule the world?

Forgive me, but I need some background here.
 

I think not. What are your feelings on this?

-Abyss
 

-Abyss

 

I don't really know though, Abyss, you could be right about what was orginally meant.
 

I see it as the world being pretty much the same only with the Hegemony as a referee. It could prevent such actions as 9-11. It would have a body to deal with the issues of the Islamic people. Maybe each nation would keep
its leaders. MAybe not. But if we just had the Hegemony watching over preventing wars and other such problems maybe the world wouldn't be in as much turmoil.

But if each nation kept it's leaders this would mean the communist nations would to. Possibly the Hegemony could resolve such human rights issues over time.

I'm sorry for how vague this is. It's hard for me to put ideas into words. I hope someone can elaborate on what i'm saying and try to find more meaning in it.

But basicly i'm saying that all nations would keep their sovreighty (sorry, i'm a horirble speller) and culture, and have the Hegemony act as a watchdog to deal with international issues and prevent useless wars from occuring.

Once again, i'm sure there are holes in what i'm saying and other problems. Hopefully you can get the jist of it and someone who's better at turning ideas into words can take what i'm saying and make more sense out of it.

-Vyresince (I'm new hear as you can see)
 

-Vyresince
 

-Vyresince
 

-Abyss
 

-Vyresince
 

If you give them the power to do good, then you also, by definition, give them the power to do evil. and As Hitler, Napoleon, Saddam Hussein, and Chancellor Palpatine have proved, the election process doesn't screen out all the baddies.
 

~Your Friend~
Reed
 

-Vyresince

Sorry if my question will require a lot of typing, i'm just trying to figure out exactly what this government everyone's talking about is supposed to do, and if everyone is assuming different things about it. Because apparantly i have.
 

-Vyresince
 

OSC is not the people he writes about. He does not live in the world he writes about. He isn't Peter. He isn't Ender. He's an excellent author, and he has an excellent forum going here, but he's not a political or military genius. Sometimes he even blunders, in my opinion, in his writing. He contradicts himself, as has been mentioned several times on this forum. It happens to the best of us. Sometimes he even makes punctuation mistakes. He's clever, witty, wealthy, but even he's not superhuman.

Who should they be? Why should we put them in that position?

They should be Peter Wiggin, and they should be put there because they'd do a damn good job.

But we're extremely lacking in Wiggins. So,I think I do not know who should be put there. Some self-declared Hegemon condidates, such as sutranafs (sorr 'bout that), would probably do an okay job. We need a savior, a hero figure, but a humble, intelligent one, that could act as an impartial judge AND contibute to the moral, physical, economical, and intellectual progression of the world.

Going back to suntranafs' point, maybe we need a Fourth Branch, to handle military matters and ensure that revolutions are VERY difficult? I would call it the Strategos, but that could be childish of me. What do you think on the subject of Banch Number 4?

-Abyss
 

The price of freedom is always paid in hero's blood. Never before has there been such a need for freedom. Neverbefore has there been such a need for heroes.

[This message has been edited by Hero's Blood (edited May 24, 2002).]
 

The thought of a fourth branch is ridiculous. How could any dare spark the fires of rebellion against a truly good government? What need would a united humanity have for instruments war? Madmen are creations of desperate times. So I ask you what mad man would be able to threaten the integrity of a truly democratic and truly free society?

"There is no greater illusion than fear,
no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself,
no greater misfortune than having an enemy." -Lao Tzu

[This message has been edited by Hero's Blood (edited May 24, 2002).]
 

Did I just make any sense at all?
 

You are making a fatal and dangerous assumption. You assume that weapons afford you the opportunity to better defend yourself, however, you are mistaken. The existence of weapons shows not only the possibility for violence, but also the NEED for it. Extraneous objects eventually disappear. Therefore in world without belligerents what use are the tools of destruction? When guns become outlawed, for everyone, then no one has any need for guns. Police and domestic forces will never face armed criminals so what use do they have for them? Even social deviants like criminals can simply exert their will in a different way. However, a corrupt government will be unable to muster any forces to counter a truly rebellious population. A Molatov cocktail, a piece of iron, and a cheaply made pipe bomb. If nothing else then, a massive strikes to cripple the world economy. All are weapons. None are military. Two conditions which are essential for world peace.

Why does OSC never do the things he writes about? Because they are not possible. Taking over gov'ts and stuff like political manipulation makes good material for novels, but in reality there are too many variables, and not everyone in world governments is an idiot. Also, the public and media, despite commonplace criticism, are not blind followers.

About the world government. The reason it won't work is because you keep trying to figure out how the government can be idealized in every respect. The answer is to agree to some discrepancies.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

[This message has been edited by Life_of_Human (edited May 25, 2002).]
 

Hero's Blood, we went through this with sutranafs. He's all humble now, and I'm starting to think maybe he's not so bad. But you are just getting on my nerves! We're in a serious, yet hypothetical debate here. Please take your self-important ranting elsewhere.

Back me up, sutranafs?
 

Ah, of course how foolish of me to think I was speaking to crowd that could even perceive the most obvious meaning of my texts. Of course if this does not apply to you feel free to ignore it.

I told YOU Steel how to gain your Locke, your savior. You must do it for YOURSELF. “The beautiful future you dream for is not mine to give. It is however, yours to work for.” The fact is no ONE man can secure the future. It takes enough so that those working for open freedom and unity can overcome those working for oppression and tyranny. Furthermore these visionaries may disagree but they must never betray each other. “I am who you are. You are who I am.”

If you say that a unified world is idealistic. To say that is to say that man is not man. That he does not wish for security, he does not wish for peace. To those who say that, I say you are liars and you are hypocrites. All men want peace although most go about it the wrong way. The warriors who fight for “freedom” who spill blood for “peace” they are the same as the terrorists and butchers they would destroy.

"Give evil nothing to oppose and it will disappear by itself" -Lao Tsu

To say it is impossible is not to be pragmatic or realistic, it is to be a fool. ALL governments are derived from the will of the people they govern. So to have a world government all you must do is fight for the hearts and minds of the populace and convince them that a world government would offer more freedom and peace then their own national governments.

"The best leader
follows the will of the people." -Lao Tsu

You say that if guns become outlawed only the outlaws had guns. Well in Nazi Germany guns becamed outlawed and then no one had guns but the government. This shows that first it is possible to remove guns from the population. Second it shows that arms of any kind are instruments of force. If you simply make a society where a man need not exert force to get what he wants or needs, there will be no use for such instruments.
 

So, Blood, you hold up Naziism as an ideal world government? There are so many holes in your argument...

Let's just assume that we don't want to be Nazis, and that we like freedom. Oppresion is a bad thing. Not an ideal world government.

"...society where a man need not exert force to get what he wants or needs..."

So, a government where everyone works exactly as their skills allow and are given exactly what they need! What does this remind me of? Anyone help me out? Marxism, socialism, communism, you name it, Blood seems to be advocating it. From fascism to communism, every thing that I try to avoid in a government is proposed by Hero's Blood.

I agree with BootNinja, should the government become corrupt, the people should rise up against it. Weaponry, violence, are sometimes neccesary to ensure the rights and priviledges of all. It is because of who we are, however, that some terrorists will be compelled to rise against a JUST government. Dissidents such as these would have to be dealt with, to minimize casualties, to save lives, to protect the citizens of this World Democracy. So a fourth branch would not prevent the formation of militia, neccesarily, nor the ownership of weaponry, but rather the protection of the citizens of a just World Government.

-Abyss
 

Abyss, you have made three false assumptions.

You knew that Nazi Germany had guns correct? Well because guns are INSTRUMENTS of FORCE it is obvious that I would NOT approve of them. In Nazi Germany the only way to get what one wanted was TO EXERT FORCE, correct? Therefore if I'm proposing a government where NO ONE MUST EXERT FORCE to get what one wants how could I be a proponent of Fascism?

Your second false assumption is that you assume that your government is just. Quite simply put it is not. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest. Objects in motion tend to stay at motion. Keep a populace well fed and free to exercise the basic human freedoms, speech, religion, assembly, etc., and they will stay happy and content. However if for example you starve a population to death, murder their democratically elected leaders, brutalize their populations with repressive regimes, and then exercise brutal military campaigns on them, they will continue to stay balkanized against all perceived hostile forces. A truly just government will not have “terrorists” rise against it.

The third false assumption, if I perceived your response correctly, is that Marxism or Communism is a bad thing. People who have no idea what Communism (more specifically pure communism named Marxism) view it with hostility due to the propaganda their capitalist governments have put out against them. People, who truly know what Marxism is, either support it or view it as a utopian vision that can never be realized. However people who view it as a utopian vision have never truly analyzed the situation and are simply deluding themselves to the true situation. The short definition of Marxism is that people who work can partake of all the fruits of society’s labor, but none may exploit it for their own personal gain.

And now I wait until the next time you misconstrue my words and I must point out that I’ve already given an explanation to what I’ve said.

[This message has been edited by Hero's Blood (edited May 27, 2002).]
 

A government where no one must exert force is a great idea. An impossible objective, but a great idea nevertheless.

You also said that Abyss's government wasn't just, but how can that be? It doesn't exist... It's a hypothetical government. How can an idea be unjust? How can it be wrong, and (hypothetically) if it is wrong, point out it's hypothetical faults!

~Your Friend~
Reed
 

I definately don't want to step on any toes or anything.

I just wanted to say a couple of things that may be off topic, but that *are* related to things that I have read in this thread.

At one point someone (can't remember who) was talking about saving the world. I was reminded of a discussion that I had about the difference between saving/helping and serving.

Saving/helping tends to imply inequality, whereas serving has more of an attitude of equality and respect.

Could we perhaps have world leaders that wish to "serve the world" and not "save the world"?

Another thing I wanted to mention was something I remember working on with some friends when I was in junior high. More of a thesis than any pretentious type of solving the world problems, or anything

We decided to have a look at the concept of "unity" in respect to current models of justice and democracy.

We decided rapidly that the justice system that was currently in place in most western countries did not include the concept of unity: Opposing parties whose intention often was to "win" a case rather than to find a solution that would be best for all parties involved. One possibility did exist in the american law system that was pretty interesting, but not used very often: the judge could ask each party to design a solution, and the one that the judge felt to be better would be used. That way both parties would try their best to design a good solution, so that their's would be retained.

Same for democracy: not much unity in the current democratic models. Basically, parties that are opposed, and once again trying to "win" rather than to get together and design solutions.

(please remember that this is just the flight and fancy of fourteen yearolds. We didn't think we knew it all, we didn't have any solutions... we were just looking at possibilities)

Sorry for rambling.

We did try to find different "ingredients" that we thought would be important for a justice system and democracy, but I'm not about to torture you guys with it

Just wanted to add some food for thought.
 

Reed, I believe you bring up one good points and another equally good point that is a bit uninformed, or perhaps a bit undeveloped. Kosmik you bring up some serious questions on the very nature of this discussion that I believe deserves some serious attention.

Reed, you have brilliantly pointed out a mistake that I have committed and seriously and honestly thank you, for without your comment I would have never found and been able to correct it. You pointed out that Abysses perfect government was hypothetical. From the current situation and the current topic I should have assumed that his “terrorists” were also hypothetical. I foolishly took his diction as an alliteration to the current geo-political situation, for if taken in that context his comments seem to mirror the feelings many European North Americans. Of course as you have so clearly pointed out the conversation is hypothetical and I should not take this discussion out of context. I have been on the offensive from the time I began posting so it came naturally to me. Again I thank you for pointing out my flaw so I may correct it.

Please note in the next section I will be greatly simplifying complex ideas and making general blanket statements so please try to grasp the larger concept at work here and don’t quibble over semantics. Also before every statement it might be helpful to add the world “generally”.

Your second point that “A government where no one must exert force is a great idea. An impossible objective, but a great idea none the less” is flawed but its intrinsic flaws are not apparent and the explanation for why it is flawed is not easy to grasp so please bear with me. There are three schools of thought on the nature of man (please note that I include women in all of my male general pronouns but using “they” while politically correct is a grammatical nightmare as is putting he/she him/her).

The first school of thought is attributed to Hobbes who says that all men are inherently evil, thus a structure must be put in place to contain them. This is the most difficult school of thought to rationalize the “utopian” vision with but I will try. First to have a truly “utopian” future under the Hobbes school of thought is to simply to make mans negative traits turn into productive forces. Such as if all men are inherently greedy or selfish then intelligently they must all act altruistically. This may seem a paradox but if examined closely one find that it is far easier to give someone what exactly what you have they no longer wish what you have because it is not significantly better then what they have. Many people envy rich actors or extravagant pop stars, but how many people envy the people in the same tax bracket as themselves? Therefore a truly evil society the most intelligent way to protect what I have is not to force down those who would acquire it, but to make sure that everyone has everything they need or want so no one wants what I have.

The second school of thought falls under that of our discussion’s namesake Locke. He thought that all men were inherently good and thus were able to adequately control a society themselves. Furthermore this point is illustrated by his belief in the social contract that essentially gives the power of all government ultimately to the populace. A utopian future under this system is easy enough because if men are inherently good then it must simply be detractors of their society that cause them to turn to evil. If such is the case the simple removal of those detractors will allow for an open and free society in which no force must be exerted.

The last and newest school of thought oft proposed psychologists who say men are products of their environments. That is the actions of every man are a culmination of all events proceeding him. Then it simply becomes a matter of inevitability. Ultimately the strong systems survive and the weak do not, and because historic forces rather than their inherent nature guide men so they too are subject to these principles. An economy is the benchmark of any nation. However preparing for war, while does momentarily stimulate the economy cannot be relied upon for long lasting prosperity which is vital for any economy. Thus it is understandable that only a peaceful, communistic, and democratic state would immerge. War causes suffering, destruction, and death, all which are counterproductive. Strife and competition are also pitiful replacements for unity and cooperation. Differences of opinion and a free exchange of ideas helps push progress thus the society must be democratic. So the men who act on society’s behalf are simply the result of all the progressive steps before them.

Thus it is quite apparent that such “utopian” (translated from Greek nowhere) ideas are not so utopian.

Kosmik you have touched on a vital point of the whole discussion of humanities “savior”. Such ideas are rediculous. There is no possible way that one man can “save” society. However, all men must serve society (that in turn serves them) and thus save it. No one can give us the perfect unified world. We must work for it and achieve it ourselves and both individuals and as humanity as a whole.

 

[This message has been edited by BootNinja (edited May 28, 2002).]
 

It is terribly unfortunate. If I am mistaken I would be happy to have someone correct me, but your idea that wars are fought of emotion is utterly and absolutely ridiculous. I don’t believe you can find one solitary instance where you can find a war that was NOT fought for economic reasons.

Most of the pre-modern wars were fought directly over land. This is quite OBVIOUSLY economic because with more land you have more resources. Wars such as the Romans fight to control the world displays the need for vast economic resources, the later Muslim wars show an expanding economic drive from the bitterly contested middle eastern area as a reaction to the oppressive Roman economic system that extended economic freedom only to Romans. Also during this time period the Three Kingdoms Era in China as a contest between the houses of Shu, Wei, and Wu which lead to the eventual victory of Sima Yi (rough translation I apologize) was actually a catastrophic failure of the economic policies of the Han Dynasty.

At the advent of colonialism from the 16th to 18th centuries the economic reasons for war become more obvious. The Spanish lust for gold to help prop up their war torn economy and to give a comparable trade program to their neighbor Spain. The expansion of religious wars were generally a contest between feudal or trading southern continental powers such as Spain, Italy, Portugal and France and northern maritime manufacturing powers such as The Netherlands and Britain. The subsequent rebellions with in American colonial territories such as the later United States of America, New Spain (Mexico), Haiti, and generally the whole of South America (excluding Brazil) were fought to either establish a free labor system i.e. abolish slavery or to establish the local bourgeois over the far distant mercantilist powers i.e. the Untied States.

Later there were constant fights over who would have control over land, which as stated before, is inherently economic. Of course within Europe there were napoleonic wars that were battles to push France from a feudal aristocratic nation to a capitalist republic (eventually). In the United States the war over slavery was not, as many would have you believe a war over the morality of the “peculiar institution” but rather a desperate struggle between the Nearly completed capitalists free labor system of the North and the neo-feudalism of the South. Quite clearly all were economic. The later imperialism that ran rampant in all the world were simply reactions to the growing need for resources and more specifically the spheres of influences to extract these resources.

As a direct continuation of these reactions World War I was started. Competing capitalist countries were all vying for both European and even worldwide superiority. Ostensibly it was the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinan, but the economic tensions between the Allies and the Central powers and most specifically the economic competition between England and France drove Europe into the camps of either powers with established economic conditions or the struggling powers with either emerging or collapsing economies.

World War II was obviously economic. Economically ravaged countries found suitable outlets for production i.e. weapons rather then the inviable consumer goods. This is because overproduction was making all goods worthless so no one could buy anything. If I may make a small comment, don’t you find it ridiculous that people were doing the worst in their lives when everything was operating at higher levels of efficiency and productivity then ever before? It is quite a comment on THAT particular economic system. None the less people like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo were all reactions to the current economic system. Hitler was trying to bring the economically downtrodden Germany to prominence. Mussolini was trying to stabilize the unbalanced Italian economic situation. Lastly, the military government in Japan was an attempt to take the lagging Japan and give them a boost by having a vast empire ripe with resources.

The cold war and all its battles are quite simply economic. The free market systems seemingly competing against controlled economies. More or less every battle was fought on these lines so I don’t feel it is necessary to go into complete specifics.

In the post Soviet era most of the wars have been fought over oil, hegemony (with all the economic benefits it entails), and lastly the suppression of any other nation besides the United States as anything resembling a superpower. If you don’t believe me read the Wolfiwitz (I apologize for the spelling) memorandum. Quite clearly all of these wars were economic.

Now you may say, “but quite often don’t war boost the economy?” Well, yes and no. They give it stimulation with increased government spending (often going to the private sector further stimulating consumerism). The price of war in both men and material is not worth the benefits. All colonial possessions ultimately rebel, all territorial gains ultimately revolt, and all empires ultimately crumble. However, if the effort that was spent on war was instead spent on consumer goods and the domestic economies (or in a worldwide government the world economy) and with fair redistribution prosperity would be increased for all.

Please forgive me, I completely forgot to reply to one vital section of your post so now I must make the addendum. You did not specify which country “this country” is so rather then assume you are a white middle class American I expanded “this country” to include many different examples from many different countries.

[This message has been edited by Hero's Blood (edited May 28, 2002).]
 

Thank you Leto II you have truly paid me a high complement. I do however, think that you have grossly overestimated my knowledge. I do not have a textbook, but rather I have a basic understanding of ancient and modern history and I have knowledge of historical dialect. With these two tools I am able to synthesize positions on topics which seemingly have no correlation and form a cohesive thought. But I am flattered none the less. While I’m not specifically anti-American I believe that any country where you can not say “hmm… I don’t think our current war is being properly run” or "all wars are immoral and this is no diffrent". If, for example, you were to say such a thing in a Taliban camp they would surly kill you. However, if you said it in the United States in front of two witnesses and then admitted such a thing in court you could also be killed. To forestall any questions this is under the Patriot Act of 2001 that states that not supporting the “war on terror” is treason by means of giving aid to the enemy.

Something is a bit troubling about your post though. Rather then attack my ideas or my opinions you would instead attack an anonymous, faceless, Internet user. Are my arguments really so comprehensive that you would rather try to divine my personality from a few extremely focus posts on a political thread then debate the central ideas of my posts

[This message has been edited by Hero's Blood (edited May 28, 2002).]
 

I just want to step into this fairly ridiculous discussion for a second and point out that the Patriot Act, while odious, does not in fact make sedition illegal.

 

For one thing, I'm almost CERTAIN you're referring to Ashcroft's infamous and indeed chilling testimony before Congress, in which he stated his belief that anyone willing to question the administration at such a crucial juncture may as well be lending material aid to the terrorists. Like many Americans, I was horrified by this purely partisan attack and furious that Congress didn't immediately call him out on it.

I'm not aware of similar comments from Cheney, although I'm of course willing to look them over if you'll provide a link.

Either way, neither man's opinion -- whether under Congressional oath or not -- affects the actual text of the Patriot Act, which does not include protests or public dissention among its prohibited activities. Now, if you want to get into a serious discussion of some of the very REAL flaws of that Act, feel free -- but this isn't one of 'em.

 

I’ve been reviewing the actual Patriot Act and I’ve only skimmed through about 50 pages and it appears that it is mostly about monitoring, therefore I yield to your judgement because I’m not adequately informed on the exact nature of the document. While I was aware of Ashcroft’s comments to congress, I discounted Ashcroft’s opinion as insanity as I do with most of Ashcroft’s words. The Chaney comments are new and it was something I saw so I’m not sure it will have a link on the Internet. However the vice president of the United States is quite a different story and I thought perhaps there were some later provisoes that actually suspended civil liberties. Perhaps it was simply Chaney trying to gain a hold of an interview in which he was doing rather poorly.
 

And for that matter, what about American involvement in all those foreign wars where we didn't stand to gain anything? I.E. Korea/Vietnam/Desert Storm/Bosnia/yugoslavia. what was our economic gain there?

now as for your statement that wars fought over land are inherently economic. What about the India/Pakistan situation. yes, they are fighting over the hotly contested Kashmir territory, but the main reason this problem has occurred is religion. Kashmir wants no part of India, because India is primarily Hindu, while Kashmir is Islamic, like Pakistan. Economics might be a part of it, but my understanding of the area is that the people in the area are mostly poor, and poorly cared for. It would seem to me that taking on this territory would be an economic burden. why do they sit on the brink of war if not for hatred spawned from religious intolerance?

I hope this post is a bit more well thought out, but if not, then please forgive me, because my mind tends to wander this late at night.
 

While I'm sure this is very educational for you, and a great way to boost your ego, I don't play ego-stroking games with people preaching rather than discussing.

You dig?
 

Ostensibly the United States’ “war on terrorism” is a righteous war fought over the brutal murder of innocents. This view does not hold up over careful scrutiny. This war did not start when a plane destroyed itself on the superstructure of one of the two greatest feats of human engineering. This war started with the CIA searching for new ways to thwart the Soviet Union. This led the United States to turn its sights on a small, poor, land locked, country by the name of Afghanistan. The corrupt Soviets had launched a large offensive and the CIA saw this as a way to drain the resources of the false communists. Thus at that time the director of the CIA, George Bush Senior unless I’m mistaken, authorized the support of the Mujahadin (I apologize for the spelling). And so Osama bin Laden was given the reigns of power for a “holy army”. Long story short the Soviet offensive was a disaster and Osama bin Laden was a hero. As I’ve stated the cold war was economic so this falls under the economic category.

Next there was Operation: Desert Storm. This was a war many of you are familiar with and was fought over oil. However, a little known fact is that Osama’s army was offered to Saudi Arabia they turned it down in favor of the foreign “coalition army”. This embittered many Arabs who viewed the economic and thus political powerbrokers of their countries as under foreign influence. The bitterness of the common people is a direct reaction to restricted class mobility with in their repressive regimes which perhaps rightfully so view their governments as nothing more then foreign puppets.

When viewed in this context the current “wars on terrorism” and “holy wars” are nothing more than fronts for underlying factors. It is not a battle for freedom and democracy, rather is a battle both to continue the economic viability of oil as a power source and also to keep the economies of the third world firmly in the hands of friendly powers. However, the opposite side of the battle is no better. While these “freedom fighters" would claim to be fighting for freedom from the shackles of the decadent western secularism, they are at best fighting to remove the corrupt puppet governments. Far more likely they are simply seeking to install themselves as the new economic and thus political leaders of their respective countries.

As for your belief on Kashmir that is actually based on economics. The split between India and Pakistan is based on the fear of different value systems would jeopardize the future of a country. This has to do with the basic belief that people of varying value systems threaten each other's interests. It also has to do with the fact of the massive labor pool of a unified India does not mesh with its current economic situation which has too few jobs for too many people. Thus if you discriminate on religion you can cut down on the labor force. Thus racial, religious, and gender tension is born.

Ninja I thank you for your very valid criticism of the economic theory I was basing my argument on and I hope I have satisfied your interest with my explanation. I look forward to your next comment.

 

You seem to have my intentions mistaken. Judging simply from what I’ve seen, which I must admit is far from all-inclusive, and the opinion that I state is far from the status quo here and so thus I seem to be contentious. However, I’m merely stating what I feel is constructive to the conversation. My view of the future unified world varies from many of the people in this forum. Perhaps my opinions are not as valid as everyone else’s, but I’d rather not believe that.

Also if people attack my opinion I simply give what thoughts have led me to that conclusion. This is hardly what I would call stroking my own ego, nor protecting.

 

I am also ready to grant you that we might not have gotten involved in Desert Storm without the incentive of the oil fields.

But I disagree with your claim that the religious fervor in Kashmir is economic in nature. The People, who are the dissenting group in the area, are not unhappy with India because they feel the hindus will infringe upon their financial stability. they feel that they should be able to live under a society with the same beliefs as them. Not everything ties back to economics. how often does the average american catholic think "Gee, the protestants over there are infringing on my financial future because they have a majority in the city government. Sometimes there are other reasons for dissention, such as civil liberties, and the like. Which brings me back to the part of my previous posts that you didn't even bother to address. The Bosnian and the Yugoslavian civil wars. American involvement was not for economic gain, and the two sides were not fighting over economics.

For that matter, let me refute your analysis of the american civil war. Any history professor will tell you that slavery was only the token excuse for this war. The real issue was states' rights. The south felt threatened, not by the economic implications of a ban on slavery, but rather they felt threatened by the implication that if the federal government could take away their slaves, which were strictly provided for in the constitution, then what else could they take away? It was not an economic issue over free labor, it was an important issue over limits to the power of the federal government.
 

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." George Washington

[This message has been edited by nahallaG (edited May 29, 2002).]
 

In every post I include new information, how is it that I am simply playing word games? If I were playing word games I would simply obfuscate the situation by leading you down avenues that go now where. Instead I’m giving my perspective on the world and what it portents for the requested “savior” and the thought of a world government, its benefits, restrictions, and ways to bring about its possible fruition. Perhaps I should simply state the idea that is intrinsically what I am. We live in a logical world that is governed by basic laws that are non-transmutable. Although Card’s Romantic ideas that the world is shaped by the glories of men and the forces of god. I instead think that the world is the progression of all history before it and thus is governed by the current situation, the historical progress, and the application of both of these towards the future and so we come to inevitable future outcome. Despite what the people on these forums say I do believe this and am not simply prevaricator.

Let me state again that I am not playing word games or turning this thoughtful discussion on the future and current situation of the world into an intellectual sparing match. However, I feel that if someone’s opinion is different from mine it is best to discuss our different points of view to come to some sort of a consensus. This does not mean one opinion is wrong and one opinion is right, rather it means that we can find some common ground. A good example is our discussion over the “fourth branch” of government, we may have arrived at such an impasse that we can not agree on whether a world government SHOULD be armed, but it is possible for us to compromise and come to the conclusion that if the world government was armed it would need serious restrictions on the force it could wield. As you can see we took two different opinions from two different people and we gave forth genesis to a unified acceptance of the specific value and we continued to hold mutual respect for the each other's values in contention.

I deeply apologize that I did not answer all of your questions concerning the specific wars of Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia (or more specifically the region Kosovo).

Korea and Vietnam were fought over the competing ideologies of controlled economies against free market systems. The Vietnam War had the notoriety of domestic turbulence caused by the economic suppression of Africans, Mexicans, Native Americans, Asians, and women. Thus the Vietnam War was essential a two headed beast. First it was, as stated, a competition between the economic systems. Secondly it was the reaction of foreign policy caused by pent-up domestic pressure.

Yugoslavia and Bosnia were wars to solidify the United States bid for hegemony and to divert attention away from domestic problems. Both wars were in Europe after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. These were NATO’s first chances to prove that Russia had neither the will nor the capacity to keep order in Eastern Europe. Hegemony allows one country easy access to all the worlds labor and resources; thus it is primarily economic in nature. The second reason that the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo were fought because criticism was growing within the United States about the very nature of that countries political process. While it appears that Monica Lewinsky was an important focal point for discussion on the morality of that countries politicians, it was actually a bit of political slight of hand to draw attention away from the bourgeoisie’s control over the United States’ democratic process by controlling campaign funding.

Perhaps I am the one mistaken but I do not agree with your assessment of the civil war. While I do agree that slavery was only one of the issues, the other issues I don’t want to get into at this moment because it is neither pertinent nor is it able to be simply condensed and explained. What is important is that the war was fought over slavery, perhaps not directly because of the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists but the slave labor and free labor systems were at the heart of the division. To say that states rights were the central issue in the United States’ civil war is akin to saying the right to kill not murder is the central issue in homicide charges. A glib analogy I’ll be the first to admit, but I think it illustrates my point fairly well.

At this point I feel I must give the reason why I digressed to discuss in depth the United States’ civil war. Although one the surface it may appear that I am simply using as an idle intellectual exercise, I assure you I am not. If BootNinja is correct in his assessment of war then the entire theory that peace can be achieved by removing the economic needs that people for fight for. That is why I spent so much time debating a point that is seemingly unrelated.

The other two issues that both BootNinja and Socratesvc brought up. You say there is not a universal cause for war. That is inaccurate, while there might be different justifications for war, ultimately economics are the only thing that can drive a people to battle. As for the rather flippant statement “how often does the average American catholic think ‘Gee, the Protestants over there are infringing on my financial future because they have a majority in the city government.’” That would imply that people could instantly recognize their own motivations. Basic psychology people who are insecure find others to blame for their own fears. While the average American Catholic may not say “Gee, the Protestants over there are infringing on my financial future because they have a majority in the city government” that does not necessarily mean that isn’t what is sub-conscience motivating them.

 

Hero's Blood... brevity is the soul of wit. The average attention span doesn't allow us (or me, at least) to appreciate your input. You have things to say, and I respect that. Just say them in sound bites I can chew on.

As to the matter at hand... We've exhausted the fourth branch concept. Let us diverge from the 2nd amendment and move on. For example... what makes some people listen to others? Why would the world follow a "Locke"? Would you follow DiffidentVoice's "RedSkull", or follow Hero's Blood? How could you make sure that whomever was nominated as "Hegemon" would be a just ruler, and not a "SlashtheBerserker-gimme/nomorecountrymusic" Hegemon?

How do you confirm that a single man is worth following?

-Abyss
 

Welcome to Hatrack. Check out the other side sometimes.
 

reasons for war? what if..now this is ONLY a what if - wars are a form of natural selection to rid society of the most dangerous psychopathic elements. I'm not talikng about wars nowadays, which seem to be a strange career path for misguided 18 year olds in need of some order in their lifes who ten years down the line find themselves killing foreigners for no damn reason they can see. I'm talking more about the idea of 'clan warfare', where out of every community a selection of pweole would fight on a fairly regular basis, thus weeding out the most violent members of that society (well soldiers don't have the longest life expectancy, do they?)

This could explain the rise of criminal violence in 'civilised' society (or is it a rise? are things just better reported these days?)

thoughts anyone..
 

I was going to write a long post saying how wrong everyone was and how right I was. That is utterly foolish and now I realize that. I will add my only points on all discussion on both the subject of who should be hegemony and who should not, but on war.

“ Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.”

As for who should be hegemon

If powerful men and women
could remain centered in the Way,
all things would be in harmony.
The world would become a paradise.
All people would be at peace,
and the law would be written in their hearts.

“When the Master governs, the people
are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved.
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, ‘Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!’”

[This message has been edited by Hero's Blood (edited June 03, 2002).]
 

-Abyss
 

-Abyss
 

Decent men detest an avoid weapons? A common fib of our times. Guns do not murder people. People murder people. Furthermore, guns are not the only weapon. The mind is mankind's FUNDAMENTAL WEAPON. As BootNinja said, the indecent people will not throw away their weapons. And I tell you that the day that all decent people throw down Their weapons will be the day that the they fade utterly out of existence. But that day will never come. For there be always a few people in the universe who are not only decent, but also very wise, and that know what I write here.
If anybody wants to insult me for this, go ahead, it's still true.
 

quote:

---

Hero rises to meet the Emperor

---

Thank you for duly recognizing. It will be remembered.

quote:

---

You seem to have my intentions mistaken.

---

Then, please, illuminate.

quote:

---

Judging simply from what I’ve seen, which I must admit is far from all-inclusive, and the opinion that I state is far from the status quo here and so thus I seem to be contentious.

---

So, you admit that you could be wrong, but you're posting contention 'just because'?

quote:

---

However, I’m merely stating what I feel is constructive to the conversation.

---

Yes, and being summarily told that, for the most part, you are off base. Yet, you persist in the contention, often reiterating of doctoring your statements to be retold. So, you're not actually sharing discourse, you're making statements- albeit statements in the middle of a conversation. However you're not conversing, you're just stating. There's a difference between conversing and sharing, and waiting for your next opportunity to make a statement. You're doing the latter, most others here, the former. That's part of the biggest contention.

quote:

---

My view of the future unified world varies from many of the people in this forum. Perhaps my opinions are not as valid as everyone else’s, but I’d rather not believe that.

---

I'm sure your views and opinions are as valid as anyone else's here, but it's more the way you communicate it that is the problem. When you can stop 'making statements', and actually discourse with some of these people, you'll find that you'll be taken a lot more seriously.

quote:

---

Also if people attack my opinion I simply give what thoughts have led me to that conclusion. This is hardly what I would call stroking my own ego, nor protecting.

---

I'll offer a suggestion- stop assuming that your views and your opinions are fact. You'll feel less 'attacked' that way, and you don't have to center on feeling that way, which is, whether you like it or not, arrogant. Don't feel bad, there are a lot of arrogant people here. I, for one, am probably among one of the more arrogant pricks of the bunch.

Learn to communicate better, and you may meet with less problems here. Think about that. Think hard.
 

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

 

quote:

---

kosmik: please remember that this is just the flight and fancy of fourteen year olds. We didn't think we knew it all, we didn't have any solutions... we were just looking at possibilities

---

quote:

---

what makes some people listen to others? Why would the world follow a "Locke"?

---

quote:

---

The Tao is neither selfish nor proud.
The Tao is generous and graceful in what it does without ever claiming any merit
And the sage’s greatness lies in taking no credit.

---

So, perhaps, what we actually seek in a leader is the appearance of catering to our own wishes?

 

I think it would be important to put forward a new topic.

-Abyss
 

I believe the time has come to address some issues. All of my conversation has been commenting on the prevailing theme of the thread. When I entered the conversation the thread was discussing the use of a fourth branch of government more specifically the military. This has nothing to do with where our Locke so I thought that it was acceptable in commenting on the conditions required, if any, to bring about hegemony governed by a single individual. Therefore how is it my responsibility that the thread is “off topic”? Why would you even want to stay “on topic”? If you truly want to expand your ideas you must explore all avenues to fruition.

quote:

---

(Incidently, no offense, but Lao Tzu's english voice is full of it).

---

Even though I shouldn’t, I take extreme offense at this. Just for some prospective how would you like it if I said Jesus Spanish voice is full of it? I think you should avoid attacking religion whenever possible and I mean no disrespect to anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus, I was simply using it as an example.

quote:

---

Decent men detest an avoid weapons? A common fib of our times.

---

Do to the fact that this was written centuries ago I’m pretty sure that it isn’t simply a “common fib of our times”

As for you Leto, you say I am not engaging in discourse and simply making statements. You, as what appears to be the resident English professor here, should know that all communication is done in four different ways statements (declaratory), questions (interrogative), exclamations (exclamatory), and commands. So would you have me DEMAND that you accept what I say as fact? Or equally suitable how about if I phrase all of my answers in a form of a question?

quote:

---

I don't think he'd be so bad if he learned the simple art of communication. He may still be off-base, but he'd learn a whole lot more easily.

---

Communication is the free exchange of ideas. My ideas are painfully clear as I have stated them, and then stated them numerous more times for the people too slow to catch it the first time around. You say that I’m simply waiting for the next time to make a statement. Here’s a news flash for you its an Internet forum if I really wanted I could post a statement anytime I wanted. However the very fact that I WAIT shows that I’m carefully considering the points and the fact is I AM CONSIDERING the other points. You say I would learn a whole lot more easily, well that begs the question learn what? You give short glib replies with absolutely no support, so are you saying you want me to begin emulating your writing style? Please impart your knowledge so that I may partake of the endless bounty.

I’d like to apologize in advance, I regret writing this even as I do it. The points I bring up still stand but I’m certain there was a better way to go about making them. Well, I never claimed to be enlightened so I guess it’s no big deal.

 

That said, here is a thought for everyone here. You’ve given moral grounds on what obligations the “Locke” would owe you, but I believe the more important question is that should this “Locke” arise, what moral obligations would we have to him or her? I believe our loyalty would be the most basic obligation, but what else would we be willing to sacrifice? Would we really be able to accept his or her leadership if it didn’t ALWAYS cater to exactly what we wanted? The main question of this thread seems to be “the world is so evil. Where is our savior?” . Perhaps the real question should be “Because the world seems so evil, can we have a savior?”.

 

You seem to know something about Lao Tzu. Well if you know anything regarding his life then you should know that he was adverse to weapons, fighting, and just causing pain in general. He even left his comfortable post as a minister to go out into the wilderness. Had it not been for the gate guard who stopped him the Tao Te Ching would have never even been written.

If you’ve read the Tao Te Ching then you would know that in chapter 31 he says weapons are not to be used except when absolutely necessary. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that Lao Tzu would have approved of the removal of the necessity and thus the need for weapons themselves.

Finally, you mean to tell me that you have read both the Tao Te Ching and the Bible in Chinese and Hebrew respectively?

 

"...Therefore how is it my responsibility that the thread is “off topic”?..."

Why do you seem to think that the thread revolves around you? We, I, never implied that it was YOUR fault in any way, shape or form. Don't take responsibility for our thread.

I proposed that we talk about the Fourth Branch, and now the topic is exhausted, so I propose we talk about another aspect of Our World Government.

Don't insult us. Don't presume that WE are insulting you. We welcome you into our conversation.

But your welcome, in my opinion, is wearing thin.

-Abyss

[This message has been edited by Abyss (edited June 08, 2002).]
 

I'm terribly sorry, please excuse me. I’m so often attacked it’s hard for me not to be on the defensive.

I did not specifically say that YOU accused me but your pronoun of “we” is erroneous.

quote:

---

Well he certainly is good at getting a thread off topic....

---

quote:

---

yeah, back to the old subject eh?

---

Please explain to me how this does not imply it is my fault that the thread is off topic. As I stated earlier I do not take responsibility for getting the thread “off topic” because every person has his or her own volition of which I have no control.

As for me insulting you. Except for the last post that I apologized within the post, I have not insulted anyone. It is however difficult to view Leto’s comments as anything resembling constructive criticism. You say I’m welcome but I’ve almost worn it out. Let’s be honest, that is more then a little insulting and you know it. I contributed to the conversation. I asked about the moral obligations that people would have to the “Locke”. I would be happy to discuss that or whatever subject arises and I only continue to discuss myself because many people continue to bring it up. Believe me (or don’t) I would be much more content if I was not the subject of anyone’s posts.

 

Incidentally, I missed the part in this thread where it had been generally decided that hegemony would best be served by a “two house legislature modeled after the Senate and the House of Representatives in the U.S.” There were, however, a few statements of opinion to this effect -- although it does seem to me that the focus upon this choice is little more than global extrapolation of what is familiar, rather than what is necessarily best. Yet since this part of the discussion touches on the relevance of popular representation and democracy to effective hegemonic government, I will not elaborate upon it here.

I begin by briefly reiterating Dan_raven’s three points since they preempt much of what I would otherwise have written (and I can certainly appreciate the time limitations!):

1. The title, be it dictator or president or hegemon, is irrelevant. What matters is the power granted the leader and the power taken by the leader. (Some might also add “who grants the power”.)

2. “What we want in a Hegemon is a divine king able to force wrong doers into doing right. How do we define ‘right’ .” Since emigration from a hegemony is impossible, one cannot simply leave if one disagrees with the hegemon. Minority opinion in a hegemony is highly vulnerable to the ideals-in-practice of the hegemon. Without “giv[ing] him/her the power and freedom to turn us all into scared voiceless puppets of their will,” a hegemony is likely to increase the incidence of terrorism as the only possible voice of a disgruntled internal minority.

3. “How do we insure our world leader is [a] good, honest, caring, sensitive person? What system of governance can we create that is run by imperfect humans that can be guaranteed incorruptible?”

Within this context, before anything else we should begin with whether global unity (in a non-spacefaring culture) is even possible. Specifically, can internal dissent with existing policy ever be adequately addressed within the goal of promoting a globally just utilitarianism which would not disproportionately penalise any or all small minorities, with or without consequent evolution of that policy -- or are we limited to the “If you don’t like it, leave” option? (Which last in turn begs the question of how policy is ever to be changed from within.)

It has been mentioned previously that modern Europe is setting aside its national differences and uniting politically. I suggest that Europe has the potential -- only -- to peacefully unite today because it has already passed through its evangelical colonial phase. (I use “evangelical” in the sense of any ideology aggressively promoted.) Yet any unifying movement seems to create the fear of smaller, less powerful cultures being assimilated and lost, and Europe is no exception. The attempt at European political unity while retaining individual cultural uniqueness may yet run aground against the determination of various states and minority interests to retain some degree of local sovereignty as a means of perceived protection against stronger economic and military powers within the EU.

Indeed, the most common response to any perceived attempt to collect powers under a unifying central government seems to be an increase in popularity of isolationist and/or protectionist movements; the most common argument curtailment of individual (constitutional) freedoms. At one extreme, any attempt at centralised unity is seen to threaten individuality. Another extrapolation of the protectionist argument (in its economic incarnation) can frequently be racism: since immigrants and migrant workers are seen to take away jobs from locals. This last tends to be exacerbated by the almost inevitable economic flux as states having differing states of economic health are integrated under a single currency.

As one tenet, then, I will propose that peaceful unity cannot occur while any member-state prioritises individuality at all costs.

I suggest further that there are two major approaches to achieving a peaceful unity -- or to achieving any peace, for that matter:

* through complete uniformity of a defined standard
* through tolerance of diversity, with the restriction that diversity cannot incorporate any entity with the aim of complete uniformity

Each of these approaches, to be successful, requires eradication of those cultures incompatible with that approach. One might say that the "tolerance of diversity" approach is intolerant of intolerance.

Thus, ultimately, any form of peace demands some form of intolerance. It is up to us to decide where we wish to draw that line.

This is an utterly brilliant question. I was reading about a similar debate between the anarcho-capitalism and the left-anarchists. The question was, would people require that no one could own private property, because if they did how could it really be called anarchy? The people that wished to could not do so and were being restricted by laws, not simply customs. Perhaps a simple parallel between their argument and this should be made. The general consensus was that those wishing to engage in capitalist laissez-fair could do so, but could not force those wishing to live in communes or what have you to join the capitalist economies. It was also understood that someone could go between both of these separate spheres whenever they wanted so it was not about competition between the systems, and rather just a person’s preference. This might be possible with a “hegemony” system that has “Unified” zones and the nationalistic or patriotic “independent” zones. Thus if the government is just the “Unified” zones would expand, but if it abuses its power, its residents might decide that the independent zones would be a good place to reside.

 

if there is another government to go to as an alternative, then there is no true hegemony.
 

Did you not notice the quotation marks? It is generally accepted that quotation marks show either disbelief or a negative connotation. What would you propose? We force everyone to join a government whether they would like to or not? I’m just offering some solutions to Kyle’s question.

 

Might be an idea to look at possibilities one by one.

One which has already been (indirectly) proposed is individual possession of property -- but this is very much of a New World concept and one of the major factors underlying immigration. Additionally, to what extent would persons in possession of a piece of property be able to do as they wish with that property? To what extent would they control underground resources? airspace? waterways/sources? pollution?

 

I have three points I’d feel I must add.

I was very imprecise in my language in explaining the “Unified” zones and the “Independent” zones. I compounded that error by giving a very defensive answer to Boot Ninja, for which I apologize. Perhaps an example would help. Let us use the United States, and please bear in mind that I’m using it as an example, not an optimal solution. Ostensible the United States is one nation indivisible. However, if you examine their reservation system you’ll notice special provisos within that nation government to handle their American Indians. While these small semi-nation-states do not have complete autonomy they have enough independence to make nearly all internal decisions and quite a few external. While I’ll be the first to admit that that particular system does not work, perhaps a similar systems could be set in place until the hegemony could absorb the independent populations peaceably.

Allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment and simply say that intelligence is not a factor for democracy. Please take this example. The ten most brilliant people in the world who have complete knowledge on subjects are told to vote on these subjects. On each subject there would be the possibility of a majority of votes for one action, a majority of votes for another action, or a complete deadlock. Now let us take 10 uneducated, uninformed idiots of the street and let us pose them with the same problems. They will either agree with the intelligent decision or disagree with it. This shows that in a democracy intelligence is not a factor because if the idiots agree with the intelligent people by shear luck or they disagree so the intelligent opinion will be lost anyway.

The last comment is on the economic nature of the “hegemony”. If the government is to be anything other then capitalism the government must be as perfect as possible at its inception and democracy must be ground to a halt. Preferably it be done by a system of checks and balances so that all things must be accomplished gradually. Either that or they must establish such a bureaucracy that nothing ever gets done.

 

This seems to me like a better system than what we have here in America right now, because of the simple fact that the american people who are not politicians will vote their conscience instead of voting to save their own political career, thus imbeciles and morally bankrupt leaders like Clinton would actually be removed from office.

I don't know how practical such a form would be on a global scale, but this also solves the problem I mentioned earlier about education.

what are y'all's thoughts on this?
 

I hate to be so blunt, but I stopped participating when Hero's Blood started posting his cleverly titled essays. This thread ceased to be amusing, and what's worse, we stopped making valid points. Maybe between the squabbling someone said something, meant something, or thought something useful, but I lost it in the midst of the argument.

The same thing, on a lesser scale, occured early in the thread when sutranafs did the same thing, and now, again, we have to debate this foolishness.

Sutranafs dropped his arrogant attitude and started making good points. The thread went through a golden period when it was fun, intellectual, and NON-COMBATANT. I want that back. Let's get back to the good old thread. Let's put this horrible period behind us.

Let's put this Topic back in gear.

Let's start making good points without fighting each other.

-Abyss
 

Socratesvc, I don't know how we should effect that change, but the change I had in mind is that until people realize that the good of the planet has to come before the good of the country or our own selfish needs, then a world government will not work, because everyone will be too concerned with getting everything for themselves to the detriment of the whole.
 

[This message has been edited by flyby (edited June 21, 2002).]
 

(disclaimer: here refers to my geographic location, not to the people on this message board.)
 

Anyhow, I think that what Abyss was trying to say was let's shift from talking about what we'd like to see in a world govt and how should we get there, to talking about what we should look for in a good person-newssource-generalleadership.

Sorry if I'm taking some liberties w/ your words here, abyss, but what arr we supposed to do when you don't make yourself clear?

~Your Friend~,
Reed
 

But Locke? Locke is a different story.

Peter Wiggin didn't care if there was a "reason" to rule everything. He just had

Ambition. Drive.

But once he got there he was far from a tyrant. He had

Altruism. True Compassion.

Unity. Strength. ambition. Drive. Altruism. True compassion.

-Abyss

judgement day has come, and the saved people have been taken up to heaven. THe books chronicle the story of those who were "Left Behind."

I'll leave a more detailed synopsis to someone who has read them.

[This message has been edited by BootNinja (edited July 11, 2002).]
 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/books.html

There are some little SPOILERS ahead, but I'll keep them to a minimum.

Anyway, those who have read it, or have some vague idea of what I'm talking about, remember Nicolae Carpathia before we absolutely knew he was the AntiChrist? I think that's a good Hegemon, right there. A good model for one anyway.

Knowledgable, intelligent, peace + disarmament as their ultimate goal...

Anyone?
 

Sounds like a great plan... except that it put a whole friggin' bunch of nukes at the AntiChrist's disposal.

But take a less demonic Carpathia and apply the same plan...?

-Abyss
 

Does he live in fear because he does not have that power?
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited July 26, 2002).]
 

If we're considering the possibility or the basis for a world government, that is the barrier to be overcome first. How do you get China, the U.S., Russia--heck, even the small and tiny nations like Cote d'Ivoire--to willingly submit to the power of any individual, no matter how charismatic? It was possible to set up a Hegemony in the Ender universe because there was a common threat to all nations: the Buggers. Without a common threat, how is any of this possible?
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited July 27, 2002).]
 

I think your idea is to pick the right leaders with enough charisma to push forward for a world government, right? But would there be enough people like that in America? It would work if there was enough support...which would mean intense PR campaigns and a substantial change in American attitudes towards international relations. Because any multinational government would require some decrease in U.S. influence and power in global politics; otherwise the government would only be a U.S. puppet.
 

The last point on this thread seems to be a unified "western" governmemt as a step toward a unified world government. What kind of powers would the western government have? Where would you put in geographically? Would each person have an equal vote? how would it be set up? e.g. does each state in the US, Canada and country/and or state in Europe elect their representatives, and then those representatives elect European/North ameriacn level representatives, and these form a sort of coalition? or is it more direct, e.g. each citizen of Europe/north maerica gets one vote to elect a "western hegemon"? Would there be pollitical parties, or does the hegemon stand as an individual? What would you do on major issues where Europe and USA disagree?

When I ask where would it be geographically, it may not seem important, but phsycolgically it seems so. I mean in the EU, the European government is in Brussels, and also in Strasburg. All the änti-unification" articles refere to giving powers to Brussels, even thought Brussels and Belgium have no more power than other countries of the EU. How would you persuade European to be governmed from the USA, or Americans to be governed from Europe. Either would be very hard. Or would you have the different branches of the government in different countries?

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited July 30, 2002).]
 

I can see, however, China finding a way possibly through conquest of creating a world government. Esp. if America over extends herself in this war on Terrorism.
 

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited July 30, 2002).]
 

I think this isn't quite as unreasonable as it may sound. I live in America, but I have contact with people in various parts of East Asia, and there is a gradually evolving Asian pop culture. Chinese and Taiwanese singers, Korean hip-hop bands, Japanese anime and toys...these fads may seem trivial but I think they're contributing to a sense of common identity among the people in that region. This would indeed be one step towards a multinational government. Of course, it may never jump the gap from a regional entity to a global one. Still, it's not such an impossible idea.

As for Humani's point about geography, I always imagined a Western world government being centered in New York. All right, I'm biased on this too. But New York is so cosmopolitan that it tends to have less of a specific national loyalty than other major cities. I mean, you can walk for blocks without hearing any English in some parts of the city. On the other hand, a better option may be to station branches of the government in different cities. Sort of the way parts of the UN are in Geneva? Except more widespread? I think that could be a good idea too.

Question: how would this world government gain military power? Would there be a separate standing army? Contributions of troops from member nations? The latter is a bit dangerous, though.
 

If/When China is democratic, it would also be a good choice. They have to alot to create loyalty to.

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited July 30, 2002).]
 

Are there clearly defined world regions do you think? So maybe there could be 1 department in each region? That way it would be less orientated or associated with one country it was based in.

e.g.
1.North America
2.Central America
3.South America
4.Europe
5.Arab Countries
6.Africa
7.Central/Western Asia (Russia, Caucasus..)
8. South Asia (India, Pakistan..)
9. China
10.South East Asia (ASEAN)
11.Australia + NewZealand

What's missed out? where would Japan fit in? Should Central and South America be the same region?
[Changed "latin" to central, Latin america is south america, right?]

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited July 31, 2002).]
 

Personally I think that the subdivisions you've mentioned would be like a secondary level. The primary level should be separated by Continent.

1.) The Americas
2.) Africa
3.) Europe
4.) Australia/NZ
5.) Asia
6.) Micronesia/Polynesia/Indonesia

and I'd probably throw russia in there as a separate one just because.
 

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited July 31, 2002).]
 

We have 3 branches of government. The executive (The president, Vice President, and the cabinet. This also covers law enforcement)

The Judicial(the courts)

and The Legislative (law making bodies)

our 2 house legislative system works this way.

First we have The House of Representatives. Each state gets a certain number of representatives based on population. This number of representatives is always the same, it is only the distribution that changes. That number is 540.

Next, is the Senate. Each state gets exacty two senators. No more, no less. This is a sort of check to give the smaller, less populous states a larger voice.

I don't believe that state borders have ever been changed to fit the population. There have been restructurings of borders, but not due to population. Virginia was split into two states over a disagreement on seccession during the civil war. Several New England States have been split in the past as part of a compromise over slavery issues, and my very own state, Texas, was chopped up into pieces when admitted into the union. But there hasn't been such a redrawing of the lines in more than 100 years. It wouldn't be an issue in the international Government.

As for your example of the EU having more votes because of more countries, that is immaterial. I seriously doubt that they would be united in every decision/vote.
 

But on things such as Kyoto (or some future equivelent), on ICC, on Isreal, genetically modified food, legality of death penalty, civilians owning guns.. etc there are many things that EU agrees on, which the USA disagrees on.

What if, when the world government gets more powerful, that some countries decide to split themselves into 2 or more countries to get more votes? Like if UK became England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to get more votes?

Is it up to each individual country, how they define themselves as a country? If the UK were to say well already we are 4 countries, so we get 4 (or 8 if you get 2 each) votes. United kingdom, is a kingdom (??), not a country. Would this be allowed, if no real change within the UK?

But anyway, I think it is easier, and fairer if it is per person, rather than per country. what if one person were to declare themselves a country?? [OK probably this can't happen, considering how difficult palestine is finding it, to declare itself a counry] If each person has an equal vote, I think it is more fair. Or maybe it could be like 2 + (cetain fraction of population). So every country would get at least 2, then bigger (population) countries would get more.

And what areas do you think the world government should have power over? Trade rules, military, environment, human rights.. the kind of things we aready have international organisations for? Does the world government collect taxes, like in the shadown of the hedgemon. Would this be for things like famines in Africa, and other "emergencies"? or would this even be to provide social security in all countries?

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited July 31, 2002).]
 

Countries splitting to get more votes? That won't happen. to continue your previous analogy, you don't see states splitting to have better representation, because inevitably, the two would eventually disagree and would have the power to hinder rather than help the original. Plus, you are not taking into account the factor of nationalism/patriotism. Loyalty to one's nation is of paramount importance to most people. Barring some kind of civil unrest or political/religious persecution, a people will prefer to work within the existing state/system to make their changes. Nobody will be willing to forsake their country just to have an extra voice in the international government.

If you will remember, in all the recent examples of new nations coming about, you are not official, and you don't matter, until the other nations recognize your independant status. This is why civil wars are fought. To achieve independant recognition.

As to your proposal of a popular vote, or a certain number of votes based entirely on population, this is not any more fair. in this scenario, you get a huge populous country like China controlling the entire thing for their exclusive benefit and the detriment of the smaller less populous countries, like say Israel, or Rwanda or Lithuania. The two party system gives us majority rule but prevents the extremely large populations from dominating.

Something I neglected to mention about this system is that the way things work follows thus:

a law is first created in the house of representatives(based on the majority). Once they pass the bill, then it goes to the senate(2 each) where it can be halted. In this way, the smaller states get their voices heard, while still giving the larger states more representation than the smaller ones.

I'm sure you'll agree that this is more fair than a strictly populational system.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I think it's the best we've got available. (if someone else has any other ideas about what's best, please step forward and present your ideas.)
 

But that's changed.

We transmit incredible amounts of information instantly and effortlessly. A popular vote of the people has become remarkably and surprisingly more feasible.

-Abyss
 

Next, is the Senate. Each state gets exacty two senators. No more, no less. This is a sort of check to give the smaller, less populous states a larger voice.
a law is first created in the house of representatives(based on the majority). Once they pass the bill, then it goes to the senate(2 each) where it can be halted. In this way, the smaller states get their voices heard, while still giving the larger states more representation than the smaller ones.

OK, so in the international version of this, instead of each country having 2 "senators", it would be each region, as defined by one of the following:

1.North America
2.Central America
3.South America
4.Europe
5.Arab Countries
6.Africa
7.Central/Western Asia (Russia, Caucasus..)
8. South Asia (India, Pakistan..)
9. China
10.South East Asia (ASEAN)
11.Australia + NewZealand

1.) The Americas
2.) Africa
3.) Europe
4.) Australia/NZ
5.) Asia
6.) Micronesia/Polynesia/Indonesia

Or do we need a few more?

In the "house of representatives" or "world parliament" countries, or regions would have representatives based on their populations.

Now do we have political parties, or political groupings, or individuals?

Considering this probably isn't going to happen for ages, it could be that by then most people have the internet anyway? Or there could be alternatives for the others? This could be for important referendums etc.
 

I think the two-house system is a nice compromise. But your regional breakdown needs some work. The first system not only excludes Japan, it also leaves out Korea. Yeah, I know Korea doesn't sound too important, but I *am* Korean so I feel a bit left out. If we go with the first system, it should be called East Asia. My problem with the second system is that having just an "Asia" region is too broad and general. And I'm pretty sure that places like India and Pakistan are not going to agree with each other on anything, so dumping them together in the same region may be counterproductive. Split Asia into the Islamic countries, India and its Hindu neighbors, Southeast Asia and East Asia, perhaps?

I don't know about most people having the Internet. There are people without telephones in some countries still. Of course, we don't know exactly what the world would be like in the future. I prefer a political party system. Or rather, I see it as a necesssary compromise. Party systems evolved because populations grew too large and complex, so I think they would be inevitable in a global democracy.

What about this? Each country votes on electors, who then vote for party candidates on a regional election for representatives to the World Parliament/Congress. The representatives then can vote for party candidates on a global election for President/Hegemon.

Also, any ideas about term lengths? A short term length reduces the chance for a cohesive long-term government policy, but a long term length increases the risk of dictatorship or tyranny. I prefer the long term length, myself. How long would terms be?

I'd also like to mention that about fifty years ago, a bunch of professors at U of Chicago published a draft for a World Constitution, in which they outlined a very elaborate system of world democracy. It is actually not so different from what we're coming up with now, except it's much more complicated. If you live in NYC, you can find it on the fifth floor of the MML, somewhere in the 340s.
 

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

has populations, a long with whole load of other info.. does anyone have a link, of populations more directly?

Whilst we're thinking about political aprties etc, I'll write about how it works in the European Parliament.

Each country in the EU is assigned a number of representatives, according to population. The countries can then sub-divide this by region/state if they wish.

In the Euro-pariliament there are political "groups" e.g. socialists, librals, christian somethings..(i don't remember their name), greens/enviromentalists etc, independants..
Then each political party in each country chooses a group to affiliate to, or they can create a new one if none fit. So in the countries you vote for one of the parties in your country, and this counts to the political grouping which that party has chosen. maybe there could be a similar system? The political groupings have their own manifestos, websites etc..

I mean when you vote for a political party in your country, the representative will be from that party, and be from your country. In the parliament the representative would sit with the other representatives of the same political grouping, even if they were from another country.

This way if you don't happen to agree with the majority of your country, your vote still counts to what you voted for, not what the majority of your country voted for.

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 01, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 01, 2002).]
 

The outreach program is a good idea too, maybe that could be one thing to be funded by the world government, so it wouldn't be a burden on some poorer countries? Along with basic computer lessons, or something? I think they have some of those already, funded by IT companies, I think but i'm not sure.

 

They are basically the same as political parties, but have different names in each country, depending on which parties were already there before the existence of a euro parliament.

I'm suggsting it, because each country in the world already has different selections of political parties. Instead of getting rid of them all, and creating new world parties, this is a type of compromise. So for example the German Socialist party, and the UK labour party, and the australian labor party would keep their original names, but act as one party in the world parliament. Because they probably have similar (socialist) views on most issues, if they don't they can choose to be separate if they like. It just makes for less really small local parties in the world parliament.

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 02, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

2. What is all this talk of giant States(capital S)? A. Throwing everybody into one mob will i. Defeat the purpose of having a Senate, as the State will not have a strong common view point. ii. Increase chances of one group(country, ethnicity, or religion) taking control of more power(the whole State) than they are entitled to. iii. Severely increase chances of rebellion against the newWG if such a group did take control, especialy if in more than one State. B. Even now the democracy of the U.S. is becoming limited by the fact that people in different areas of the individual states have totally different cultures and situations. Therefore, instead of grouping the smaller ones, I propose we shrink the larger countries, perhaps even to the size of large cities. None of this, of course, can happen in full until after the newWG is united, to do so would create to much discord.

---

No-one said the have big states. It was just a comparison to the roles of states in the US senate, to the world regions in the 2nd house of the world government (which we didn't have a name for yet).
It would be an option to have indivual countries, and split up bigger countries into regions, but that would make too many representatives. The world has about 6 billion people, and they are all equally imortant, we are trying to think of way that everyone is reasonaly equally represented, without smaller groups having no say. If you have another idea, please post it. Already countries in th same area are forming groupings, such as EU, ASEAN, SAARC, Arab league, carabean and latin american trading block (name??), Nafta, african has discussion thing too, Commonwealth of independant states (Russia and some more are in this)... etc.. we are sort fo expanding on this idea.

quote:

---

3. Yeah, I left out Japan and Korea, they might be the key to annexing China perhaps? Certainly that action will be difficult, more difficult, I think, than getting the muslims to join us.

---

quote:

---

4. Maybe I spoke too soon starting with the western world, perhaps the thing to do is to start small and highly focused? Or perhaps not.

---

I think the political groups idea is interesting, but I do have some small objections. People might support a party's policies on the national level, but not on a global level. Example: New Yorkers are notoriously Democratic, and most of us voted for Gore in the last elections, but we ended up electing a Republican mayor *again*. I know a lot of people who call themselves Democrats, but voted for Bloomberg (the Republican candidate) in the last mayoral elections because they thought he could deal with the economic setback in the city better. The party may have good policies on the national level, but not necessarily on the global level. Also, what about nations that don't have as many established parties? I think that would put some political groups at a disadvantage. I really like this idea of groups, but I think it needs some work.

The idea about splitting states into large cities...we're just considering this as a way to divide up voting, right? We wouldn't actually redraw any political boundaries? I think the regional idea is still best, as long as we take into consideration cultural differences and population size.

In the european parliament now, there are separate elections for that, than for national elections.

You mean like, if there was a socialist group, then at the moment there is no socialist party in the USA, so this would be unfair to the socialist group? I guess, if they thought that people in the USA would want to vote for them, they could create a new party? There's no rule, as far as I know that says there can only be 2 parties in the USA, or is there?

But What about China? Right now, do they only have CCP (Chinese Communist Party) party? They call them self "One-party democracy"? or is that out of date? I'm not sure of the chances of them introducing a few more. On local elections in China, are there more options, does anyone know? I'll try to find out. I heard they take the paper to your door, and ask you to chose one, but tell you which to choose. In theory you can choose any you like, but maybe if you chose a different one they might accidently lose your voting paper. ... I'm not sure if that's different parties you can choose, or different people in the CCP. Anyone with more info?
 

Another thing, dang it all, I'm not anti-China! Alls I meant by "Annexing" is getting them to throw aside their government and join a higher cause. I happen to have a great deal of respect for Chinese culture and history, which their government has all but destroyed. I also believe in the goodness of the Chinese people, as I believe in the goodness of all people. Many of the inate freedoms of those people(who I like) have been taken away by their government(which I don't like). Additionally, I don't believe that any such government should have any part in the creation of the newWG. That is, as I assume, it is to be a moral establishment. Now do you get it?

On a similar note, but a more conroversial one(But controversy is not the purpose here), and to answer your question about the two party system in the USA, Humany, There not only can be, but indeed are other parties in the U.S., but due to a great deal of scandalous control through wealth (because of which both parties should be denied, or seriuously reformed before, participation in the creation of the newWG) those other parties never hold any kind of real power.

Question Tarig, what exactly do you mean by,'Poltical boudaries' in your last post? What I thought we were discussing, and indeed what I thought more important, was the geographical an populational size of the States(cap. S) that the House of representatives, and probably more crucially, the Senate, would come from. What were you talking about?

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 05, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

"It would be an option to have indivual countries, and split up bigger countries into regions, but that would make too many representatives." Ok, wait a minute, what exactly makes you think that there will likely be to many elected representatives provided all reps are elected fairly, and (via the internet, most likely) can vote on policy fairly? As to "smaller groups having no say", I'm afraid I misunderstand. Are we trying to give political power to groups? Or to the people? Be aware, groups have leaders, not always fairly elected. Further, It seems to me that the clause, "majority rule, minority right" applies here. Everybody has their unalienable rights, but beyond those, the will of the majority must be served.

---

quote:

---

Another thing, dang it all, I'm not anti-China! Alls I meant by "Annexing" is getting them to throw aside their government and join a higher cause. I happen to have a great deal of respect for Chinese culture and history, which their government has all but destroyed. I also believe in the goodness of the Chinese people, as I believe in the goodness of all people. Many of the inate freedoms of those people(who I like) have been taken away by their government(which I don't like). Additionally, I don't believe that any such government should have any part in the creation of the newWG. That is, as I assume, it is to be a moral establishment. Now do you get it?

---

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 06, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

Humani, you are misinformed. the physical size of states differs widely in the USA. the smallest, Rhode Island, is very very different in size from say, Texas, or Alaska, or Arizona, many of which have grossly smaller populations than say, new York or New Jersey. Population density must be taken into account. But this is why the 2 house system is neccessary. If all subdivisions were approximately equal in size, then you wouldn't need the limiting factor of the Senate. But seeing as how splitting up countries probably wouldn't go over very well, the 2 party congress makes more sense.

---

OK, i don't know the populations of US states, what is the biggest (pop) and which is the smallest? By the way everytime i mention big/small. i mean population size and not physical land area. but anyway it varies ess than Vatican city compared to China.. that's what i was comparing it to.

is Congress the senate or the house of representatives, or is there a 3rd house?
I think world wide you have to have way more than 2 parties... there are many possibilities except just say capitalist or communist.
 

I personally think there should be no parties. Lobbies, yes that is fine, but look at the US. Democrats fight and bicker and argue with Republicans all the time. Sure, they claim that it's over lofty ideals and true differences of opinion, but in the end it all comes down to bipartisan politics. A Democrat who is seen to side with the republicans too often loses any power he might have had. The same is true on the flip side of the coin. But if there is only one party, or no parties, then They don't have that to fight over. What good does a party do anyway, besides decrease the number of candidates in a given election?

If I'm not mistaken the most populous state is California, but it Might be New York. The least populous state is Alaska, which is the largest in surface area.

As to the congress, I'm sorry to cause confusion. In common usage, the house of representatives is usually called Congress, however in the strictest literal sense of the word, as I used it, it means a bringing together, thus, both houses of the government, the house and the senate, together constitute the Congress of the United States.

[This message has been edited by BootNinja (edited August 06, 2002).]
 

Or do you mean vote for a lobby??? then they are the same as parties???

Please explain, how do you see it working with 1/no parties? you mean 1 party like the CCP in china? and you vote for the representative of that party? what if you disagree with the party?

What about if there were many parties, and they made coalitions? In continental europe they do that quite alot, I think. The ruling colation must have in total 50% of the vote. So if there are like 7 parties, and they get the following votes:
party1: 37%
party2: 33%
party3: 10%
party4: 8%
party5: 7%
party6: 5%
party7: 2%

party1 and party2 are the main 2 parties, and the main competition... unlikely to make a coalition together.
Party 1 to rule can make a coalition with say party 3 and one of the others, so that together they must have at least 50%. the president will come from party1.
 

How do you make a peaceful revolution in China? Tianamen square was not so peaceful? if you were chinese would you like to try that again, knowing what had happened before? I think the government doesn't want to feel pushed... if they feel pushed to go one way, they go the other way.....

Their priority right now seems to be the economy. If it seems good for the economy to give people more rights, maybe they will do it.
They already saying they want to get rid of corruption, if they actually do that, it will be much better.

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 07, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

In a one party system, everyone is of the same party, so you vote for a candidate based on his individual merits, instead of because he belongs to such and such party. Then, while he is in office, he will vote however he feels is right, based on what he thinks is right, instead of bickering over party lines.

---

We could have both. Parties, and independants. If you vote for a party, you choose to vote for the party line, and the manifesto. If you choose to vote for an independant, then you vote because you agree with him/her personally.
 

But then again, maybe we could go to a single party system. I mean, every year there are fewer and fewer issues that Republicans and Democrats actually disagree on.

 

quote:

---

That's all fine and good, but I personally think that it is somewhat foolish to vote for someone just because they belong to a particular political party. I agree that my ideas may not exactly be feasible, but we definitely need to do something to limit their power.

---

Well, i have to disagree with you here. Political parties have manifestoes, and polocies linked to their political standpoint. You would assume that people who join a political party, and stand for election based on being a member, would share these ideals and policies. If you also agree with these ideals and policies, it would make sense to vote for them. You are voting for that person because they are in the political party, yes, but so you assume you share the values of that party, which you also share.

Of course this is a problem when the only 2 parties are the same. Well then in theory at least you can start a new party. This should be made easier, I think. If the majority of the population of the respective country would not share these values, then the 2 parties would not be so eager to announce them?

There is also the problem of the party not doing what it says in it's manifesto, but there would also be such a problem if you voted for an individual. You just have to vote for someone else next time.
 

Okay, the whole party thing: the one-party system doesn't sound too feasible to me. The whole reason why we have parties is because we need that organization to financially and politically support its candidates on their campaigns. If there are several candidates from the same party running against each other, the same party organization can't provide that level of support to all of them. Which would force candidates back on their own resources, which in turn breeds various levels of corruption. Of course, you may have something else entirely in mind. The coalition idea sounds really complicated--I know that something like that works in other nations, but I still think it could be simpler. In any case, the founding fathers never intended for there to be political parties--they just sort of evolved. I'm assuming that a party system will similarly evolve within the structure of the World Government and adapt itself to people's demands.

I'm also wondering about the executive and judicial branches. I know that we're focusing on the legislative branches right now, but I just wanted to ask: Generally, are we going to imitate the U.S. government for the other two branches too, or is there something different in mind?
 

Tari, it is my opinion that dividing a country for voting purposes can eventually lead to those separate voting "states" to lose their sense of national identity, and decide they want to be separate. I realize that the Unites States gives evidence to the contrary to this point, but I think the US is a unique situation.

As to whether the World Government would be based entirely on the US system, I may be mis informed, but I am under the impression that most of the Democracies in the world are based largely on the US Government, which is based largely on the British government. I don't necessarily think that the US Government is the best, but I being a US citizen, am bound to be biased. Show me a better system, and I'll take a look at it.
 

Ninja, whether people read the manifesto or not, is surely their choice? But even if they don't then they ahve some idea, of what those parties did last time they were elected. And they have speaches and debates on TV, I think? Also in UK anyway, they different parties post little messages through you door, before elections, with a kind of summary of their ideas and propaganda. Of course, they can't make you read these messages, but anyone who is interested can do.

Also I have no idea of most of the personal opinions of indivuals in the party anyway. So whoever wanted to stand as an individual would also have to try to make people aware of their ideas, maybe post a few little notes.. So maybe people wouldn't bother to read them either?

I think in the world parliament there would have to be alot more than 2 parties, so there would be more to choose from anyway, than just the 2 USA ones. If one non-USA party wanted, perhaps they could set up an american branch of that party, and if some americans would agree they could join, or vote for them. Americans could of course set up or expand one of their existing parties? they could post some notes so, people would know that they exist.

Coalitions

I think what is complicated, and what isn't depends at least partly on what you are used to. If there are 7 or 8 or more parties, is is quite likely that no one of them will get more than 50% of the votes. So then it would make more sense to make coalitions. If one party would get 50%, then of course they don't need a coalition.

Basing the World Government on the US Government

I guess that is because most people here are from the USA. But I have put in some ideas from the European Parliament, too (I'm a European, in case you hadn't noticed already). e.g. coalitions, political groupings, hmmm... having more than 2 main parties.. I'm learning from other posters here about the USA system, maybe you are also learning from me about the European system?

I guess if we would have more people from other countries, we would have a wider range of ideas. So anyone else reading this thread and not posting, please post :-)

Also the juristictive branch, and the..other one, I forgot what you wrote. How does this work then in the USA? In the EU, there is the European Court of Justice, which is the highest court, is this the equivelent? So if in one country you are on trial, and you diagree with the result, you can take it to the European court as a last resort. Normaly it has to do with human/civil rights, e.g. There was a rule in the UK saying homosexual men couldn't be in the military, and it was taken to the EU court, and over ruled as being discrimination.
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 08, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 09, 2002).]
 

If this isn't the case, then they may still use the word, but it's meaning has changed.
 

Also what is the executive branch, and what does it do?
 

Every country ever formed involved a war of some sort, usually of conquest. I see it as inevitable that in order to create a true world government that we will have to force some countries to join. But by and large, I think that the benefits will be plentiful enough that most countries will join of their own free will.
 

in the world parliament, shouldn't it be individuals voting, so then it's OK if china is one country, becasue individual chinese people can vote differently than each other, so it's still fair. one chinese citizen has the same vote as one american citizen or one european citizen.
then in the world senate, the chinese region would have the same vote overall as the european region or the northamerican region, despite china having more people.

is this OK?
 

I don't know but somehow I don't like this idea as much.

what is everyone's elses opinion on this?
 

Sometimes, in order to create peace, we must go to war. Just look at WWI when the allies had to fight the axis, and then again in WWII when the allies had to fight Hitler's German army. In the end, because the allies won, peace prevailed throughout most of the world. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.

"What if it was a big country who didn't want to join? USA for example? no one can force the usa to join, becasue the usa has the biggest military."

Although the USA may have the most technologically advanced military machines, China has the largest military. And yes, herein lies the problem. Large military powers will not submit to each other. Every large military power would want someone of THEIR nationality to be made Hegemon and Hegemons are human, they will do things to favour their own country, whether it's conciously or subconciously.

"Some men see things as they are, and say why. I dream of things that never were, and say why not."

[This message has been edited by Locke Wiggin (edited August 12, 2002).]
 

quote:

---

"If it was for example afganistan who didn't want to join, then it's easy to force them, but no more fair.."
Sometimes, in order to create peace, we must go to war. Just look at WWI when the allies had to fight the axis, and then again in WWII when the allies had to fight Hitler's German army. In the end, because the allies won, peace prevailed throughout most of the world. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.

---

quote:

---

"What if it was a big country who didn't want to join? USA for example? no one can force the usa to join, becasue the usa has the biggest military."

Although the USA may have the most technologically advanced military machines, China has the largest military.

---

quote:

---

And yes, herein lies the problem. Large military powers will not submit to each other. Every large military power would want someone of THEIR nationality to be made Hegemon and Hegemons are human, they will do things to favour their own country, whether it's conciously or subconciously.

---

If, by bombing them and creating a world government it could guarantee peace, would it not be worth it? Sure tens of thousands of people would die in the process, but would it not be worth it to sacrifice tens of thousands of people in exchange for the hundreds of thousands of lives that would be lost if the world continued to war with itself under separate governments?

"If one power would say to every decision that they don't agree with, "change this decision, or maybe we will bomb you" that is not democratic? If it would only be binding to the countries who have joined, then maybe they give in their weapons? or would this way no-one join? maybe that is why it has never happened."

I believe you have hit the nail on the head and I believe I briefly mentioned it in my previous post. No one is willing to give up their weapons/military, no one is willing to let someone else rule them, no one is willing to share power. That is and will be the downfall of the human race. Everyone is suspicious of the motives of their neighbours. Threatening a foreign country isn't democratic, it's communistic, which isn't what a world government would want. Until every country is willing to give up their military, is willing to give up their power, a world government is impossible. Without trust, we can't possibly work together and as long as their are weapons, trust will never truly exist.

"If everyone wants their nationality or their religion to be hedgemon, then it should be a coalition. but Since half the world is not of one nationality or one religion, I don't think anyone nation can decide this on their own. It is by voting. Everyone realises that if they only get the votes of one country, they will not win. so they have to make themselves acceptable to the majority. ie make fair policies, and people will realise that they are not so nationalistic that they will only do things for their own country. Also the president cannot decide on things by him/her self. The parliament and the senate also have to pass laws, so then it will be all countries (well, regions) who agree."

Politics alone should teach us that this will not work. What people say and what people do are sometimes, very different. People will promise all kinds of wonderful things in order to bring themselves to power, but once there, they don't always follow up on their promises. As for senates, are the U.S senates not proof enough? If the President wants it, it often isn't denied. Unless the world can come up with a new form of government, another means of governing, than the dream of a world governemnt will never be possible.

"Some men see things as they are, and say why. I dream of things that never were, and say why not."
 

quote:

---

"If one power would say to every decision that they don't agree with, "change this decision, or maybe we will bomb you" that is not democratic? If it would only be binding to the countries who have joined, then maybe they give in their weapons? or would this way no-one join? maybe that is why it has never happened."

I believe you have hit the nail on the head and I believe I briefly mentioned it in my previous post. No one is willing to give up their weapons/military, no one is willing to let someone else rule them, no one is willing to share power. That is and will be the downfall of the human race. Everyone is suspicious of the motives of their neighbours.

---

quote:

---

Threatening a foreign country isn't democratic, it's communistic, which isn't what a world government would want.

---

quote:

---

Until every country is willing to give up their military, is willing to give up their power, a world government is impossible. Without trust, we can't possibly work together and as long as their are weapons, trust will never truly exist.

---

quote:

---

"If everyone wants their nationality or their religion to be hedgemon, then it should be a coalition. but Since half the world is not of one nationality or one religion, I don't think anyone nation can decide this on their own. It is by voting. Everyone realises that if they only get the votes of one country, they will not win. so they have to make themselves acceptable to the majority. ie make fair policies, and people will realise that they are not so nationalistic that they will only do things for their own country. Also the president cannot decide on things by him/her self. The parliament and the senate also have to pass laws, so then it will be all countries (well, regions) who agree."

Politics alone should teach us that this will not work. What people say and what people do are sometimes, very different. People will promise all kinds of wonderful things in order to bring themselves to power, but once there, they don't always follow up on their promises. As for senates, are the U.S senates not proof enough? If the President wants it, it often isn't denied. Unless the world can come up with a new form of government, another means of governing, than the dream of a world governemnt will never be possible.

---

What proposal for a new form of governing?

quote:

---

"Some men see things as they are, and say why. I dream of things that never were, and say why not."

---

[/quote]
 

Wiggin, You have yet to pose a convincing argument against the fundamentals of the United States Senate, I ask that you please do so before apparently assuming that the latter are not suitable as part of the foundation of the newWG. In this thread, as well as far more ancient sources, arguments have been posed for the positive.

 

Yes, communism is, to an extent economics, however, was it not Hitler's Germany which eliminated any and all possible threat to their power (murdering or imprisoning people from other parties)? Was it not the communistic Chinese who shot their own people when they tried to riot for their rights in the Tienanmun Square? I can't seem to remember any democratic countries doing any of this. So in a way, threatening other countries is communistic.

In response to suntranafs:

Yes, bombing the militants is always a better choice than bombing civilians. However, there is always the possibility that the civilians thoughts and beliefs mirror those of the governmen. What then? Leave them be? Could it honestly be called a World Government if so many countries decided that they didn't want to join? Wouldn't it be just like creating one large country to loom over the little ones?

As for your request, I will heed it until such time as I can find sufficient proof of my beliefs... if I can.

- Some men see things as they are, and say why. I dream of things that never were, and say why not.
 

quote:

---

Yes, communism is, to an extent economics, however, was it not Hitler's Germany which eliminated any and all possible threat to their power (murdering or imprisoning people from other parties)? Was it not the communistic Chinese who shot their own people when they tried to riot for their rights in the Tienanmun Square? I can't seem to remember any democratic countries doing any of this. So in a way, threatening other countries is communistic.

---

I don't want to turn this in a discussion, on what is communism, but :
1-Hitler wasn't a communist. He even killed all the communists he could along with the jews, and any other political party.
2-Your point on China, yes China is officially communist, and they have a bad human right record, and no free speach. I don't think the last 2 are necessarily part of communism. for example before in USA black people didn't have so much rights as white people, is this because it was capitalist? I don't think they are related.

If the governemnt will refuse to allow other beliefs then you get such a situation, whatever the beliefs that the government is enforcing. Because not everyone will agree. That is why we have a democracy, not why we have capitalism. Capitalism or communism are economics, democracy or non-democracy is.. something else.
It would be possible to have a democratic communist government, if there were a free election and people choose the communist party. In china's case that didn't happen. Likewise it would be possible to have a non-democratic capitalist government.

I have no prove of these, so if you disagree, maybe we just agree to disagree?

Juristic branch = world high court. On what sort of crimes is this for? Is this mostly for human rights, war crimes type stuff, or also normal crime such as theft, murder, rape that happen in every country?

Does constitution set out things like basic human rights, and how the government is elected, and how much poert is as each level of government e.g. world level, regional level, national level?

What about taxes, what about military, what about develoment aid? What about a single currency? Do you think we should have these things?
 

Please disregard this post. I'm in a funk tonite and will probably feel better in the morning.

[This message has been edited by BootNinja (edited August 15, 2002).]
 

Currency+capitalism neccessary for any kind of efficient system. Currency might as well be single= greater feeling of national unity + nation convenience. Taxes absolutely neccessary to a non-dictatorship government. No land taxes at all. Period. Income taxes to the rich parabolically more than to the poor. Luxury tax. No further information on this at this time. Humani, what EXACTLY do you mean by "development aid"?
Comparatively Small military. Civilians armed and educated on arms use- required by law. Permanent national draft- all (able bodied) people serve some small amount of their lives in the military. A comparatively very small number of standing miltary personel.
 

Why do we need military draft? If people don't want to do this, can they do some other kind of training/service, such as first aid training. Anyway, soldiers who have chosen the military as a career are probably better than drafts if a lot of people don't want to be there. Who are they going to fight anyway?

Structure: The world gov. has a tricameral legistlature. (described in an earlier post)An executive branch with a president elected to a 6 year term (2 term max, no exceptions!) by popular election. The pres. presides over law enforcement and other federal agencies (transportation, energy) similar to the American president. The judicial branch has trial courts and appeals courts at every level of government (local, state, region, global) except at the global level. The global level only has a supreme appeals court (similar to the US Supreme Court) that can be used rarely to use trial procedure by general referendum (a vote). They are selected by the president and confirmed by the regional house and serve life terms. All regions and country-states will be required to draw up and ratify constitution based on and acknowledging the global model.

Military/Police: By far the stickiest situation. the police will be set up like in the US (i'm borrowing heavily if you didn't notice ) with a police force on each level of governmet that has jurisdiction over several of the agencies beneath it. ( If this is unclear to anyone, say from outside the US, say so and I'll clarify.) the military will also be available on each level of government but with a restriction; the # of active service military members cannot exceed 5% of the population that it is serving. For example, let's say Country A (population: 70,000,000) is in region B (pop.: 350,000,000) and in world C (world pop.:8 billion) Coutry A could field a military max of 3,500,000, Region b a military of 17,500,000, and the global army a military of 400,000,000. No army can be coerced ino aiding the one above it, but they may ally themselves tempoarily for mutual benefit if they so choose. This allows the global government to have some control over "rogue states" but not to enforce it's will over the entire world at once. Military spending is limited to 20%of the the administration budget or the cost of equipping each soldier in the army with basic equipment (to be defined by the legistlature) whichever is higher. Military research is not to be secret and must be made publicly available at each step of its development. Also, a draft is illegal at any level of government except in dire emergency, in which case it must pass all the global houses by a 2/3 majority and be approved by the president. The executive branch of any level of government may in times of emergency enforce a "police action' or martial law for a maximum of 2 weeks. Thereafter any further use of the military must be approved by a majority in the respective legistlature. any abuse of this executive power is grounds for removal as determined by a 2/3 vote in the houses of the respective legistlature. All (physical) nuclear arms must be surrendered to the global government but this does not include firing mechanisms, passwords, schematics, etc. of said weapons.

Economy: Free trade will prevail except at the global level, which may levy export/import taxes between regions and nothing else and so long as it is equal across regions. if the global legislature so chooses it may impose an import/export tax if a nation is struggling because of this free trade policy, but this power may not be exercised as a punitive measure. Any type (excluding trade taxes) or amt. of taxes may be levied by any branch of government as it's legistlature and executive officer deem fit. the legislature may approriate foreign aid/loans/welfare as it sees fit.

This as far as I've thought it through so far. please ignore grammar/spelling/capitalization as I had to type this quickly, I made the attempt. if anyone has comments/improvements (this doesn't mean baseless criticism) please share it. it seems like it would work reasonably well I believe

[This message has been edited by Cavalier (edited August 17, 2002).]
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 17, 2002).]
 

P.S. Humani: Certainly poorer regions should recieve huge amounts of aid, at least at first, to get them up to speed. As for restricted immigration, there is no place for it within a free country.

 

quote:

---

I would disagree with you over the idea that "Any type (excluding trade taxes) or amt. of taxes may be levied by any branch of government as it's legistlature and executive officer deem fit"

---

I believe in theory in the US currently any tax on anything can be levied. I agree that i wouldn't want my water taxed, but I also doubt an elected offical would vote for a water/air/other crazy tax because it wouldn't be too popular around election time. Also, I hope the executive has enough sense to veto (a power i neglected to mention) something that senseless.

quote:

---

How DOES our police force system work???

---

quote:

---

With Regards to the miltary, despite any 'national guard' equivalent, I suggest that the majority of the armed forces should be 100% federal(not from different regions, States, or provinces).

---

I agree with you totally in principle, but i'm looking at this from realistic beginnings. I think initially no nation would want to give up its right to defend itself and be at the mercy of a looming global powerhouse. Something catastrophic would have to occur for this to be possible. Initially, I think each level of government should be balanced against each other militarily so no one state can conquer a bunch of others but also the global government can't lay a beating on some small nation that dissents from it. Hopefully like in the US (man the founding fathers had a good playbook ) each state/region will have some power, (in the form of militias) not enough to attack each other devestatingly but enough to resist federal tyranny until it becomes taboo and risks too much public outcry for the federal government to even deploy troops on its own soil. Also, hopefully by such a point the states will have disbanded enough military power so that a real "standing army" is not needed, a beefed up police force will suffice in its place.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to argue. just trying to clarify my thinking a bit, reason it out you could say.

(again, sorry about many errors)
 

quote:

---

Economy: Free trade will prevail except at the global level, which may levy export/import taxes between regions and nothing else and so long as it is equal across regions. if the global legislature so chooses it may impose an import/export tax if a nation is struggling because of this free trade policy, but this power may not be exercised as a punitive measure. Any type (excluding trade taxes) or amt. of taxes may be levied by any branch of government as it's legistlature and executive officer deem fit. the legislature may approriate foreign aid/loans/welfare as it sees fit.

---

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 19, 2002).]
 

And second point, to unite all nations in earth under one government?! (It was somewhere upper, in the last page i think) That'll hardly be possible, military, or diplomatically (just in my opinion). That'll just create more problems, either religous, economical, racial (oo..that'll be big), and more. Wouldn't it?
The only country in the world, (or the only one i can think of), which is even considered 'multi-cultural' is Canada, and it still has large problems with racism, dicrimination...
Now just multiply that scenrio (is that how u spell it?) with all the citizens on this planet, and throw in millions of terriost bombings and such, deep hatred spawned from thousands of years ago, and you got the world under one government....Just a thought.
 

2) A trade war isn't possible because the global government has to have an equal tariff rate around the world on a given product and the regions have no say in tariffs whatsoever. The best that could be done in a situation like the EU's GM/hormone problem would be for the European regional government to outright ban the importation of GM/hormone food becasue this isn't technically setting a tariff (something they aren't allowed to do)

3)A struggling nation would be given there preferential tax status by the global legistlature, thus they would also define "struggling". My hope is that most countries would be hesitant to give tax advantages to another country so they would think hard about who is really struggling and who is just doing bad at the moment.

4) I can't think of why you'd want to deal with economic sanctions. if the leaders of some region/country did something worthy of an economic sanction they could just be arrested and tried becuase a global gov. would have jurisdiction over them. regardless, the sanctions againt Iraq would be legal becasue they don't involve the adjustment of tariffs. only adjusting tariffs as a punitive measure would be illegal. stopping trade outright as a punitive measure is perfectly legal in theory. The barring of punitive tariffs is to protect rich countries. (e.g. if Cuba finds itself struggling to import wheat you lower the cuban wheat import tariff, you don't raise ever other country's wheat export tax except to Cuba so they can only sell wheat to Cuba because that would be punitive to them)

* the basic idea here is to allow regions to only control the amt. of goods that come in/out of their region, not the tax cost of what goes in/out of their region because such an economy has greater freedom worldwide (in theory)

Sun: Firstly, i don't think the government described above is a confederation just because each part of it maintains some military power. Typically a confederation lacks any centralized power, a centralization which is apparent in the said government's elected president and legistlature of the global government.

Secondly, I disagree confederations aren't useful/don't last. The Articles of Confederation eveolved into the United States as we know it today, one of the most powerful and prosperous nations on earth. The Rhine Confederation (most of it anyway) became the nation of Germany, also one of the strongest nations in history. The Greeks had a system that could be called a confederation and it worked just peachy for them because their culture still influeneces the world today. It's my belief that it's worth taking the time to make a confederation (more of a federation in my opinion but I digress...) that will evolve into a strong and fair central gov. than to install some enormous central power immediately that the average person will resent and possibly hate becasue it has suddenly stolen their sovreignty. i don't care if I'm around for the ethical eveolution of the human race if when i die i know i've increased the chance of it happening for future genrations. Quite honestly, i think that if humanity fails at this point in the game there won't be any possibility of going back and fixing our problems because we'll have annihlated ourselves in the process. My opinion(s).

[This message has been edited by Cavalier (edited August 19, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Cavalier (edited August 19, 2002).]
 

suntranafs, it's not just my thread, i wasn't even here at the beginning... you can "intrude" when ever you like..

Speaker, Ninja: Yes, also can you explain the canadian government to me?

Also we need a new World Bank (not the one now), to set interest rates for the global currency.

Do you think we should have laws for the environment?

What should we do with such "disputed territories" or whatever to call them, like Palestine, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Taiwan, Kashmir, Northern Iraq/Kurdistan.

Is there just more pressure for peace talks to the sides directly concerned, or more? Who decides on such issues?

Does the world parliament vote on the solution? Do the people living in the territory vote? Is there a standard proceedure, or a type of law on how to deal with such situations?
Then after the current conflicts are solved, then the borders fixed forever?

This is the most important reason for the world government, to avoid such conflicts, and deaths. So how do we do that?

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 20, 2002).]
 

The countries should have some choice on which region to be in e.g. if Pakistan wants to be in South Asia with India, or with Middle East, because it is next to both, similar for Turkey if they want to be in Middle East or Europe. Or Egypt if they want to be in Middle East or Africa... Belarus and Ukrain if they want to be with Europe or in Russia's group. and other "border states".

although I don't know what to do about Isreal, if they will choose to be in NorthAmerica region.... is that allowed?

But of these "disputed territories" I don't know what is the most fair kind of proceedure/law to create a solution. Everyone has different opinions on what they are part of, but in the end who should get to say? Do you think the world parliament should vote? Maybe if the people living in the region have a vote. and then the results made available to the world parliament to vote on it? There could also be votes on it, for the other directly involved states, and the results made available to the parliament. Should there be investigations etc, for the parliament to help them decide how to vote? Should the representatives of the region(s) involved get extra votes? After the set up of the world govenment is is possible for countries to register that they wish to call somewhere a disputed territory, and get new investigations/votes?
Simililary is is possible for a country to change which region it is in?

[This message has been edited by Humani (edited August 20, 2002).]
 

I believe that the world is not in need of a Locke. I believe that the world is in need of many Lockes. One Locke cannot represent and govern all of humankind. We are all different in our views, our goals, and our desires. One person cannot satisfy all of those, becuase he cannot be familiar with or even comprehend all of them.

While I am in favor of world government to a certain extent, I am not in favor of one leader. The idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely isn't even the half of it. Even if a leader remained uncorrupted in the face of such power, he would not have the time, knowledge, or understanding to govern this diverse planet.

A leader with power, even a good one, acts mainly on his own beliefs. While this is well and good in small governments where all the people have a say, it would be destructive in a large one. Power must be balanced so that all types and groups of people will be represented, heard.

I am only 14, and I know very little about government and strategy. But I would suggest a worldwide council, with one or more members representing every group/area of people, the number of members depending on the population size of the group. This would probably result in about a thousand members, which could hold a monthly council with voting.

Separate governments could continue on, but all would be subject to the decisions of the council. If they chose to disobey, and/or disrupt peace, the council would have the power to declare sanctions, etc. on the country.

Eh. That's just an idea I made up on the spot. I have no idea if it would work, but it's nice to at least think about/discuss the issue. Feel free to kill it/flame it down, if you like. I'm no Ender Wiggin. ^^

[This message has been edited by Ari (edited August 20, 2002).]
 

Human: I'd love to answer your questions but I don't want to waste space on the board (and i'm tired ). Gimme an email address and id be happy to mail you what i think about the issue(s)if you'd like to hear it. anyone else is free to a copy if you care enough to want one

Speaker: You don't think the world could be united eh? you might be right. But I don't think things are as immovable as you think. in 1941, if you had theorized about the EU being around in 50 years they would have laughed at you and told you if you really felt that way you had better brush up on your German and goosestepping. if you said to some English lord in 1900 that his empire would collapse in 50 years and that Americans would bail them out of a war they were losing to germany he would laugh at you too. if you told some american in 1850 that their isolationist country would in 100 years be one of the largest donors of foreign aid in history and leading member of an international peace org. they would have looked at you in disbelief. my point is that things change and opportunities present themselves. you need only grasp them.

by the way, I'm 17 just to answer your question. i just happen to discuss theoretical geopolitics when im awake in 100 degree heat at night. there's nothing better to do i suppose

[This message has been edited by Cavalier (edited August 21, 2002).]
 

Cavelier. I don't think there is a space limit or something on this board, so why would it waste space? Then everyone can see, and make their opinion on it, if they have one. If you don't want to write it on this board, you can email it to humaniblueATeurope.com.
AT=@

Also probably now you would say the EU is a confederation? But it is becoming more federal, although lots of people don't like that, especially in the UK. It is mostly older people who don't like it, and younger people who are more pro-EU. So it will probably increase, as a different generation will come into power. I think the more people travel to other countries, the more will agree...
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 21, 2002).]
 

How can you be so sure a leader will arise unelected? In a vote, everyone has equal power. And let me remind you, if one does arise, an election would not have mattered anyway. Both leaders would use the same tactics to get what they want - charisma, intelligence, debate skills, and public-speaking skills - therefore winning people over in their favor. Or they could use threats, but again: it would not matter, because someone could easily use threats to get themself elected.

I'm probably wrong, of course, but nothing so far in your argument has quite convinced me that you're right...
 

Also does anyone have opinions about what to do when more than one country claims the same land. Or it claims independence when another country claims it. like the example i put before.
 

Oh, and I was assuming that these council people were all politicians. The issues voted upon would most likely be well known, so that very little reading would be required. And I mean, what are politicians supposed to do? Know these issues. It's part of their jobs.
 

I don't really think that you have illustrated that one leader wouldn't work. You said: "People have evolved inside areas with different cultures and different ideas about life. One leader could not possibly see, know, hear, learn, or understand all of these ideas, whereas a council would be able to." Welllll.... I'm an idealist; not a member of any particular xenophobic religion, or anything, but I think there is only one right. One truth. And yeah, that is definitely what we should look for in our real leader(s), not the ability to represent us and see our point of view; that's what the forever sqaubling, quibling house of representatives is for. Incidently, I'm also a mathmatician; consider the following: The probability of getting one leader who has a good understanding of righteousness and truth should, with fair elections, be precisely equal to the probability of getting one functional member of the human race that has a good understanding of such. The probability of getting a whole counsel of say, 100, thus enlightened would the be the former fractional chance to the 100th power-if you understand math, that's going to be a whole lot smaller.
 

The world government is to ensure peace, trade, human rights, freedom, saftey, environment..hmmm.. stuff like that, I think. We should decide exactly what the world government has power over.
So far we decided on emergency stuff like famine, drought, floods, wars (prevention), and stuff like trade, police (for internation crime, inlcuding terrorism), currency, world court of justice. What else? I think they should ensure human rights to everyone, and food etc. Also to protect the environment. Maybe they should have a research budget for more efficent fuels, and less pollution?
How much laws should be at world level? e.g. murder, rape? or just assume every country will make those illegal?
I think
 

what are 'high crimes'? Is it stuff about politicians and corruption or something?
 

There's mine lemmee see yours
Glass: As soon as the world is united, if they have not already, political parties will develop to elect a prez. and legislature like a bat out of heck.

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 31, 2002).]
 

I also think anyone should be allowed to stand for president, or as a member of a political party.
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited September 03, 2002).]
 

Politically, we are not ready.

The Democratic Republic model spreads like a virus and may someday be the reigning governmental outline. But not yet. The UN is a large step in the correct direction.

Economically, we are not ready.

Have and have not must be measured on a global scale. The Euro is a large step. A planetary stock exchange would be another.

Genetically, we are not ready.

In the world we discuss, the need for leaders was present, and genetics rose to the challenge. We do not yet have the base desire for unity such that we breed it into the next generation.

It is not currently feasible.

Politically, we are not ready? Then what do we do to fix that? How do we bring them all together?

Economically, somebody's gonna be poor, somewhere. Have and have not are mutual products of each other. But the ratio can be tipped: if we unify, we can work together, diversify, spread the wealth.

genetically, we're not ready? And what, some aryan super race is needed to rule us? There's a need for leaders; always has been. There are leaders, Alexanders, Ceasars, Wiggins, Arthurs. there are more today than ever before. Have faith, decoy, Messiahs are all around you. You have to know where to look. You have to know what you're looking for.

It's feasible. YOU just don't like it.
 

There will always be have and have nots, this much is understood from the age of speech. What I see as a necessity is a single scale on which to measure them all. An American who feels like a have not surely has more than most haves elsewhere in the world. I advocate a single, meshed economy.

This will present a stage by which a single leader could step forward and rule with a better understanding of the needs of the populace.

Currently, our species does not have the drive to excel that would be required of a Hegemon. Genetics is a science of responses and environment. Look at how the average civilized male has been forced to quell the genes for physical aggression and dominance. Were you to push from a leader to arise from our existing crop of leader-capable people, you would likely end up with someone educated in a very corporate or legal manner.

A super race is a not something I would encourage. Such homogeneity is frequently disatrous for a genetic pool.

I shall restate my initial assertion.

As a species, homo sapiens thrives on rising to a challenge. In order for someone capable of leading the world to arise, the possibility for world domination must exist, alongside a communal desire for such a leader. Then, the next generation could be reared in such a fashion as to foster and develop said Hegemon.

The concept of a single world leader is entirely possible, but is not feasible in this generation.

[This message has been edited by decoy (edited September 09, 2002).]
 

Isn't it obvious?

It's George W. Bush.

...

*giggle*

*snicker*

BA HA HA HA HA.... =)
 

Take account of the leaders in our written history who have attempted such a feat. How many of them are hailed as brilliant, how many of them are reviled as monsters, and how many would you wish upon the world today?

Focusing on the original intent of the thread, yes, Hegemony is an eventual possibility. As suggested elsewhere, if you firmly believe in something then literally plant the seeds of such an idea in the next generation.

By our presence on this board, I assume we can all agree that children and young adults are capable of amazing feats and are possessed of phenomenal problem solving skills. Does it not behoove us to rear our children in such a manner?

-Abyss

(More on this later)
 

-Does mixing of genetic stock foster a better understanding of other cultures over time?

-Do the present cultures of Earth function well enough to integrate wholly under a solitary figurehead?

-What does a Hegemon do?

 

-Unfortunately, probably not.

-We defined it, a while back. Actually, Abyss did.
 

Sorry to keep you all waiting.

Decoy, origionally I was willing to pass your statement that we aren't "genetically" ready as your simply grasping at straws to finish your post. I didn't blame you for it, I tried to overlook it.

But now, you're defending your statement.

I'm appalled, decoy. Not 'genetically' ready?? And what must we do to become 'genetically' ready for a Hegemon? Who needs to go? The blacks? The Jews? The homosexuals? I pray that your statement was made out of ignorance and that your defense of it was out of stubborness. If you truly beleive in the idea of 'genetic purity', than I am truly afraid for the world. We can't allow 'National Socialism' to get to where it was before, the idea of a NaZi american frightens me, myself being a Jew. I hope, for all our sakes that Decoy is a minority group, and that his sentiments do not reflect on american youth in general.

God forbid...

-Abyss
 

They were just really really good genes.
 

A clarification: My position on genetics has never endorsed either genetic discrimination or genetic tampering.

What is being alluded to is genetic need, or much more simply, evolution.

Traditionally, genetics can offer up an interesting answer to large-scale problems. Insects, for example, can develop natural camouflage to an environmental change over the course of only a few generations.

Humans evolved on a different path than their primate counterparts, as physical prowess gave way to mental faculties as a determinant of strongest breeding stock.

Could a person capable of assuming Hegemony be a genetic leap forward? Could the mindset of global allowance for a leader be a step forward?

[This message has been edited by Reed Richards (edited September 26, 2002).]
 

P0ST FA5TER! P0ST FA5TER! The peekabo thread is almost catching up!

0H G0D WHY?!?

P0ST FA5TER! P0ST FA5TER!
 

All of these have a large enough chance of happening. Anyway, we can't just forget the little things either, like nuclear wars, oversized asteroids and comets, global warming(and I'm talking air conditioning won't help much at 200 degrees), an insect takeover that we can't stop, and last but probably least, the invasion of little green men.

So yeah there's common threats enough, we just gotta get people to realize them.

 

The threat I spoke of is the threat of nuclear war.
 

But seriously, if there was a successful world unification movement, it would definently be spearheaded by someone with lots of ambition, and probably bad intentions. Anybody read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."? By Heinlein? We need a Mannie. hell, we need a de la Paz!

Did anyone else notice that Shadow Puppet's Peter was a wuss? Like, really really wuss? The strongest character was Han Tzu, and he killed him off.
 

I guess somewhere along in Shadow Puppets, Peter stopped being Locke and turned into a kind of...

i don't know...

wuss?

Anyhow, one of the things i would be looking for in a Hegemon/Locke would be vigilance. I'd want him to stay on the prowl even when he was in office.

Who can say what I'm trying to say here?
 

But actually, I agree with you, some spoiler warnings could be helpful...
 

***SPOILERS AHEAD! WHOOOOP! WHOOOOP! RAISE APATHY SHEILDS! RED ALERT!***

There's actually one point where they drag him out of bed. With ice water.

And another point where he says "Maybe Alai should be Hegemon.. *whine whine, my life is hard*"

Locke wouldn't / shouldn't say that! Arrogant Peter Wiggin?!? Thinking another person is qualified to rule? What in the hell? A fluke on OSC's part, I think. Lost some of the characterization, in my opinion.

***SPOILERS BEHIND!! WHOOOP!! WHOOOP!! FORGET WHAT YOU JUST READ!! SITUATION NORMAL!! STANDBY FOR ANALYSIS!!***

A good read, tho, all in all. I liked it.
 

I think Peter was just being humbled in Shadow Puppets, and he didn't take it well. Just because he was acting like a baby because people made him feel stupid doesn't mean he will not get over it in the next book. I think humility is important in a leader and that it doesn't show weakness. In my opinion, Peter will prove to be all the stronger in the next book, and I don't think it is a flaw on the part of OSC. Ender did write The Hegemon about how Peter brought the world together and proved to be not only an effective leader, but a good one, didn't he?
 

It would certainly make me feel much better if there was a truly caring and capable leader in this country...

Tony Blair's (prime minister of England)is about the best leader I know of, but then again media can make almost anyone look good, and what do I know?

It's sad that we have to make do with what we have, but it's true (I know I'M not stepping up to the plate anytime soon)

ps: if you can tell I haven't read many of these posts, its because I haven't- who CAN read 438-some posts?! So anyway, sorry if it's totally unrelated...

 

[This message has been edited by Glass (edited November 15, 2002).]
 

Glass, Suntranafs, what's with all the "hmmm"ing?
 

DON'T YOU DIE ON ME!!!

*more CPR*

YOU HEAR ME?!? LIVE, LOCKE, LIVE!!!
 

This would, in theory, eventually give us a Locke. Maybe even several.

As for a world leader being dangerous as hell, well, if the leader is demented, yes. If we have a Locke, not really.
 

[This message has been edited by Akma (edited December 31, 2002).]
 

Altaris: Granted, my knoledge of genetic engineering is limited, but I believe mankind is well on its way to programing every last gene. However, I do definitely agree that there is more to human being's than genetics.
As for "u can't teach ethics to someone smarter than u are" you'll remember I said that it is sketchy. What I did not say and do not believe is that it is impossible. Nor do I believe, as you say(if that is indeed what you intend), that (in the event we DO attempt this whole genetic programming bit) we should leave such things up to chance. There is, after all, more than one way of teaching; creating the environment, for instance. In defense of my belief that such a thing would be possible: Even Eienstein had teachers, and one of the things that he learned from was their mistakes.

'If I go with a beggar, a carpenter, and a theif, I will have three teachers'
-Confucius>>>aka you can learn something form any body, if ya know what I'm sayin'.
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited January 04, 2003).]
 

Every day. Every frickin' day.
 

The problem is, you're seeing the problem from a Bean-type example; a test tube baby being reared to rule the world, as opposed to a Wiggin-type example.

I don't think thats the idea here.

"...(similar to Heinlein's Howard Foundation, or what the IF, apparently, is doing) that gives grants to people who marry other people with desirable leadership qualities, such as drive, ambition, and charisma.This would, in theory, eventually give us a Locke. Maybe even several."

Is everyone familiar with R A Heinlein's Howard Foundation? I've read some of his "Future History" series, and the Howards go like this: a wealthy buisnessman dies of cancer (or a similar fatal illness). As his dying act, he creates the Howard Foundation and leaves all his possesions and funds to it. It has only one purpose, "To prolong human life."

The way it's trustees go about this is simple. Anyone whos four grandparents have all reached one hundred are given money, grants, when healthy children are produced, exponentially. The more children, the more money.

The "Locke Foundation" might work similarly, only the crucial point wouldn't be age; it would be 'leadership positions' or 'intelligence' or 'charisma' or perhaps all three.

The problem of 'morals' is then out of our foundation's hands. They'll get their morals the same way we all do:

They'll learn from experience. From their parents and their siblings and their teachers and their friends. After all, the parents will be at least as intelligent as their children.

Its simililar, actually, in many ways to how Locke came about in the first place, or at least how Ender came about. Super-intelligent people given extra incentive to reproduce...

It solves both problems: it solves the problem of genetic engineering and it solves the problem of moral training.

[This message has been edited by Reed Richards (edited January 07, 2003).]
 

Now... for once, I agree with sunatrafs : I don't think Reed Richard's idea would really be a solution : I hate the idea of "breeding". It can maybe work for physical abilities, but it surely won't work as well for mental trait. And, how would you put the "disastreous" peoples out of the program ? How would you know which of them are disastreous and which ain't ? From a certain point of view, Peter, Bean, and even Ender where disastreous...
 

I guarantee it.
 

Well, be that as it may, the majority of people do not hate the idea of breeding. In fact, (and this may surprise you), most people take to the activity with quite a fervor.
 

"When I used the term disasterous, I did not mean unsatisfactory. I meant disasterous. If the wrong mistake was made, there could very well be no other generations."

Assuming that the percentage of geniuses in, say, America, is relatively low, and assuming that about half of these are discovered by the breeding program's tests, this elite group of people would not constitute nearly enough people to start a "Locke Foundation" project.

Let's back up a little bit. Let's say a wealthy (extremely wealthy) businessman has a child, a son, and that the son is tragically mentally retarded. Untreatable. The problem is traced to a defect in a blood vessel in the brain.

This businessman and wife courageously try again, and soon a daughter is conceived. The best doctors are summoned to examine the child. They find a similar defect, circulation of blood to the brain; everthing is done for the daughter in utero, and nothing works.

The daughter is born with the same mental defect. Untreatable.

The two failed attempts embitter the businessman; and his marriage is on thin ice at best. In a year he divorces his wife, and remarries a dashing young blonde. She concieves yet another child. Same story; untreatable mental defect.

By this time, the science of personal genetic mapping has come to fore. Upon examination, the businessman learns that he carries a reccesive brain circulation problem, the doctor informs him that in all likelyhood, every child he could possibly have will be born defective.

Meanwhile, the businessman's health has been rapidly deteriorating, and is diagnosed with cancer.

The man, from his deathbed, establishes the "Locke Foundation" and entrusts it with the task of increasing human intelligence.

You can see where this is going; I'll finish later.
 

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited January 10, 2003).]
 

Is it possible for a leader like what you describe to come forward anyway? In this time- there is no need for him, considering the fact that the entire world would reject any such possibility.Even if you speculate into the future- which nation would be willing to accept one without another force (such as the buggars ^.~) calling the need for one? I agree such possibilities are fascinating- yet sadly unlikely.

Also the fact that brains is good to have- but you need to be a politician. Ya need to know how to shmoose through the people. And who believes a good politician who is also good for the entire world? And one last thing, my little old opinion has almost nothing to do with any other subject- could someone explain the entire point of the Locke Foundation? I'd be much obliged,

[This message has been edited by Leanne (edited January 10, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Leanne (edited January 10, 2003).]
 

I disagree. I wouldn't want a moron for a Hegemon, and neither would you.

But you're right. In order for someone to become Hegemon, they would have to be charismatic; they'd have to be able to talk to everybody and get almost everybody to agree.

So what do we need? We need someone who's smart. We know that, an idiot is not at all what we're looking for. We also need someone who looks good on camera, someone who's good at giving speeches and the like.

But thats not all. We also need someone who's all there ethically, morally. Someone who's accepting. An Arthur, not a Mordred.

A Locke, not a Hitler.
 

Let's break it down:

We need our Locke to be smart. That's covered from ground zero under the program; thats what they test for. Problem number one solved.

He's got to be charismatic. Again, this is covered. If they're smart and ambitious, they'll learn charisma. even if we couldn't breed a Locke, we'd definently get a shlew of politicians.

Number three, we've got ethics. Locke's got to be a moral man. Fine. The breeding program might have thousands of ambitious, charismatic pre-Lockes running around. Isn't it incredulous to say that not one of them is an Arthur? That not a single one grows up to be a Roosevelt or a Lincoln?

Now that covers all three of your requirements, Abyss. Smarts, charisma, and ethics. What more do you need to see that it could work?
 

And about the qualities of a leader... of course, a Locke HAS to be smart. But a leader ? Leading peoples doesn't mean being smart. It means feeling, somehow, how to please, hurt, or lure them enough to get them to follow you. It CAN be done on purpose (though it's kinda hard to TRAIN someone to become a leader) ; but it's often an "instinct" : it comes without need to think of it.
Think about it : maybe all the "great-leaders" were smart guys, but all leaders are not.
 

It's got to be about them. They've got to do it on their own. If we ever get a Hegemon, it'll be becuase he reaches up and takes Hegemony, not because we give it to him.

If we train him, he's not going to have the ambition to take what he wants and make the world a better place, he's going to feel that the world is his to begin with, no questions asked.

Regardless, thinking the breeding program through, you couldn't possibly train them all.
 

Altaris the Skeptic:

quote:

---

Your intelligence, leadership and ethics has very few to do with genetics

---

Yes, that you know of. Your first paragraph is (or appears to be) ranting on your part. You underestimate science. We can do it. We're doing it now. We've been doing it for thousands of years.

Granted, the point of the breeding in past incidences has been primarily domestication; but it doesn't have to be so. Breeding mankind for favourable traits is both possible and beneficial. You can't simply say, "It wouldn't work", because we know that it could. It is being done as we speak, by farmers all over the world. Now, when it comes to human beings, the only problem is ethical, and that is merely logistics. That problem can be worked around.

Your second paragraph is self-defeating. You conceed my point, "...of course, a Locke HAS to be smart.", but then you keep going. I conceed your point, to a certain extent; yes, idiots are capable of leading people.

I personally wouldn't follow them, but hey, thats really a more personal choice.
 

The Locke persona whould have to have the good with the bad. One that is willing to kill or be willing to give orders to an army that would have to do the same. He/She would have to be smart enough to know when it is better to kill or better to keep alive. Must have the power to influence the masses and to be known by people everywhere.
 

Whoops... sorry about the "iour", I meant "our"

[This message has been edited by altaris (edited January 14, 2003).]
 

Cows.

Cows have been bred for centuries. They are now healthier, and produce better milk, meat, and birth healthier calves than they ever have before, all as a result of selective breeding.

This was done WITHOUT an intricate knowledge of the bovine genome. We've had the science to do this for centuries.

Your second point: Yes, Locke has to have charisma. Granted. I agree with you. Locke has to be both intelligent and charismatic. Bravo. You're brilliant. Kudos.

So, in conclusion, a breeding program is feasible.

If you want another example of successful eugenics, I can dish 'em out by the barrelful.
 

But one of the most diversly and effectively manipulated animals is the dog. Just look at all the useful things we've been able to breed the wolf into! Sheepdogs, bulldogs guard dogs, domestic dogs... It's all there!
 

To help you understand, I'll echo something Sutranafs said ages ago, in this very thread.

"How many of you are there that you use the pronoun 'we'?"

You say:

"we don't know if IQ and leadership have anything to do with genetics"

YOU don't know. Qualified experts (of which I assume from your statements you are not) disagree with you.

"it appears that intelligence (as measured by I.Q.) is a result of a combination of genes..."

"From a study of twins it appears that I.Q. is about 80% nature and 20% nurture..."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lane/8771/chromosomes.html

I agreed with you, before I read this, about leadership not being genetic.

It turns out we were both wrong.

Scroll down to right underneath the "Viking Genetics" snipet and the Isaac Newton quote.

You see where it talks about all the different forms of inherited intelligence? See where is says interpersonal relationships and intrapersonal relationships?

So a breeding program according to the EXPERTSwould actually be more succesful than I origionally thought.
 

You forget that primitive societies were not democracies. They did not "choose the best and bravest", but rather the strongest men and best fighters rose to the top, killing those in their way. Now, that brute strength is worthless; smarts is where is really counts. But the ambition to rise to the top is still key.
 

quote:

---

I think we can all agree that ambition is a quality crucial to leadership.

---

I totally agree with you. Ambition isn't genetic. But with that many intelligent people? To suggest that none of them takes initiate to rise to power? In the first few generations of the breeding program, we'd already have managers and CEOs and politicians. Do you follow my logic here?
 

I can't. Too much ambition leads to greed. Ambition in moderation is key.
 

The analogy is there, I see it; in small quantities, it's useful and even required, but in large quantities it's useless and dangerous.

Exactly what you, nick, were saying about ambition. He was supporting your post. Calm down.
 

If I read correctly, "Locke Foundation" was defined as "an organization devoted to the promotion and advancement of human intelligence". If this is true, than the Locke Foundation already exists, under the name of Mensa.

As a member, I can say with relative certainty, however, that Mensa does not pursue this goal through selective breeding. Instead, we do it by actively looking for intelligent people from all walks of life, and providing an environment where we can meet (and hopefully learn from) people of similiar intelligence. We also provide scholarships to further the education of the same.

As to what we need in a "Locke", you have overlooked the need for a very thick skin.

While Locke is trying to put in place the best policies he can, he's going to be constantly bombarded by people of lesser intelligence who truly think that their way is best, despite all the evidence against it.

Let me go back over the thread, and I'll give you a few examples.

Someone back in the first couple of pages invoked various socialist principles, such as providing economic aid to third world countries to help them industrialize. A quick survey of recent history would show that we've been doing this for decades. As you've noticed, it didn't work.

To show you how it will work, I ask you to look at Korea. Fifty years ago, they were in the middle of a civil war every bit at bloody as the ones currently raging in the Middle East. Although the country is in a state of relative peace now, hostilities never really ended. It's suicide to get too close to the DMZ even today.

A little less than thirty years ago, the leaders of South Korea began a policy of internal economic devlopment, while their northern cousins countinued their old policies. The South got loans (not gifts), and used that money to industrialize. They then embarked on a continuing policy of aggressively educating their people. The South Korean government today provides many economic incentives to citizens who travel to established industrialized nations, earn a (useful) degree, and then return to Seoul to train others. As a result of that policy, the average South Korean citizen lives a much better life, in terms of material wealth, than that of most Americans.

The North, by contrast, pursued their development through aid packages. Without the threat of looming debt to spur them on, most of that aid money was squandered on short term benefits, and North Koreans are not noticably better off today than they were 50 years ago. In many ways, they're even worse off, because the oppressive government now has boatloads of money to help enforce their regime.

I'm sure that the people who suggested the aid packages meant well, but the idea quite simply can't work.

In a similiar vein, people have given opinions on what needs to be done regarding the ozone layer, the environment, overpopulation, and other popular but stupid agendas.

In the first two cases, there are problems, but the problems are entirely local. Yes, all those factories dumping smog into the LA air are eventually going to find that same smog coming around to bite them in the ass. However, the sum total of *ALL* pollution, land, air and water, from *EVERY* human source, is less than that produced by the eruption of *ONE* active volcano.

To forestall the arguement that what humans do is worse, I'll save you the trouble of asking and just tell you that the deadliest toxin humans release into the environment is flatulence. Check your favorite Organic Chemistry textbook if you don't believe me. While slightly humorous, "Save the world: Don't fart!" doesn't look nearly so good as a campaign slogan, so environmentalists prefer to concentrate on things you can't pronounce.

As to the 'global overpopulation problem', there isn't one. All of Earth's 6 billion people could consume as much per capita as we do here in the U.S. from now until the sun burns out, and we still won't have used up all of Earth's natural resources. At the same time people are starving elsewhere in the world, here we literally have food rotting in warehouses, and the government is paying most of our farmers to NOT produce anything, because we're literally producing more than we know what to do with.

What we lack is a reliable way of gettng perishable goods from point A to point B while every tin-pot dictator between here and there insists that it sit at the border for weeks (or months) to undergo a thorough customs inspection.

Anyone stepping into the role of Locke, and actually getting anything done, will only do so by totally ignoring most of the popular agenda, and that's going to make him very unpopular. S/he will therfore need to have enough self-reliance to know that most of the world hates him, and still be able to get over it and go on making unpopular policies to benefit all mankind.

The obvious danger of that kind of person, however, is that they would be literally a law unto themselves. When/if Locke decides to implement something that works against the common good, no force on Earth will stop him, and it won't matter if your potential Locke is Hegemon or a homeless bum. He would be unstoppable.

--
Siece, CI & PIQE
Too nice to inflict his huge .sig on top of this already huge post...this time.
 

In what way? The federal government attempting to help the state governments of Missouri, Arkansas, and (I'm told) most of the industirially undelevoped deep south has provided much the same results as international economic aid. In what way would moving this to a world scale change things?

>I really don't know much about the subject
>but I can tell one thing right now, for
>sure. People are being born deformed in
>Russia because of polution that was man-
>made.

The people having those problems all lived near Chernobyl, or were directly involved in the rescue/cleanup work. People who remained more than 30km away weren't seriously affected, although everyone in the northern hemisphere was exposed. Although I wouldn't be happy if I had to walk that far, 30km is nothing on a global scale. The only way that kind of thing could happen on a global scale is the detonation of all or most of the entire world supply of nuclear weapons. Even in that case, however, enough of the human (and other) population of the world would survive unharmed that life on Earth would be in no danger of extinction, although life would certainly be unpleasant for a relatively large period of time. (BTW, if you want more details on that, and have Acrobat Reader, see: http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-update.pdf )

>About the population problem and the
>naturall resources: our population is
>doubling every, what, 20 years, if you're
>1/10 as smart as you think you are, you
>should be able to figure out what that
>means, sheerly mathmatically speaking.

Actually, human population follows the J-curve model, which increases logrythmically until it reaches Earth's carrying capacity, and then (if unchecked), falls back to near zero, when the cycle repeats. What this means in simple terms is, if the popluation doubled in 20 years (which it didn't), it will double again in 2 years. Theoretically, the next doubling would occur in 0.2 years, but this actually won't happen because humans have a relatively long gestation period. I don't feel like calculating the exact absolute min, and it might even be higher than the two years noted above, but it most definitely exists.

However, that, too, was considered in my statement. Right now, we're using such a tiny fraction of Earth's natural resources that scientists can't even begin to guess at what Earth's carrying capacity might be. When scientists are able to figure out how many people Earth can hold, or even give us a ballpark figure, then we can start worrying about what to do when we reach it. Based on current evidence, however, I'm placing my bets on humanity having fast, reliable extrasolar transport long before that becomes an issue.

>As to resources, we may have plenty of lot
>of them. But our oil supply is dwindling,
>far faster than even most ultra-greenies
>realize, and soon it will be gone. Without
>Oil, civilization and science could fade
>away rather quickly, before we had time to
>switch energy sources.

The rate of oil consumption is debatable. however, given that what you say is true, when the oil is used up, mankind will switch to hydrogen fuel (or something even more efficient, if such should be devloped), which we should have done years ago anyway. Since hydrogen is converted to water in the combustion reaction described above, and water eaily breaks down into it's component atoms, that fuel source will never be exhausted.

>Anyway, I personlly found your post
>interesting and I'm glad that you
>understand the problems that would face a
>world leader, perhaps you could write more
>on that?

After my long-winded diatribe, you still want more, eh? Give me a chance to catch up on the other threads on this forum, and then I'll look more closely at the problems our potential Hegemon will face.
 

Actually, hydrogen fuel is going. It's the sole fuel source for the Venturestar, which Lockheed hopes will eventually replace the aging space shuttle. Hydrogen isn't being more widely used primarily because of the cost of converting everything over.

While expensive, the conversion is relatively easy. If the need were to arise, the entire U.S. economy (excluding automobiles) could be converted in a few weeks. Autos would have to wait until factories were retooled to build them, but at least one Japanese company is doing this already, so that's not far off, either.

As to what our potential Locke would need, here's a partial list. It's just a rough draft, so expect much editing. I'll also probably forget a lot of things the first time through, so don't hesitate to add something I've left out.

First, he'll need the things y'all have already mentioned. As has already been said, Locke would need to be educated. He wouldn't need to be an expert in every field, but he would have to know enough to be able to spot when someone was feeding him a line of BS. About a year's worth of majors-level college courses in every field of study would give him the basic tools, so call it three or four years of college, assuming he went full time. He'll need charisma, so he doesn't get assassinated the first time he tells people to do things they don't want to. He'll need ambition, since no one's going to hand him the world on a platter.

Secondly, he would need endurance. As I pointed out earlier, any Hegemon capable of doing his job is going to take a LOT of abuse. Also, running the world takes a hell of a lot of work, so he'll need the physical and mental endurance to keep going and remain alert if some crisis requires him to stay at his desk for days or even weeks.

Next, he'll need an absolute respect for individual rights, but none at all for the law. All of the world's Great Leaders (Caesar, Lincoln, Washington, Churchill, etc.) became great because, when pushed, they were willing to tell the Constitution (or whatever law applied) to go to Hell, but at the same time, they had enough respect for the People that they did not become dictators.

He'll also need a capable staff. As has been said before, running the world is too big a job for one man. He'll need a relatively large Cabinet of people who are experts in their fields, all of whom would also need relatively large doses of the personal attributes needed to make a Hegemon.

Also, me must be computer literate. It has often been said that he who controls the flow of information controls the world. A potential Hegemon would need to be able to spot it immediately if any of the data he works with is being or has beeen tampered with. Come to think of it, more than just being literate, he'd have to be a pretty good hacker himself.

He'll also need strong character, and a rock solid sense of himself. As Nietzsche said, "Association with other people corrupts one's character -- especially if one has none." If he can't remain true to himself and his principles even when the whole world is pressuring him to change, then any hegemon is doomed to failure.

Finally, he absolutely, positively, must NOT want the job. Anyone who wants to be Hegemon should not ever, EVER, be allowed to take the post. If nothing else, by wanting the job, he's proved that he's not smart enough to do it.

As to how he might come into power, that will probably fit better on the other thread. I go there, to post.
 

Because being Hegemon is only one specific goal, while ambition can take any form.

Linus Torvaldis had the ambition needed to build an operating system that changed the world. AFAIK, he takes very little interest in politics, outside of how it impacts the drive of his ambition, and has actually turned down nominations that he be elected to lead various nations.

Like Altaris said, he would become Hegemon because he needed to, not because he wanted to.

>It's more like a "cross that bridge when we
>come to it," but what if the scientist
>discover how much earth can hold just in
>time for us to use the last of it?

It might be a little bit selfish, but I take that attitude because the decision will never affect me or anyone I care about.

The Earth running out of natural resources is a disaster running on about the same time scale as the Sun running out of fuel. Yes, it's going to happen, but even my greatx10^24 grandkids will have died of old age by then. If the human race can't find a solution to the problem given that much time to work on it, then quite frankly they deserve to die out.

 

>Poetry.
>That
>Goes
>Four Lines.

 

This particular passage bothers me a lot.
What Constitution did Washington ever buck? Lincoln? What opprotunity did Lincoln have to set himself up as dictator?

Ceasar did set himself up as an emperor, as I recall. One of the greats.

It's hard to overlook some of the holes in your arguments, Siece.

It appears that, while all of your examples possess some of the qualities you suggest, none possess all of them.
 

Maybe I can explain on behalf of siece.

Peter Wiggin (Locke) wanted to rule the world. His desire started as childish ambition; as siece said, ambition takes many forms. Origionally, Peter's only desire in life was military power. He wanted to be trained in Battle School.

He failed. Subsequently, he turns his life to the Hegemony, in hopes of political power. As he rises to fame under the alias of Locke, Peter wants nothing but to be Hegemon.

Years later, after the Hegemon passes away, Locke is offered the job.

Locke declines. Peter reveals himself as the teenage boy he is.

The world sees past his age and sweeps him into the Hegemony.

Peter wins, even though he "didn't want the job."

So, a Hegemon needs to appear as though he doesn't want the job. Otherwise, there's no way to force anyone to rule the world if they really don't want to. You couldn't, to draw another OSC example, get Ender to take up Hegemony, see how 'tired' he was, after the Bugger Wars.

-Abyss

[This message has been edited by Abyss (edited January 29, 2003).]
 

Why would the world need a locke? There's already tons of good reporters and people all over the place.
 

No, not the reporter aspect of Locke, the world leader aspect. Check out Abyss's first post (page one).
 

quote:

---

Knowing stuff seems to lead to happiness...

---

I have also noticed this trend, but it appears to move in a J curve trend, with happiness increasing by two with the first set of knowledge, by .2 with the next, and so on into infinity.
 

It's the only way for them to stay in power, cause they have to be voted into office.

That's why elections are so great.

 

(Power just means the freedom to do what u want i guess)
 

...

Two things strike me about you. The first is your argument and your statements on democracy.

I think that one of the problems is that politicians are just power-grubby crowd-pleasers who don't get their hands dirty. They bounce rhetoric and push corporate agendas, but they live in an Ivory Tower, or an Oval Office, or what have you. They are not the ones dying as a result of their orders. They don't suffer on account of their laws. We do. The people do. They don't get their hands dirty; they yell at us to dirty our hands for them.

[sarcasm]

The other striking quality you possess is the use of the word "cause" (i.e., resulting in an effect) in place of "because" (i.e., due to).

[/sarcasm]
 

If you take two smart, wealthy business people, and pay them to have kids, what do you get?

On the whole, more smart, wealthy business people. Maybe a politician or two (seeing as the two so often overlap anyway) .

Throw in some other leader-types, some Army men, maybe. Smart people. Upstanding citizens.

Pay them to have sex, educate their kids; and whammo! instant smarts.

Now the criterion get tougher. There are more smart people lying around; so you demand higher test scores, you look for higher leaders.

And their kids.

"The apple falls not far from the tree," you know.

Now, the cheif objection to this was the "can't breed humans like pigs" argument.
I'd like to clarify now: it's not as vulgar as simply paying them to have sex, even though I use the phrase often.

It's simply a grant (monetary sum) given to married, fertile couples to encourage good traits, and a grant given to their children to educate them.

It would work. I'd like to try it.

Maybe Mensa would help me out...?
 

And BTW... I'm sure u missed my scepticism

(edited for typology... I wish my english was better !!)

[This message has been edited by altaris (edited February 04, 2003).]
 

George Washington openly commited treason. He revolted against the existing, duly appointed British government in the colonies.

When Washington and his associates set up the U.S., Several states signed on with it actually written into the contract that they could withdraw from that union at any time. When they actually decided to do so, however, Lincoln went to war to prevent it.

>It's hard to overlook some of the holes in
>your arguments, Siece.

The points on Caesar and Lincoln as a dictator have already been adressed. If you see any other holes, please point them out, either here or by email. As I said before, my 'arguments' are simply a rough draft.

I know there are holes, and I'm patching them as fast as I can find them.

On the other hand, it's also possible that merely stating the ideas are enough, and those "desperate to remain in power" will do the patching for me. You may have noticed that mere days after my post here, President Bush came out with a remarkably similiar plan for converting our nation to the use of hydrogen fuel.

Of course, my two-week estimate assumed the situation was dire enough that the U.S. would be willing to donate it's entire production capacity to the conversion. With no petroleum, all of the oil burning power plants would have to shut down, and without gas, there would be no fleets of trucks carrying food into the cities. Shortages would occur in days, and starvation would set in inside of a month. If it happenes to be winter when this happens, people in the colder parts of the country, trapped without any power or reliable transportation, would start dieing of cold in a time measuring between hours and days, depending on what resources they have on hand when disaster strikes. In that kind of a situation, those wishing to remain in power would do whatever it takes to get the nation's core infrastructure converted before the people started revolting.

Bush isn't that desperate, so his plan is going to take a lot longer. I'm certain his staff is more than capable of filling in all the other details I left out.

What actually scares me about this is that converting to hydrogen is acting almost directly against the personal interests of Bush himself, and a large percentage of his staff, all of whom have invested strongly in oil. Since they now openly support destroying their biggest financial base, they're either much better people than they've been given credit for, or they're not telling us something that makes all that oil money worthless.

So, what other mistakes have I made? Maybe together we can fix them, and save Bush's aids a bit of trouble.
 

If only there were a way to find leadership without asking everyone what they think about it? Everyone seems to have an opinion, no one seems to know the truth; the old method was to see who God suggests as King, but we either the Holy Hotline has gone dead or someone has forgotten His number. How can we find the best leader while gauranteeing that monsters do not come to power?
 

So, democracy is the best form of government (that we know of, so far) for protecting individual rights. But I've always thought that maybe not everyone should be able to vote.

Maybe we could limit the democratic franchise, like in Starship Troopers? Only giving war veterans the vote. It is the only way I can think of to acheive what you're talking about.
 

I haven't forgotten. It simply hasn't been a factor. I have not, so far, put any restrictions on what profession a potential hegemon would need to have practiced before taking office. Unless you know of some reason he would have to be a politician, I will continue to not consider his former profession.

I will, however, add the conditions that a potential hegemon must be willing to live by any law he passes, and must be reasonably honest.

>#2). You're assuming our leaders are
>Capable of such efficient actions, when, by
>and large, they are not. They have to read >the poles first

This is why I haven't nominated any of our leaders as hegemon. Somewhere on this board I even specifically stated that a hegemon would have to come from one of the more productive classes of society, although it may not have been on this thread.

 

So while they may shout "F*** you, Mother F***ers!" they sure as f*** won't have any nukes to launch.
 

quote:

---

"Starship Trooper" is a book of irony. The society that they have it in is BEING MOCKED for its rigid authoritarian values.

---

[This message has been edited by LadyDove (edited February 09, 2003).]
 

Jeez, just cause they're different doesn't mean they're crazy.

They just learned something you didn't learn...
 

I've never met such a thing in my life....

Where do u get your ideas from????
I think the blame rests completely on things you were forced to permanently learn in childhood that have screwed up your thinking completely...

How can we have a democracy when our kids are taught by pro-dictatorship teachers that do anything they feel like doing and try to beat things like math into your head....

Plus, I've noticed that people who don't know me have been treating me very oddly ever since I got a minor cold a couple of days ago. That's the entire thing.... can't you guys ever tell the difference between emotional and physical stuff? It's really silly when people start imitating little physical things.....

That's a thing that's really good about those more environmental-type societies... They're smart enough to tell the difference between emotions and just little physical things....

I've noticed that Irish-Chinese-British type people treat me completely differently than non-those types of people. Other people see certain things and they just think it's "cool".... those more environmental-ish type people actually get the difference between emotional actions and pointless mockery-type little physical things.

I've never seen a british/irish-ish/whatever type person do any of those silly imitations... cause they understand that's it's just a little physical thing that I have to do even though I don't really think about it and there's no emotional attachment to it...

Whereas other people will mock things over and over again without learning a damn thing... plus, those other people don't understand a single thing I do...

Cause to them, there aren't ever emotional reasons for doing things....

That's wrong though, cause emotional things can be connected to the real world very easily.... That's why britain was such a strong empire for a while.... and that's also why the original protestant Americans came from Britain...

And there's still a lot more to it.........
A lot of stuff that normal people just discard as crazy cause it hasn't been proven yet.......

Anyhow, I'm not sure that a blind-deaf person could really participate in any part of the military, unfortunately. Perhaps in recruiting or something...?
 

You said that the idea was to give the 'franchise' to people who were willing to stand up and fight for what they beleive in, and for their country. Why give cripples a free ride?
 

Where to begin?

To start, I never said military service was the best way of determining citizenship. If I took the time to think about it, I could probably come up with several better ones, starting with just a test to see if the potential citizen has even the slightest clue.

On the issue of handicapped persons being able to obtain citizenship...I have a physical disability, so I'm speaking from experience when I say that this is not an insurmountable barrier.

Mental disabilities are another matter. My stepbrother's mom had pneumonia while she was pregnant. Given a choice between her dying or her child having severe birth defects, the doctors chose to save her life. As a result, my brother's brain stopped developing near the end of the first trimester. He honestly wouldn't know or care whether he was a citizen or not.

On the other hand, 50% of the population has below average intelligence. Most of these are OK people who are just a bit dim. There certainly has to be a point where you say, "You must be at least this smart to vote", but we could probably agrue all day about where that line should be drawn.

Probably the best course of action would be to administer a test to see if the person understands the issues involved and the candidates' platforms. Those who pass can vote, and the ones who don't can't. Maybe this could even be done on an issue by issue basis.

 

If education was inteligence, a test would be great for determining who could vote. But it isn't. It can aid the inteligent, it can help inteligence to grow, but without inteligence, it is nothing. The reverse is not true. There are highly inteligent people, who would make fine voters, who have been educated far less than you or I, or at least comletely differently.

[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited February 17, 2003).]
 

About the thing for veterans only voting, I think you are missing its point. Military service would not determine intelligence in any way. It would determine the value the person places on the privilege of voting. A non-citizen, in Heinlein's book, has all the rights under law that a Citizen would have except the right to vote and the right to hold public office. Theoretically, then only one who places the future of his nation higher on his list of priorities than his personal life and liberty would determine the future and leadership of that nation.

What are the problems with this? First, as Reed Richards stated, there is no 'risking life and limb' if there isnt war. Heinlein says that the majority of recruits would not even be soldiers but have some equally dangerous and unenviable duty for their right to vote. That, to me, makes no sense. We really cannot make torture camps(not really, but what else would you call them) just to verify that certain individuals really think that voting is important. Such a government could even go so far as to engineer a "xenomorphic" race so that potential voters have someone to fight...

The other problem, of cripples, is a surmountable problem in our day and I forsee that it will diminish and then vanish as artificial limbs, eyes, ears, etc. are perfected. In Heinleins book, all or most desk jobs are performed by civilians or soldiers whose primary mission is fighting in some form, which makes sense. As for today, who says that a physically disabled person cannot drive a tank, fly a plane, shoot an artillery cannon, or some other non-infantry combat duty? I dont think blindness or deafness can be handled with todays technology, but then again I dont see the state Heinlein described today either.

Siece, how would you determine who is smart enough to vote and who isnt?

Also, how would a person that ignores public opinion be able to get and stay in power, short of military force?

"Next, he'll need an absolute respect for individual rights, but none at all for the law. All of the world's Great Leaders (Caesar, Lincoln, Washington, Churchill, etc.) became great because, when pushed, they were willing to tell the Constitution (or whatever law applied) to go to Hell, but at the same time, they had enough respect for the People that they did not become dictators."

This scares me, just a little. First, what do you define as individual rights? Life, Liberty, and Property, as the (I think) Other Locke defined as the rights government should provide to its citizens and residents? Second, although I agree that the leaders you mentioned were great statesmen, throwing laws and more importantly constitutions out the window does more damage in the long run. Caesar probably would have reinstated the republic in an equal or better form, if he had lived long enough, but he did not, and therefore destroyed what was one of the better systems of government on the earth. Some Southern neo-confederacyists(hmm) would say quite the same of Lincoln. I dont know much about Churchill, other than the fact that he kicks ass.
 

You say 'smart' enough to vote. Right now, there is no 'smart' enough to vote. There is no IQ test, no literacy test.

Now, there used to be literacy tests, but those were repealed, and with good reason; they were basically a way to keep blacks from getting the vote, and that wasn't fair.

As I understand it, the veteran vote wasn't to ensure that they were 'smart' enough to vote, but, instead, that they were qualified to vote.

-Abyss
 

What's this, a clone? I'm flattered! Right down to the profile... ha, I never thought anyone looked at those!
 

[This message has been edited by sergesantgiggles (edited February 20, 2003).]
 

Yawn. I might as well ramble on about something. Ender's star, how are people (who are naturally wicked and cruel) pick a leader who is not? If they see someone who is not, why would they choose him? Absolute Monarchy traditionally is carried on by bloodline, so there is NO guarantee (or even favorable chance) that a King's son will be NOT wicked and cruel. So the only choices left are that the non-wickedcrueltype man will rise to the top naturally or some system of election.

In either system, the potential King must gain the favor, or at least support, of people with normal human nature.

(I have read the topic, so I wish to be smacked if redundancy is evident in my posting.)

So I ask this as a question, and not a tool of sarcasm: How would such a leader be moved to the top?

[This message has been edited by sergesantgiggles (edited February 21, 2003).]
 

[This message has been edited by sergesantgiggles (edited February 22, 2003).]
 

Actually, I was thinking more of an information check than an intelligence check. For example, in the last election here we had Measure G on the ballot. In the system I described, you could vote on Measue G if you knew what it was, as well as how approving it or not would affect the community.

It wouldn't take any particular intelligence. Around here, it wouldn't even take any extra effort, because the county sends out a voter's information pamphlet a few weeks before every election which provides a brief description of everything being voted on, along with essays from parties for and against each measure.

The test wouldn't need to be in any specific format, so accomodations could be made for the illiterate, those who don't speak the local language, and so on.

Any other objections?
 

On the one hand, you wouldn't be able to vote on this issue.

On the other hand, if you don't understand the issue, if you did vote, then it would only be a crap shoot. You'd have a ((n-1)/n)% chance of screwing yourself over, where n = the number of possible options you can choose.

In a simple yes or no vote, this would be only a 50% chance. If the vote had three choices, the chances of screwing yourself jump to 66%. It would be a 75% chance of screwing up for four possible decisions, and so on.

Personally, I wouldn't bet on those odds. Would you?
 

My language sucks. First insulting Jesus and destroying a perfectly good thread that deserved to live, and now this.

What I meant was can(better should you be able to) you come back later and retake the test?
 

"In the system I described, you could vote on Measue G if you knew what it was, as well as how approving it or not would affect the community."

These tests, while a good idea, could easily be rigged by the creators to make certain that only people in favor of the bill are allowed to vote on it.

"A Bill to Ban Abortion."

Multiple Choice: A fetus becomes a human when...
a) it is conceived
b) it's heart first beats
c) third trimester
d) birth

Also, your odds do not account for a simple fact of democracy: there is no right answer. Saying that you have a 2/3 chance for self-screwage in a 3-option vote is not accounting for the fact that, in the world we live in, all of the answers may be correct.
 

Sure. As long as you do it before the polls close.

suntranafs wrote:
>For example, "Whether you know what
>ammendment G is or not".
>What defines that? How do you test?

In the example I've been using, Measure G was a bond measure. If it passed (it did, in case you were wondering), Kern Country would sell $180 million worth of bonds, and use the money to improve and repair the facilities at three community college campuses around the county.

The downside of this is that everyone's taxes will go up by about $5.31 to pay for those bonds when they mature.

To see if someone "understands" what the measure is, they would basically need to be able to say what the money is being spent on, as well as how much of it is coming out of their own personal pocket to pay for it.

Steel wrote:
>Also, your odds do not account for a simple
>fact of democracy: there is no right
>answer. Saying that you have a 2/3 chance
>for self- screwage in a 3-option vote is
>not accounting for the fact that, in the
>world we live in, all of the answers may be
>correct.

In that sense, voting is a lot like taking tests in upper division college classes. All of the answers are correct, but one is more correct than the others. No professor I've ever heard of gives partial credit for a right answer that's not the one that's most right. So, too, in voting.

If you need examples of why the other right answers are wrong, take a close look at any of the laws passed in the U.S. to prevent descrimination. On the surface, they look like a pretty good idea, and they're a definite improvement over the way things were. In the long term, however, every one of those laws ends up having the exact opposite result of what it was intended to accomplish.

If you're really interested, I can tell you dozens of horror stories from personal experience about handicapped accessability laws gone wrong.

 

suntranafs wrote:
>Sorry Seice, I'm afraid Steel's right,
>tests are to easy to manipulate.

That's why you have watchdog groups.

>First, make a whole government agency based
>on fairly reporting the actions of the
>government.

How? You have the same problem here that you have in making the tests, only worse. With the test, a person can go out and get the information from multiple sources, and form their own opinion. When there's only one official source, the "truth" is whatever that source says it is. Kind of like a real life George Orwell novel.

>Second, rather than requireing that
>everybody pass a test, make a law that says
>people HAVE TO educate themselves about the
>government actions.

*laughs* I'm sorry, but life just doesn't work that way. There are already laws that say people have to get educations, and yet almost two thirds of high school graduates are still functionally illiterate, and even most college graduates aren't as well educated as someone who completed only the eighth grade before those laws were inacted.

To recoin an old phrase, you can lead a student to knowledge, but you can't make him learn.
 

Don't remember that rule... after all, Hitler is still a bad person, even though we already discussed him. For variety sake, I suppose, one might avoid mentioning something twice... but it doesn't invalidate an argument.

"That why you have watchdog groups."

Who would do what, exactly? Try to pass a test to pass a law changing the test requirements to pass another law? Excess red tape. And besides, they're already manipulating the tests; who's to say they won't manipulate the tests for the watchdog group?

"You can lead a student to knowledge, but you can't make him learn."

Bingo.

And, harkening to an earlier post,

"Voting is a lot like taking tests in upper division college classes. All of the answers are correct, but one is more correct than the others. No professor I've ever heard of gives partial credit for a right answer that's not the one that's most right. So, too, in voting."

Problem is: who's the professor? Who ultimately decides right from wrong? Who is empowered to say anyone's opinion is greater than mine, or greater than yours?

If one man or one organization is creating these tests, his veiw is undoubtedly the 100% "correct" veiw; I don't buy it. That man, that organization, eliminates the need for a vote. They have already determined what is "right". Why not cut out the middle man, eliminate the voter?

Because we live in a democracy. We vote because we beleive no one man has any greater say than any other, regardless of intelligence. In Florida, the voters decided it was wrong to separate a pregnant pig from the others. They were missing a key point, that pregnant pigs kill other pigs; regardless, just one sacrifice we make to live in free society. I was in the minority on that vote.

Who am I to say that the anti-pigpenning lobby is wrong? What makes my opinion more valid?

Nothing. A democracy is governed by numbers: by the majority. Who is to decide that one opinion, one group, is right and the others are wrong? I wouldn't give up that freedom, ever.

[This message has been edited by Steel (edited March 11, 2003).]
 

Siece stated: 'When there's only one official source, the "truth" is whatever that source says it is. Kind of like a real life George Orwell novel.'
I simply don't believe that. George Orwell's book gave me nightmares. Almost nothing gives me nightmares like that. I do not think it was realistic. Why should we even have this discussion if you don't have a little more faith in the human race(Either in its goodness or its extreme individual selfishness) than that? The media would still be there to express all the views of the world.

"How"?[do you make an institution based on fairly reporting the actions of the government]. Easy. You require that they report only the facts. They can bastardize news like "the cow flew off the roof", but let them just try to corrupt 2+2=4 without getting caught. There will be no headlines. No front page. No pictures. No humor. No opinions. Just what the government did that could possibly affect the lives of its citizens would be in one section, and extremely trivial ones in abother section. Nothing's infallable. They can still bastardize "possibly affect", but severe restrictions can be made, penalties can be made for errors/deceptions, and differenials from the facts can be made very small.

"you can lead a student to knowledge, but you can't make him learn."
OK, so I was wrong for once. There's rarely a positive effect of making a law that you're unwilling to enforce. I overlooked that, 'cause, damn, it sure would be nice wouldn't it? If we could just get them to read, they'd eventually understand. Actually the way I came up with that idea was in a government with a whole whole lot less people, where you actually could enforece such a law without abusing human rights..... maybe anything that's possible small scale is possible large scale.... that hasn't been very well demonstrated... YET.