FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Where is our Locke? (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  16  17  18   
Author Topic: Where is our Locke?
Steel
Member
Member # 3342

 - posted      Profile for Steel   Email Steel         Edit/Delete Post 
Napoleon did a great thing for France, and was a good leader. He provided health care, free education, waste management... The people of France just didn't get it yet. MAybe the people of the world need a Hegemon, but they probably do not know it yet, and probably wouldn't accept him. Maybe suntranafs would be a good leader, but I surely won't nominate him.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
Ok, people, I'm not trying to convince anybody to nominate me for hegemon any longer on this page, and I'm not going to insult anybody even if they insult me 1000 times.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
Glass: Look at your argument. No part of it, save the part about the unreliability of a one man alone, argues against a hegemon specifically. Actually, the whole 'why hand the keys to somebody else thing', when taken to a political level instead of a moral one, is a general argument against government. For anarchy.
Quote from (I think) James Madison:"If men were angels, no government would be necessary".

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.


Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Abyss
Member
Member # 3086

 - posted      Profile for Abyss   Email Abyss         Edit/Delete Post 
I completely agree. nice going, Suntranafs. Good point. Isn't there a need for a single world leader? Wouldn't that help end the strife that plagues the international community?

-Abyss


Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Lets clear up a few previous statements (alas, I am only free to post every few days. This is a fun topic).

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.


Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BootNinja
Member
Member # 2296

 - posted      Profile for BootNinja   Email BootNinja         Edit/Delete Post 
I know I'm missing the point of your post, but the leader of the UN is called Kofi Annan. (Sp?)
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
We need moderation between dictatorship and anarchy. The representative democracy of the United States is a fine solution. The constitution is a near perfect document. If we followed it a little better and cracked down on the big corporations, we might even have a decent nation today. There will be no golden era. Instantaneous improvement is an illusion. However, like democracy was, a single world representative democracy might well be a step toward the moral advancement of our species.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
We need moderation between dictatorship and anarchy. The representative democracy of the United States is a fine solution. The constitution is a near perfect document. If we followed it a little better and cracked down on the big corporations, we might even have a decent nation today. There will be no golden era. Instantaneous improvement is an illusion. However, like democracy was, a single world representative democracy might well be a step toward the moral advancement of our species.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
sorry 'bout posting twice
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Steel
Member
Member # 3342

 - posted      Profile for Steel   Email Steel         Edit/Delete Post 
Glass: If you don't give a damn about humanity, do you have any place in it?

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.


Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Abyss
Member
Member # 3086

 - posted      Profile for Abyss   Email Abyss         Edit/Delete Post 
I think, Nala, that you're missing the point of Steel's post, and didn't read Dan_Raven's.

"...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


Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
Theoretically speaking, the bit about being able to switch to a country that suits you better may be important. Who really knows though. People have a different amount of freedom in different States in the US, so why not in world States(not nations)? Real hard to predict the future accurately there.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Steel
Member
Member # 3342

 - posted      Profile for Steel   Email Steel         Edit/Delete Post 
Unless, of course, we set precedence and say what we want in a Hegemon. Will the World States have cultural diversity? I think it should.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GregChiao
New Member
Member # 3423

 - posted      Profile for GregChiao   Email GregChiao         Edit/Delete Post 
i wanted to say hello to every1 first. i'm a newbie, i just finished speaker for teh dead. i love the ender series.
i haven't read the whole list of posts but
Who says we need a world leader, anyway? maybe glass wasn't exactly right but he and dan have a point, dont you think?

Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
I like the fact that we are not yelling at each other and calling names. We are talking and working toward each other.

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.


Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
Certainly they do. If nothing else, the instigators of such a movement would have to handle it with the utmost care.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
That last post was in reference to Greg. Raven and I posted simultaneously, sorry for the confusion.

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?


Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Steel
Member
Member # 3342

 - posted      Profile for Steel   Email Steel         Edit/Delete Post 
Exactly what I was going to say. Is there a population boom every presidential election? Not that I've noticed...
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a whole different discussion on demographics, democracy, and birth control.

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.


Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
American culture is widely diverse, even if not as much so as world culture.
They say well begun is half done. I think it's probably quite essential that our first world leader be a very good one, be he caucazoid, mongloid, or negroid, or be not he but she.
I hesitate to disagree that we are as just and fair a society as exists, but our lack of acceptance of the world court as well as a similar environmental world order was being more sovereign, selfish, and maybe just flat out imperialistic than most other countries. Many countries did support the orders.

Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mat
Member
Member # 3417

 - posted      Profile for Mat   Email Mat         Edit/Delete Post 
Ok, a few things.

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.



Posts: 8 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DragonArin14
Member
Member # 3116

 - posted      Profile for DragonArin14           Edit/Delete Post 
Why not? It seems like it would be easier to unite the world in a time of peace than in a time of suffering.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BootNinja
Member
Member # 2296

 - posted      Profile for BootNinja   Email BootNinja         Edit/Delete Post 
Dragon, Mat is right. in a time of suffering, the people blame it on the current leader, and so they are desperate when another person comes along and claims that they can make everything all better. they will be willing to grant him a lot more power than in times of peace. I am reminded of the old axiom, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I find that most people adhere to this philosophy. thus, when times are good, they don't want to risk it by implementing such a wide sweeping change as creating a hegemon,and granting him the kinds of power we are talking about here.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Mat, I agree that for the most part the US is a very open minded carrying country. It is one of the most responsible countries in the world, trying hard not to do anything "wrong". If such a good country cannot support intrnational courts or agreements on the ecology, how unlikely is it we will get dictators and powerful tyrants from other, less carrying countries, to agree to peaceful surrender their sovereignty.

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.


Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Abyss
Member
Member # 3086

 - posted      Profile for Abyss   Email Abyss         Edit/Delete Post 
One word... Preemptive. Stop the madness before it starts! Prevent the suffering before it has begun. People are still dieing and people still need help. We don't need to fight alien "Buggers" at the moment, but we do not live in a perfect world. While the nomination of a Hegemon certainly wouldn't end all of our problems, but It would bring us a step closer to Peter's paradise.

-Abyss


Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Abyss, you are correct that a world govenment would help the world in times of peace. The Hegemon didn't come to power until after the buggers were gone.

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?


Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
You have to sell them on the idea. It has to look like the influential few are for it before the entangled many will be. It can be done.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nietzsche
New Member
Member # 3449

 - posted      Profile for Nietzsche           Edit/Delete Post 
As long as there are people willing to abuse the legal system. The only system you can have is one that is airtight. Since humanity is filled with these kinds of people, we can ether take a form of government that removes many rights and freedoms, but keeps people safe (Communisim being a close example). Or one that allows for more freedom, but more crime and extortion. (Democracy)So, ironically, humanity stops itself from being perfect. So, we try to become as perfect as we can with our current form of government. Since one person would eventually become corrupt with power, we really can't have a Hegmon.
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DragonArin14
Member
Member # 3116

 - posted      Profile for DragonArin14           Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, sorry Bootninja and Mat, I see where you're coming from now. I agree. When times are peaceful people won't need or want an all-powerful leader.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bryan
Member
Member # 3412

 - posted      Profile for bryan   Email bryan         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, the European Union is something of a counterexample to the idea of surrendering power only in desperate times. The fifteen member nations are surrendering their sovereign capabilities in a growing number of areas to the central organization, which in turn is turning into a federal government - it's becoming like the states within the federal government of the US. This has all taken place within a time, since 1951, in which the original six, now fifteen, member nations have enjoyed peace and prosperity. It's true that their original main concern was preventing the possibility of a recurrence of the wars they had previously waged against each other (France and Germany were the original catalysts of the organization), but that hardly explains why they're continuing to carry out the Maastricht Treaty mandate for an "ever closer union."

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.


Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that the European Union is a fine example of a Hegemon in its infacy. Its commercial unity forced the isolationist forces in the US to embrace the Nafta accord. After all the US is the biggest exporting country, but it is smaller than the combined EU. So the EU shows us the path to how the idea of unity, once it starts, can spred.

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.


Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
Everybody familiar with how free acceleration works? In the begining, the object starts slow, and gradually goes faster and faster and faster and before you know it that object will take an incredibly huge amount of momentum to stop. If it does happen, it will be the same with a world government. Therefore I would make no guarantees on the timing of such an event.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Steel
Member
Member # 3342

 - posted      Profile for Steel   Email Steel         Edit/Delete Post 
No, Dan-Raven, you're forgetting that the hegemonyt didn't come to power in a time of peace. While the Bugger War was over, the League war had just ended and Achilles was forcing the world to go to war. Peter tried to put a stop to it.
I think that the cheif difference between the UN and the hegemony is that the hegeomny has war-stopping power. The UN couldn't stop 9-11 but a future Hegemony would be able to.

Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BootNinja
Member
Member # 2296

 - posted      Profile for BootNinja   Email BootNinja         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, i'm afraid that you are the one who is wrong. Peter Wiggin was NOT the first Hegemon. The office of hegemon, if I'm not too much mistaken was created in the aftermath of the first bugger invasion.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BootNinja
Member
Member # 2296

 - posted      Profile for BootNinja   Email BootNinja         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry for the double post, I hit the button too many times.

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


Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
These arguments are pointless, excelent writer though he may be, OSC is not God, nor is he a complete political genius, or he would be exercising that charachteristic. Let's get back to the topic at hand.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Steel
Member
Member # 3342

 - posted      Profile for Steel   Email Steel         Edit/Delete Post 
The concept of a World government isn't invalid just because OSC used the idea in one of his books.

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


Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Abyss
Member
Member # 3086

 - posted      Profile for Abyss   Email Abyss         Edit/Delete Post 
Suntranafs, you have the right idea. Backl to the topic at hand.

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


Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, humanity can and has produced such people, and is doing so right now. They are very very rare, but they are out there. People like that have, in history, occasionally come into power, though they often had things done to them such as assasination and crucifiction; Even the greatest of leaders, in a free society, will be subject to public humiliation. If not in a free society, there will always be those that talk behind their backs. But anyway, we can get a good(x100) man in office, and he'll always have staunch supporters in those who see through the propaganda.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 3403

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand           Edit/Delete Post 
IMHO, the hegemon will not be a single politician or a world government, it will be a corporation.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Abyss
Member
Member # 3086

 - posted      Profile for Abyss   Email Abyss         Edit/Delete Post 
What do you mean, Beren One Hand?

-Abyss


Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
What you say is possible, but I hope to hell you are wrong.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Steel
Member
Member # 3342

 - posted      Profile for Steel   Email Steel         Edit/Delete Post 
A corporation ruling the world? I seem to agree with sutranafs.

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.


Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Abyss
Member
Member # 3086

 - posted      Profile for Abyss   Email Abyss         Edit/Delete Post 
Just something that you all have brought up in the past: Don't we have a world government? Isn't the U.N. a government that has jurisdiction over every country?

I think not. What are your feelings on this?

-Abyss


Posts: 280 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BootNinja
Member
Member # 2296

 - posted      Profile for BootNinja   Email BootNinja         Edit/Delete Post 
The problem with the U.N. is that they have only as much jurisdiction as the nation in question gives them. They also have no way to enforce any of their decisions. U.N. Enforcement consists on one or more member nations providing enforcement of U.N. decisions. This, imho, is not a government, but instead more of a committee, that makes decisions, and hopes people follow them. Kinda like a consultant.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Socratesvc
Member
Member # 3459

 - posted      Profile for Socratesvc   Email Socratesvc         Edit/Delete Post 
Where is our Locke? I have another question for you: Why do you think Orson Scott Card doesn't do any of the things that he writes about? Also, I would like to know why you believe so strongly that we actually do need a Locke, and if we do, who do you feel should be put into that position?
I intend to check back to see if anyone posts a reply to my questions, but I would appreciate it if you, or any other of the geniuses who post their messages here, would answer me via my own e-mail address: Socratesvc@yahoo.com.
I realize that for some there is an obvious wish for the opportunity to display their opinions where the rest of the world may have access to it. I, however, prefer the more private and direct method of internet communication. Besides, I have some other disscussion topics that would require a more in-depth analysis than I believe is possible to aquire on a forum.
Thank you in advance for any response that I may receive.

Posts: 41 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
I am sure the OSC topic is worth discussing, but not on this thread, as it is entirely off the subject.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
Likely the reason the U.N. is only, as Ninja so aptly put it: "a consultant", with only vicarious power, is Funding. It really is money that "makes the world go 'round". In fact, probably the most major factor the United states aquiring it's power and recognition from the individual states was, incredibly enough, taking on their economic responsibilities, i.e. their debts. In this way, the debtors, instead of being interested in the individual states, were concerned with the survival of the Union. I do not know, but perhaps such a bold stroke as Alexander Hamilton's genius(for his it was) could be duplicated on an international scale.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BootNinja
Member
Member # 2296

 - posted      Profile for BootNinja   Email BootNinja         Edit/Delete Post 
It seems to be working in Europe
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
suntranafs
Member
Member # 3318

 - posted      Profile for suntranafs   Email suntranafs         Edit/Delete Post 
yeah, good point, me thinks.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 18 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  16  17  18   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2