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

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.

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.

"...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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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