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.

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%

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.

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.

---

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?

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.

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.

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 :-)

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.

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

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."

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.

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."

---

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

---

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).]

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?

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?