Your Views on a world Government

[narf poit chez BOOM]

I have the perfect caption for any human-conceived world government, of ANY kind.

"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."

[Alneyan]

Starhawk said:
As far as China, Russia, France, they all have one thing in common at the moment (well a few) but the biggie is that all three have comunist power hungry leadership Groups that are interested in making the world's Last superpower (AKA US) and anyone who supports it look bad to the 3rd world nations

I don't know if that was your purpose, but the "France, at the moment, have communist power hungry leadership Groups" made me laugh quite well. I will only address this single point for lack of time: the communist party in France is... how shall we say? virtually dead (it had about 5% of the popular vote in the Last presidential elections, while it had as much as 20% votes in 1981 if memory serves.). The even more to the left, extreme left-wing parties, had a bigger share of the votes, but extreme votes should not be considered as simply being a vote for that party. one of these parties had an untypical candidate, 27-year-old, employed in the postal service, which helped give them their 7 or 8% share of the votes. Does it mean these people converted to the ideals of Trotsky? Not quite.

The closest France came to be under communist control was shortly after WW2, as a plot would have been likely in 1947 or 1949 (it is only one of these two, but I cannot remember the actual one. I will check once I get back from school). But that plot failed, and even if it succeeded, would have had a very tough time keeping power; they had little backing from the army, and the USSR would have had trouble sending help as far as France (there was Western Germany in the way). What you may argue is that marxist ideals are still present in the ways trade unions operate, but above all, in social representations. That would be, however, a different topic, and I should stop digressing.

Lastly, you might wish to know the biggest opponents to the United States (Charles de Gaulle, between 1958 and 1969, did pretty well) were often from the right-wing (as is our current government), and had nothing to do with the communisty party. And I would be very surprised if the words of France had that much impact, especially coming from an ancient colonial power that was reluctant, to say the least, to give up its Empire. I cannot speak of Russia and China, but I would feel the same about their foreign policy; when you are the leading power, it would be very odd if you didn't sprung the biggest amount of criticism from virtually everyone else.

[Starhawk]

Alneyan said:

I don't know if that was your purpose, but the "France, at the moment, have communist power hungry leadership Groups" made me laugh quite well. I will only address this single point for lack of time: the communist party in France is... how shall we say? virtually dead (it had about 5% of the popular vote in the Last presidential elections, while it had as much as 20% votes in 1981 if memory serves.). The even more to the left, extreme left-wing parties, had a bigger share of the votes, but extreme votes should not be considered as simply being a vote for that party. one of these parties had an untypical candidate, 27-year-old, employed in the postal service, which helped give them their 7 or 8% share of the votes. Does it mean these people converted to the ideals of Trotsky? Not quite.

The closest France came to be under communist control was shortly after WW2, as a plot would have been likely in 1947 or 1949 (it is only one of these two, but I cannot remember the actual one. I will check once I get back from school). But that plot failed, and even if it succeeded, would have had a very tough time keeping power; they had little backing from the army, and the USSR would have had trouble sending help as far as France (there was Western Germany in the way). What you may argue is that marxist ideals are still present in the ways trade unions operate, but above all, in social representations. That would be, however, a different topic, and I should stop digressing.

Lastly, you might wish to know the biggest opponents to the United States (Charles de Gaulle, between 1958 and 1969, did pretty well) were often from the right-wing (as is our current government), and had nothing to do with the communisty party. And I would be very surprised if the words of France had that much impact, especially coming from an ancient colonial power that was reluctant, to say the least, to give up its Empire. I cannot speak of Russia and China, but I would feel the same about their foreign policy; when you are the leading power, it would be very odd if you didn't sprung the biggest amount of criticism from virtually everyone else.

Actually yes it was intended to make you laugh I guess I should have made that more clear eh? I have a warped sense of humor and sometimes forget that internet=not being able to carry over the "tone" of what I'm saying lol.

Though I did get a kick out of the rumor that France accidentally voted in a communist,it was almost as good as the
"Why does Michael Jackson like twenty eight year olds? Because there are twenty of them" joke.

But anyway back on to a serious topic China and Russia both have strong communist leaders (Though Puttin claims to be an ex KGB (ex-communist) he runs his government's foreign policy like the old Soviet Block.) China is less openly hostile to foreign policy but they are still rather "guarded" in their contacts.

[Randallw]

TerranC said:
I thought you meant to say serve the individual not the race, since you said before that you wanted to remove ethnic diversity, therefore eliminate the idea of race.

sorry for the confusion, I should have said Human race. All people should work together to care for the Human race as a whole, rather than advancing themselves at the expense of others.
It is a problem how to remove different opposing Groups. I don't want to resort to force and I can't see any other way except educating people to agree with others. The idea is not that low life people are as good as others but that no one is better than anyone else. For the drug addict, he must be rehabilitated and educated to understand his responsibilities, then made into a useful member of society. We merely have to determine how much money is necessary for a person to live comfortably and then each citizen has that much. They don't need to live extravagantly, just have the considered necessities. There are no rich or poor, merely world citizens of equal standing. People can still strive to excel, it will give them something to do and not make them feel guilty taking advanatge of the system, but they shouldn't be considered better than everyone else because of it just admired for their dedication. The Drug addict has a problem and he must be helped.
Let me finish with an example of what I consider refusal to accept what is best. The official goes to the farmer to explain that the government will relocate him and flood his farm.

Farmer: "my family have lived on this farm for 4 generations and I aint moving"
Official: "but sir, its just land. You will be relocated to another farm of equal value. If we flood this area we can irrigate more land and feed a million people".
Stubborn Farmer: "I don't care about 1 million people I aint moving"

I agree it would be difficult to convince everyone to think the same way so that the leadership can carry out what is necessary. Unfortunately every time I see anarchists throwing bottles at police I lose my belief that people can accept order. If an alien landed and said that in return for my dying he would ensure humanity was orderly and lawful I wouldn't think twice before agreeing.
Is my idea really that stupid?. I have heard worse, such as the preposterous idea that a human being is considered of less worth merely because of the colour of their skin. I am not calling for tyranny or anything I just want what I consider best for everyone. Perhaps I'm just misguided to believe that everyone else would agree. Starhawk, if your example is the truth, and I sadly think it might be, than my idea and humanity is doomed.

excuse me but I have to go take my medication. Just thinking about the problem is getting me depressed.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

'And the second is like unto it, to love thy neighboor as thyself.'

[Fyron]

Starhawk said:
But anyway back on to a serious topic China and Russia both have strong communist leaders (Though Puttin claims to be an ex KGB (ex-communist) he runs his government's foreign policy like the old Soviet Block.) China is less openly hostile to foreign policy but they are still rather "guarded" in their contacts.

I was not aware that xenophobia and/or protection of your national interests equalled Communism.

China never reached a "Communist" state. Ever since Kissinger successfully opened their borders to trade with the US back in the 60s, they have moved more and more away from the Soviet form of "Communism" (which is in quotes because it was never actually Communism) to "merely" a military dictatorship.

[Nodachi]

I think it needs to be pointed out that there has never been (and probably never will be) a truly communist nation. What we refer to as "communism" is really socialism.

As someone pointed out earlier, all people being of equal value is a fallacy propagated by governments in order to maintain control over the population. All people are not of equal "value" but... should have equal rights and opportunities (value is a rotten word for this but it's the best I can think of). Government's purpose is to enforce laws and protect the populance from external threats not to babysit our children, not to tell us where we can and can not go, not to tell us what to believe in, and not to give handouts to those who are unwilling to help themselves (help those who can't, sure, help those who won't, hell no!)

The Star Trek vision of future Earth society is BS. It makes us feel good to think that we are working towards that kind of world but I don't see it ever coming to pass. Human nature is to want more than what we have. The trick is to maintain a society(note I did not say government) that allows for this.

[Starhawk]

We merely have to determine how much money is necessary for a person to live comfortably and then each citizen has that much. They don't need to live extravagantly, just have the considered necessities. There are no rich or poor, merely world citizens of equal standing. People can still strive to excel, it will give them something to do and not make them feel guilty taking advanatge of the system, but they shouldn't be considered better than everyone else because of it just admired for their dedication. The Drug addict has a problem and he must be helped.

Ah but the problem with this is that it creates a welfare state wherin I don't NEED to work to live, much like the way the Soviet Union provided a "basic living stipend" I believe it was called, every citizen got x-ammount of money whether they worked or not and look at how that went, a large ammount of people only worked when they were practically shoved in at gunpoint.
And can you really blame them? Humans by nature will not work for what we can get for free, if I can be paid the same as say a doctor for hangin out with my friends and family then why should I bother striving to be a doctor?

I understand your intentions are good but a welfare state where "everyone is paid equally" would not work very well, especially because some jobs are a HECK of a lot more stressful or dangerious then others and should be paid more money as appropriate to their risks and stress.

Now one thing I do agree with you on is the idea that humans needed to be trained to think about humanity and not just their own interests.
I mean let's face it do you know how many starving homeless people could be fed on the sallery of a single NFL player for just one year? a LOT yet instead we waste millions of dollars on unproductive, whiney, generally punk jerkass professional athletes that B and M when they don't get that extra ten million dollars when the average person would just like enough money to be able to take their family on vacation without going into debt.

[Nodachi]

Now one thing I do agree with you on is the idea that humans needed to be trained to think about humanity and not just their own interests.
I mean let's face it do you know how many starving homeless people could be fed on the sallery of a single NFL player for just one year? a LOT yet instead we waste millions of dollars on unproductive, whiney, generally punk jerkass professional athletes that B and M when they don't get that extra ten million dollars when the average person would just like enough money to be able to take their family on vacation without going into debt.

That is the free market at work. As long as people are willing to buy tickets and/or watch on TV the players will continue to ask for more.

[Jack Simth]

spoon said:
I don't know? What do we do now if the Dread Governor of Arkansas decides to do something evil?

There's a reason I used "government" rather than "ruler", "leader", "president" et cetera. The US president can be removed without assasination precisely because he is a portion of the government, rather than the government itself. Sure, he is capable of doing a lot of evil stuff - nuking half the planet, for instance - without consent of the rest of the government; even if he had the full support of the entire US government, the average joe could still in practice run away from laws that were truely evil (such as mandatory lobotomies for everyone (except those closely related to a government official) with an IQ over 90) as the US does not hold sway over the whole planet.

spoon said:
A world government can still have checks and balances.

Sure; of course, checks and balances occasionally break down. Take, for example (a fairly extereme one), Hitler's rise to power. Post WWI Germany was handed a constitution as part of the WWI cleanup (I'm simplifying a lot here). They got an elected body with specific, limited powers, modeled after the British and US system. Their constitution gaurunteed certain rights, which could only be supressed in an emergency by at least a two-thirds majority vote of the elected body with at least two-thirds of that body present. The body was a party-election setup, similar to the British system; that is, the party with X% of the popular vote got X% of the seats.
Then Hitler came along. He was popular; he managed to get something like 45% of the popular vote for his party. Then, one day, it came about that all of his people were present, and enough of the other representatives were gone that there were just barely enough there to qualify for an emergency rights supression vote. Interestingly enough, two-thirds of two-thirds is four-ninths; which is 44%. The vote went along party lines and Hitler was handed the full reins of Germany, with full permission to do whatever he liked.

For a smaller example, take Washington State's (now named, wasn't so named at the time) SafeCo Field. Bills for funding it went to the voting public two or three times. Every time, it was turned down. Currently, you can buy a ticket and go see a game at SafeCo field, and know that the majority of the construction was funded by taxpayers, and the majority of the profits from the building go to private enterprise.

Tell me, do you really think that you (or anyone else) can come up with a worldwide system cohesive and strong enough to be safely called a world government that will (A) be long-term stable, (B) be "good" for virtually everyone (ignoring for the moment that virtually everyone has a different specific definition of "good"....), and (C) have checks and balances of such near-perfection that a particularly extraordinary person or group will never be able to come along and turn this ideal government around so that it now only cares about that particular person or group?