posted
It could be taken that way, I suppose. What I thought was meant(and consequently, what I feared) was more like a more or less invisible, but extremely powerful corporation Behind A Puppet Government. The government(being all goody goody and supposedly righteous, following the will of the people) would serve as a great cover-up for what ever the corporation wanted to do. The puppets would be held responsible for whatever wrongs were done, And the real culprits would never be found. Furthermore, there might Not Be any real culprits, because a REGULAR corporation is very like a mob, with no mind of its own.
I don't really know though, Abyss, you could be right about what was orginally meant.
posted
So many people are assuming the Hegemony to have complete control. This is what i would envision it to be:
The Hegemon would be much like the US president, a figure head with some power but not truly the all decisive leader. If we had a system with checks and balances made up of representative from all the contries then it might be easier to get countries to agree to the Hegemony since they'd be heard. In the UN each country has one vote regardless of population. If the Hegemony were similar then China or India couldn't take over.
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.
posted
BTW, OSC's talent is apparantly in writing. I think it's stupid for someone to expect him to go off and do what he writes about. We all have our place in the world and if he felt his was in making the world unite i'm sure he'd be in some form of politics. Or maybe he is doing it in his own way by provoking such discussions as this that might cause one to aspire to be a hegemon.
posted
No need to be so hostile. When was it even stated that he should do the things he writes about? If you are referring to my posting on the previous page of this forum, I only asked why he doesn't. I would welcome any further input you may wish to give. Feel free to contact me: socratesvc@yahoo.com
Posts: 41 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vyresince, while a system where each country has one vote is nice in theory, ultimately (assuming that there remains a degree of economic/military diversity between countries) the country with the most powerful economy and/or military would carry the most influence. That's the problem with the U.N. today, the general assembly is essentially powerless and the only segment of the U.N. with any real degree of power is the Security Council, which is controlled essentially by a small group of nuclear "club" nations.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having the Hegemon be empowered in a similar fashion to the American President would be a BAD thing, because the Presidents main power (barring veto power) is the of the Commander in Cheif of the military, and in a single world government (Hegemony), the sole purpose of the military would be to squelch rebellions, insurrections... (you get the idea). The Hegemon could easily become a tyrannical dictator if his purpose was to do so.
posted
Vyres: We've already discused the 1 vote per country thing. What we decided on is a TWO house legislature, modeled after the Senate and House of Representatives in the U.S.. That makes for a very good balance between Mob Rule and a lack of fair representation for all the people. Abyss, congratulations, I don't mean to seem vain, but you are the first person to come up with something that I had not already considered. Yet the world government MUST HAVE A SINGLE MILITATRY HEAD, otherwise we can expect no order, no sucess, and no government(I will explain this further if neccessary). Perhaps we need a fourth branch of some kind? I will have to think about this one.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if there were, say, 3 people that could take the place of the president, while still keeping the House of Reps. and Senate? They could discuss and rebound ideas, to ensure thought out but still quick responses. Or there could be a number of levels, 3 people on top, 5 to check for flaws or things that they disagree with, and 10 under that to double check what the 2 higher levels have approved. If anything wrong is found with the decision, suggestions may be made, and it could be reintroduced to the top 3? I am just brainstorming here, so let's get some feedback.
posted
If a single cheif citizen is not officially established, Someone will unoficially fall into that position. If this happens, the chances are that it will cause serious chaos, because there will be a power within the government that the designers of the government did not predict or account for in there creation. In your example, Soc., I think that person would probably end up as one of the three, or one of the ten.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite possibly. What if there was a single person rather than the 3, but then there were the lower levels to keep that person in check and give them feedback?
Posts: 41 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I stated before, i'm not good at puuting ideas to words. You people seem to be giving this new government a lot of power. When i said make the Hegemon like the president, i didn't mean in the sense that he's a military leader. I meant in the sense that he doesn't have all the power and that he's mainly usefull as a figure head. The physical manifestation of the government. I also see this governemnt as being more of a watchdog and having most of the power. Someone to deal with international issues and laws. To prevent wars and attempt to keep things in control. Possibly to stop letting the power house nations run everything. That's why such events as 9/11 happen. The people feel that no one listens to them. Maybe this government can somehow be unpartisan and solve issues not based on the power of the nation but the actual facts. I'm sure this is just as hard to understand as my other post and for that i'm sorry. I wish i was better at writing but it doesn't seem to be my strong suit.
posted
The confederation form of government, if that's what you mean, is a bunch of nations keeping their full sovereignty while somehow still oweing alleigance to the whole. That form of government, by history, has been tested, tried, and found wanting. Yah gotta either put 'em together, or keep 'em apart; there is no use trying to fool one's self, or for that matter, any one else.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about your idea Soc.. How would the 'cabinet' members keep the 'president' in check?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Figureheads are bad. Generally speaking, I mean. Useless. A Hegemon should have power to do good.
Posts: 497 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
I'm not sure that Palpatine counts, since he isn't real, but I get your point. Wouldn't it be possible to restrict his powers, limit them in such a way that he couldn't do anything but contibute to the moral, intellectual, and physical developement of the World? Maybe I'm just an optimist, but it seems like there must be a way to ensure good leadership.
posted
There are no roses without thorns. Does a rose look less beautiful or smell less sweet because thorns surround it here and there?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very poetic. The "cabinet" members could find problems with orders and send them back for revision?
Posts: 41 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The boss is whoever has the last word, all else is ceremony. You mean just like the U.S. presidents cabinet?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are figure heads bad? It gives the public someone to look to and doesn't give one person all the power. I don't see what's so horrible about my plan. I also don't see what's different about your plan and mine? Can anyone explain exactly how this governement is set up? Like what the Hegemon does and what kind of power he and his administartion, or Hegemony, has? Because i don't seem to see much of a difference from what i said and what your talking about.
-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.
posted
From what you people are saying, no governement will ever work. That every government will eventually end up as a dictatorship. Well, since many seem to no be, i don't know why this Hegemon position is so much more vulnerable to all these Hitler's out there. No system will be perfect, but it's not our fault we're human. As we've seen with many governments, with enough checks you can have a pretty decent and fair system. There will always be corruption and other human problems. But having a world government would, in the end, have more pros than cons i believe. I don't see why we couldn't just use the analogy of the states of the US as the nations and the President and all the other federal branches as the Hegemony. Sorry to use the US so much, but since that's where i live that's the one i know most about. I'm sure it would be modled after many other governments and work just as well. But with that analogy, the nations would still be able to control their own affairs and keep their cultural diversity.
posted
I think that makes a lot of sense, using the US as a foundation to build on. Of course, some things would have to be altered. We would have a world senate, and the cabinet members would need to be from a variety of different countries. It may help to give those positions mainly to smaller countries that are having problems and would be willing to try a change for the better, without such a big risk of dictatorships. We could let other countries mainly rule themselves, like the states, but make sure that they follow a basic constitution, a set of guidlines to make sure everyone is happy, except for those who can't be happy unless they have total control of everything, and they would never be satisfied, even if they did, because they need the constant growth. Posts: 41 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vyres: Nobody's trying to argue with you here. We are all here be we think there CAN be a world democracy. I don't really know what everybody means by figure heads, but in a democracy, the people must know exacly who their real leader is.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world's problems cant be solved by man made governments. You just have to be a fan of journalism and publishing to see that. Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world's problems cant be solved by man made governments. You just have to be a fan of journalism and publishing to see that. Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world's problems cant be solved by man made governments. You just have to be a fan of journalism and publishing to see that. Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world's problems cant be solved by man made governments. You just have to be a fan of journalism and publishing to see that. Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good idea. Let me bring up something again, just because nobody responded-except for a misunderstanding. Why do you think that OSC never does the things that he writes about? Also, if we were to have a world leader, or a group of leaders, who should they be, and why would you put them in that possition. Let's get some respectful input here.
Posts: 41 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why doesn't OSC do the things he writes about? This isn't the topic in this thread, but let me respond anyhow.
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?
posted
You want your Hegemony? You want your world leader uniting all peoples I am that person. I am the one person you can put all your faith in and not have it betrayed, I’m the hand that will always be there to give your life direction, I am the firm ground which you can always tread without fear of danger. What makes me so perfect? I am who you are. You are who I am. The beautiful future you dream for is not mine to give, It is however, yours to work for. I can not betray you because you are only betraying yourself; I will not betray you because that would be the foolish act of betraying myself. Humanity needs leaders, and that can not be me, nor can it be you, but it can be us.
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).]
posted
I seem to remember a little thing called the second amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, i.e. create a militia, which can stand against the government should it become corrupt. I think this was a unique feature to the US constitution that was present nowhere else. it meant that the founding fathers had such faith in their democracy, that this was a necessary and truly important feature of the document. without it, it makes for a much more totalitarian regime. what you seem to be talking about making it hard for a rebellion, actually goes against the constitution, and thus, America could never be part of such a world government. It would be unconstitutional.
posted
Bootninja, the constitution would be ammended or abolished if the U.S. were to join a world government because the constitution also outlines how government is run etc. and of course that contradicts the world government idea. This would of course technically require that congress pass a resolution, which is then ratified by the states..........
Posts: 16 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
The big problem is the belligerents would continue to have guns. If this were a world gov't, then a corrupt world gov't would try to keep guns for itself but deprive the people of them.
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.
posted
if you outlaw guns, then the only people who have them are the outlaws... this has proved true time and again. thus, that is no solution at all.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"...Well in Nazi Germany guns becamed outlawed and then no one had guns but the government..."
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
