posted
Im 17, but if you want to think of me as some sort of alien think of this: unknown/unknown/area 51
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I hope I won't be jumped on for entering this discussion a wee bit late. I'm new here and this topic looks like one worth discussing, so here goes.
I believe that the world is not in need of a Locke. I believe that the world is in need of many Lockes. One Locke cannot represent and govern all of humankind. We are all different in our views, our goals, and our desires. One person cannot satisfy all of those, becuase he cannot be familiar with or even comprehend all of them.
While I am in favor of world government to a certain extent, I am not in favor of one leader. The idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely isn't even the half of it. Even if a leader remained uncorrupted in the face of such power, he would not have the time, knowledge, or understanding to govern this diverse planet.
A leader with power, even a good one, acts mainly on his own beliefs. While this is well and good in small governments where all the people have a say, it would be destructive in a large one. Power must be balanced so that all types and groups of people will be represented, heard.
I am only 14, and I know very little about government and strategy. But I would suggest a worldwide council, with one or more members representing every group/area of people, the number of members depending on the population size of the group. This would probably result in about a thousand members, which could hold a monthly council with voting.
Separate governments could continue on, but all would be subject to the decisions of the council. If they chose to disobey, and/or disrupt peace, the council would have the power to declare sanctions, etc. on the country.
Eh. That's just an idea I made up on the spot. I have no idea if it would work, but it's nice to at least think about/discuss the issue. Feel free to kill it/flame it down, if you like. I'm no Ender Wiggin. ^^
[This message has been edited by Ari (edited August 20, 2002).]
posted
I too said earlier that the world is not in need of a Locke and we dont really have a need to be united under one person yet. As politics are concerned, just as in Shadow Puppets, people tend to be loyal to two things: their own country or their own self. People wouldn't trust him from the begining and he probably wouldnt trust a lot of people himself.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun: I'm not even diagreeing with you here bud. i love federal systems, hell i live in one and i like it just fine. i think they're about as good as a government can get. i think confederations are sloppy and inefficent. No argument. i'm just saying i've never seen a good, lasting federation come from anything but a confederation because they garner trust. it's true America got good after it federalized more, but it wouldn't have done that if it wasn't a confederation first. Some delegates almost walked out of the constituional convention becasue they thought the government was too federalized. we're not diagreeing on final destination, just the route to get there.
Human: I'd love to answer your questions but I don't want to waste space on the board (and i'm tired ). Gimme an email address and id be happy to mail you what i think about the issue(s)if you'd like to hear it. anyone else is free to a copy if you care enough to want one
Speaker: You don't think the world could be united eh? you might be right. But I don't think things are as immovable as you think. in 1941, if you had theorized about the EU being around in 50 years they would have laughed at you and told you if you really felt that way you had better brush up on your German and goosestepping. if you said to some English lord in 1900 that his empire would collapse in 50 years and that Americans would bail them out of a war they were losing to germany he would laugh at you too. if you told some american in 1850 that their isolationist country would in 100 years be one of the largest donors of foreign aid in history and leading member of an international peace org. they would have looked at you in disbelief. my point is that things change and opportunities present themselves. you need only grasp them.
by the way, I'm 17 just to answer your question. i just happen to discuss theoretical geopolitics when im awake in 100 degree heat at night. there's nothing better to do i suppose
[This message has been edited by Cavalier (edited August 21, 2002).]
Cavelier. I don't think there is a space limit or something on this board, so why would it waste space? Then everyone can see, and make their opinion on it, if they have one. If you don't want to write it on this board, you can email it to humaniblueATeurope.com. AT=@
posted
It is true, all Cavelier said about how opinions change over time. A few people (.. well us) are thinking of this, maybe other people too. The UN etc don't have much power, but they exist, so people were thinkin it might be important to have something like that.
Also probably now you would say the EU is a confederation? But it is becoming more federal, although lots of people don't like that, especially in the UK. It is mostly older people who don't like it, and younger people who are more pro-EU. So it will probably increase, as a different generation will come into power. I think the more people travel to other countries, the more will agree...
posted
OK, fine. Let's assume cavalier is correct; the best way to start a federation is with a confederation. I'll suggest an arbitrary duration of this transitional government:10 years. So from the very start it could be assumed by everyone that federation was the final government form. Ari: I agree that the (ongoing) creation of the world government will require a number of great people, leaders and followers alike. Indeed, great followers are leaders in their own rite. But there must be a single leader in the finshed basic government. Why? I have already pointed this out. First, if an emergency ever does occur, there must be someone to silence the squabling voices, to unify under one flag, to concentrate the forces, to lead. Further, If one is not elected, one will arise un-elected, and that one could quite easily not be a moral person. Trust an old old man (18y ) : that is the way of things.
[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 21, 2002).]
posted
Not necessarily. There is a better way to silence squabbling voices - a vote. Then, at least, the majority rules, rather than the one who has the power to make a decision. A thousand minds - or the majority of a thousand minds - is far better than one mind.
How can you be so sure a leader will arise unelected? In a vote, everyone has equal power. And let me remind you, if one does arise, an election would not have mattered anyway. Both leaders would use the same tactics to get what they want - charisma, intelligence, debate skills, and public-speaking skills - therefore winning people over in their favor. Or they could use threats, but again: it would not matter, because someone could easily use threats to get themself elected.
I'm probably wrong, of course, but nothing so far in your argument has quite convinced me that you're right...
posted
In the case of an emergency, when a decision is needed in a matter of hours, there is not enough time to assemble that many people to hold a vote. There has to be someone who can make decisions in a moment, and be held responsible for those decisions. Later, when there is time for the vote, you can vote whether or not to continue the policy that the leader instituted in the course of the crisis, or to institute a new policy.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kind of things count as an emergency? You mean stuff like real live buggers trying to take over the earth. Or like floods in Europe and Asia like we have now. or drought in Africa.
Also does anyone have opinions about what to do when more than one country claims the same land. Or it claims independence when another country claims it. like the example i put before.
posted
all those things could be classified as emergencies. I was merely referring to anything that requires immediate action of some sort.
Posts: 557 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know for votes, how long would it take? Do all the politicians have to read up on the issues before they can vote. or someone just says be at the parliament in 1 hour, we're having a vote now, or vote over their wireless handheld computers from wherever they are at the time?
Posts: 64 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about this? Councilmen would only vote on human rights and environmental stuff, that sort of thing. Stuff that is mostly not emergencies, or at least ones where there isn't time enough to vote. In the case of war, there's usually a formal decision....Hum. I don't know.
Oh, and I was assuming that these council people were all politicians. The issues voted upon would most likely be well known, so that very little reading would be required. And I mean, what are politicians supposed to do? Know these issues. It's part of their jobs.
posted
I don't understand what you meant in your last post with any kind of clarity, Ari, please elaborate. The government theory, Ari, that we've been drilling at for these eight pages is one entirely hinged on a single leader, at least in my personal opinion. While I understand that my personal opinion is not really that important in the grand scheme of things, this thread (contrary to popular belief) has had a direction we have been hammering things down in writing, resolving issue after issue, and we have come to some sort of agreement/compromise on nearly every one. Did you read the whole thread? Of course you have every right to comment without doing so, but if you do have some sort of system worked out that is based on NOT having a leader, then I, for one, would really like to hear it. Given a non-confederation (as I believe we've agreed upon for the finished product), aka a country that contains only one soveriegn state(itself), with only one soveriegn government, I have never heard of any system in history based on not having a leader. One comes to mind that I think came close, and look what happened to Julius Caesar. If you could please provide a governing system for this radical new idea, that'd be great; I'm all for radical new ideas. You should, however, recognize that is a NEW idea, untested and untried by storms of time.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um...Sun....any world government would be untested by the sands of time. My point was not necessarily to think of the perfect government, but to illustrate that a large one with one leader pretty much would not work. People have evolved inside areas with different cultures and different ideas about life. One leader could not possibly see, know, hear, learn, or understand all of these ideas, whereas a council would be able to.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the world government was based on principles already esablished and put into effect in different times and places, it wouldn't really be new after all, would it?
I don't really think that you have illustrated that one leader wouldn't work. You said: "People have evolved inside areas with different cultures and different ideas about life. One leader could not possibly see, know, hear, learn, or understand all of these ideas, whereas a council would be able to." Welllll.... I'm an idealist; not a member of any particular xenophobic religion, or anything, but I think there is only one right. One truth. And yeah, that is definitely what we should look for in our real leader(s), not the ability to represent us and see our point of view; that's what the forever sqaubling, quibling house of representatives is for. Incidently, I'm also a mathmatician; consider the following: The probability of getting one leader who has a good understanding of righteousness and truth should, with fair elections, be precisely equal to the probability of getting one functional member of the human race that has a good understanding of such. The probability of getting a whole counsel of say, 100, thus enlightened would the be the former fractional chance to the 100th power-if you understand math, that's going to be a whole lot smaller.
posted
The president doesn't have to know everything anyway. The world government doesn't have power over everthing I think. Just think which should be decided on a world level. The president doesn't have to now wbout what should be taught in schools in each country, I think? Or where to put a new road when some are crowded, or where to paint the lines.
The world government is to ensure peace, trade, human rights, freedom, saftey, environment..hmmm.. stuff like that, I think. We should decide exactly what the world government has power over. So far we decided on emergency stuff like famine, drought, floods, wars (prevention), and stuff like trade, police (for internation crime, inlcuding terrorism), currency, world court of justice. What else? I think they should ensure human rights to everyone, and food etc. Also to protect the environment. Maybe they should have a research budget for more efficent fuels, and less pollution? How much laws should be at world level? e.g. murder, rape? or just assume every country will make those illegal? I think
posted
Sounds like you got most of it there. What you said first+'High Crimes'. As far as assuming goes, though, we probably shouldn't assume to much, about the important stuff anyway. Excellent subtopic, ideas anybody?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
phew. ok, my turn. i just spent the last three hours reading this thread from begining to end.(well, i kinda skimed the last couple pages but i got the basics) why oh why didn't i read it when it first showed up, i will never know. anyway, i think i may have a few solutions and opinion that could be noted, first of all, about the countries that wouldn't want to join, i agree that it would be immoral (and totally against everything that we are trying to accomplish here) to force them to join, so the solution: leave them alone and independant, and make our world government so good that it would be stupid not to join. when all of that countries neighbors are at peace as a part of the world gov't, they will come to thier senses and join freely, after all, this will definately not happen over night and this method will likely be the begining of the process anyway. and hero's blood, if you're still checking in on this thread, i just want to say that i respect and agree with your view of the way the world should be and your statements (the rhetorical ones, not all the technical stuff) truly went to my heart. but, i fear that your view of a peaceful "utopian" world can not possibly come about any time in the near future, at least, not until all humans are the same color, speaking the same language with the same accent, and at the same economic level, which, judging by darwin, is likely to come about someday perhaps in a few thousand years.(just the first numarical value to come to my head, with improvements in transportation, it may well come about sooner)
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Humani, that is not what I meant by "high crimes", but you're right, of course, there would have to be something on the federal level to deal with corrupt but powerful politicians. High Crimes: 1st degree Murder, Rape(1st degree sexual assault?), anything else with malicious intent causing permanent irrevocable damage/trouble to human being(s). Perhaps there should be federal laws against lesser crimes as well, but I assume that this is not of the utmost importance since such laws are extremely likely to develop at the State level. With the high crimes though, I suggest taking no chances.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if this has already been discussed. But, how would you go about electing a world leader. ON paper, you can say, "That's simple. Show the candidates, then have the people vote." BUt, how are the candidates chosen? Equal number from each country? Or, more candidates for more populated areas? Or, will it be a free for all. "Come out, Come out! This Saturday, apply your submission to be a candidate for world power!" Maybe, we should pick someone already in politics. But, would we want to bring a memeber of the old power into the New World? Should it be opened then, to those with knowledge of the world and governments, or can a mathematician name suntranafs run, too? I know I'm going to sound like a recorder. But, I happen to agree that world cultures and beliefs would be a roadblock. A major one. Anthropologists say there will never be a world culture. Now, I know they don't have crystal balls, but maybe they know something we don't. Sure, you can say, "Wait a minute there, lil' Glass. There are alot of common links between the world now. The world is in fact a much smaller place now because of technologies like the internet and airplane, etc. And, also not ALL anthropologists would say there could never be a world culture." Well, no one would deny that the peoples of the world have some more in common now than they did. And, they may have more later than they do now. But, there are basic cultural beliefs, ways of life, states of mind, that are so ingrained into cultures that even if everyone had a tv a computer, and spoke English there'd still be differences. One only needs look at the US. People WANT to be different. That may sound wrong at first. Because, everyone wants to fit in. But, why, then do so many twenty and thirty year olds spend so much time not wanting to be their parents. Or, wanting to blaze their own path, go their own way. I'm not going to pretend to understand even one, one-millionth of the world, but I think these are issues that should be given heavy thought, and not passed over so quickly by saying "Aww, no biggie. We'll just show them the right way. They know it already, and if they don't, shame." There should be a midpoint between letting people leading their own lives, or peoples leading their own evolutions, and a preassuming (Is that even a word?) judgement. Don't jump on my back. I don't question the intentions of anyone in here. I'm positive that your ideas are what you believe, BELIEVE, are the best for the world. I just hope you take into consideration that there are more problems than just leadership. But, I will say one more thing. And, feel free to attack this all you want. I have to agrre with the person who said an elected commitee would help. You can have your Locke, but you should have a Senate of sorts that could watch him, and listen to the people. I know, I know, just one step closer to bureaucracy. BUt, there should always be safeguards in a free society. And, of course someone should be keeping an eye on the Senate, perhaps lower committees, and so on and so on. I'll let you guys hammer all that out. You all seem much more knowledgable about it than I.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
WANTED: President of the World. >No experience neccessary, but formal/informal education prefered >Courageous as hell >Exceptionally good human being, with definite intention to Unite and Perfect the government and the world. > inborn or developed charisma(quality must be obtained prior to running for office). > None of the above should be actual legal requirements, since such things can be distorted; just hopefull guidelines.
There's mine lemmee see yours Glass: As soon as the world is united, if they have not already, political parties will develop to elect a prez. and legislature like a bat out of heck.
[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited August 31, 2002).]
posted
Yes, the world has many different cultures. But the world government should try not to make laws which are too culture specific. Culture does affect laws such as women rights, gay rights and such stuff, and probably drug laws too. What other laws would be affected by this? Do you think there can be laws on this at world level? To respect everyone's rights? I don't think the world government would ever consider making laws on things like if we eat with chopsticks or knife and fork or such stuff, though, or what clothes to wear, on which events to celebrate or how. As you say the laws in USA or UK are the same for everyone, and yet people have many different cultures still. Probably the biggest 'problem' of culture differences and the law are going to be minority/womens rights and drug laws, do you think anything else? Do you think things like the death penalty are culture? Maybe it doesn't matter so much whether or not it is culture. Any laws to be passed, would have to be voted for by a majority in each of the 3 houses, whether or not they are to do with culture. That would probably mean there can't be any really stupid laws?
I also think anyone should be allowed to stand for president, or as a member of a political party.
posted
Yea, hopefully with three different legislative houses from all over the world, there would be few stupid laws. I would have to say that the death penalty is definitely out, as well as anything restricting equal-unalienable rights. In general, we should have as few laws as possible; simpilcity is divine, complexity oppresive.
[This message has been edited by suntranafs (edited September 03, 2002).]
posted
I'll tell you what: Suntra, if you can bring peace to the seemingly endless violence in the middle-east, i will follow you to the end of the world. Thats what i am looking for in a "hegemon." A hegemon brings unity and that seems to be an area where harmony is unheard of. In other words, you will be a hegemon if not by title then by deed if you bring peace to the middle-east
Posts: 3 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An excellent challenge. An excellent test. Perhaps a suitable prerequisite to the world presidential seat.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When the need arises, there will step forward a leader capable of Hegemony.
Politically, we are not ready.
The Democratic Republic model spreads like a virus and may someday be the reigning governmental outline. But not yet. The UN is a large step in the correct direction.
Economically, we are not ready.
Have and have not must be measured on a global scale. The Euro is a large step. A planetary stock exchange would be another.
Genetically, we are not ready.
In the world we discuss, the need for leaders was present, and genetics rose to the challenge. We do not yet have the base desire for unity such that we breed it into the next generation.
Politically, we are not ready? Then what do we do to fix that? How do we bring them all together?
Economically, somebody's gonna be poor, somewhere. Have and have not are mutual products of each other. But the ratio can be tipped: if we unify, we can work together, diversify, spread the wealth.
genetically, we're not ready? And what, some aryan super race is needed to rule us? There's a need for leaders; always has been. There are leaders, Alexanders, Ceasars, Wiggins, Arthurs. there are more today than ever before. Have faith, decoy, Messiahs are all around you. You have to know where to look. You have to know what you're looking for.
There will always be have and have nots, this much is understood from the age of speech. What I see as a necessity is a single scale on which to measure them all. An American who feels like a have not surely has more than most haves elsewhere in the world. I advocate a single, meshed economy.
This will present a stage by which a single leader could step forward and rule with a better understanding of the needs of the populace.
Currently, our species does not have the drive to excel that would be required of a Hegemon. Genetics is a science of responses and environment. Look at how the average civilized male has been forced to quell the genes for physical aggression and dominance. Were you to push from a leader to arise from our existing crop of leader-capable people, you would likely end up with someone educated in a very corporate or legal manner.
A super race is a not something I would encourage. Such homogeneity is frequently disatrous for a genetic pool.
I shall restate my initial assertion.
As a species, homo sapiens thrives on rising to a challenge. In order for someone capable of leading the world to arise, the possibility for world domination must exist, alongside a communal desire for such a leader. Then, the next generation could be reared in such a fashion as to foster and develop said Hegemon.
The concept of a single world leader is entirely possible, but is not feasible in this generation.
[This message has been edited by decoy (edited September 09, 2002).]
posted
I've said it before, I'll say it again. You never know for sure until you try. And Why Not Try?
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Take account of the leaders in our written history who have attempted such a feat. How many of them are hailed as brilliant, how many of them are reviled as monsters, and how many would you wish upon the world today?
Focusing on the original intent of the thread, yes, Hegemony is an eventual possibility. As suggested elsewhere, if you firmly believe in something then literally plant the seeds of such an idea in the next generation.
By our presence on this board, I assume we can all agree that children and young adults are capable of amazing feats and are possessed of phenomenal problem solving skills. Does it not behoove us to rear our children in such a manner?
posted
You keep bringing up that we're not 'genetically' ready. Origionally I was willing to pass this off as you grasping for straws for a third reason why we're not ready, but you really sem to beleive it.
Decoy, origionally I was willing to pass your statement that we aren't "genetically" ready as your simply grasping at straws to finish your post. I didn't blame you for it, I tried to overlook it.
But now, you're defending your statement.
I'm appalled, decoy. Not 'genetically' ready?? And what must we do to become 'genetically' ready for a Hegemon? Who needs to go? The blacks? The Jews? The homosexuals? I pray that your statement was made out of ignorance and that your defense of it was out of stubborness. If you truly beleive in the idea of 'genetic purity', than I am truly afraid for the world. We can't allow 'National Socialism' to get to where it was before, the idea of a NaZi american frightens me, myself being a Jew. I hope, for all our sakes that Decoy is a minority group, and that his sentiments do not reflect on american youth in general.
posted
I read the beginnig of this discussion which began several months ago and I have read all the postings from the last month. In all this time that you have been discussing what the ultimate form of world government would be have any of you proposed an idea as to how you would implement your government?
Posts: 5 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No matter what we say, Garry, somebody like you is always saying that. It all comes back to 'how',not 'what', eh? Frankly I don't think there's much point in considering how until one has defined what. Geez, Abyss, that's about as confrontational a post as I've ever seen you make. Now I'm not neccessarily agreeing with Decoy, but he may have had a valid point. And if he did, then you've totally missed it. Fact: genetic enhancements are currently the undisputed future, and that future is almost here. That is not racist, nor does it have any definite immoral/destructive implications. Where there is power, it can always be used for a bad cause, of course, but I don't know that the genetic design of a world leader is a bad idea. Dangerous, I know, but after all, that is what happened with the Wiggins
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
