one world goverment?

[Raptor 597]

BTW, good luck turning the US into the Heinleinian fascist pseudo-democracy, because you're going to have to rip up the Constitution (both Federal and State Constitutions) to do it.

They're both twisted too the mark, noawadays seems only soon America shall fall.
Long Live the Jihad!

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I don't think one world governent would ever work. If the government proposes something that doesn't work, everyone on Earth would have to suffer. I also don't think many people would support an idea. It sounds good on paper, but of course, many theories on paper would be impossible to do in real life.

[Jadeite]

Long live the Entafada!

Its spelled Intifada i think

[Azeron]

I think its pretty free. You don't have to be a citizen to enjoy civil rights. You just can't or hold office. Comparably more compassionate and nicer than what socrates or aristotle advocated, involuntary servitude to the state, as long as you choose to reside within its providence. Then it was compulsory. I think there is allot merit to that idea. But in the interests of economy, i aam willing to let citizenship be voluntary, completely detached from whether you reside within the state.

Now if you say that a state is good enough to reside in and avail yourself of its protections, but not good enough to defend, I think that you have entered a realmn of detachment from obligation to who exactly gives to who.

In his regard, according to greek philospohy the UCF, is quite progressive, perhaps overly progressive to uzerpers.

Just because you don't want to live in a society doesn't it isn't a good society. It probably is a good society since the group objecting is primnarily made out of communists and cheerleaders for dictatorships. We need less of these kinds of people particpating in elections, since elections are anethem to what they beleive.

And it would only take a single constitutional amendment restricting citizenship to former military personnel to make the changes needed.

[Iceberg]

Your assumption is flawed, Azeron.

Heinlein's government was based on the idea that the powers of the individual come from the government. This is completely opposed to the Western model of government, which requires that the powers of government derive SOLELY from the consent of those governed - ALL of those governed, not merely those which the government has indoctrinated with "correct" values.

[Steve]

I think its pretty free. You don't have to be a citizen to enjoy civil rights. You just can't or hold office. Comparably more compassionate and nicer than what socrates or aristotle advocated, involuntary servitude to the state, as long as you choose to reside within its providence. Then it was compulsory. I think there is allot merit to that idea. But in the interests of economy, i aam willing to let citizenship be voluntary, completely detached from whether you reside within the state.

Now if you say that a state is good enough to reside in and avail yourself of its protections, but not good enough to defend, I think that you have entered a realmn of detachment from obligation to who exactly gives to who.

In his regard, according to greek philospohy the UCF, is quite progressive, perhaps overly progressive to uzerpers.

Just because you don't want to live in a society doesn't it isn't a good society. It probably is a good society since the group objecting is primnarily made out of communists and cheerleaders for dictatorships. We need less of these kinds of people particpating in elections, since elections are anethem to what they beleive.

And it would only take a single constitutional amendment restricting citizenship to former military personnel to make the changes needed.

You don't get it. Heinlein's society is a fantasy. It's just as bad as the leftist dream society we call the Trek TNG-era UFP, just it's a right-wing masturbatory fantasy instead of a left-wing one. You will be unable to maintain rights for the non-citizens forever, you will have a domino effect with their rights being stripped away repeatedly as the government will have absolutely no reason to protect them; they're not voters and they "didn't do their civil duty".

The UCF is a direct contradiction to Western governmental ideals; it's simply asking to become a fascist state, even if it hasn't degraded that far yet. When you leave vast numbers of your population disenfranchised, and those who are enfranchised have been subjected to two years of military service and the re-making of the psyche that accompanies it, you are creating a recipe for tyranny. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. If you seriously think the UCF isn't going to fall prey to the human condition, you're just as delusional as the Trekkies who adore the UFP, or the naive socialists who think they can make a paradise out of Revolution and state-control.

Finally, yeah, I don't want to have to serve in peacetime to be able to vote, as voting is a Right of citizens of the United States, and my citizenship in this country guaranteed by my birth here and my parents' previous citizenship. Yes, I'm registered to vote. I'm also registered with the Selective Service Administration, meaning that in time of war and national emergency I can be called upon to serve in the military. Your "extra step" is positively ludicrous and overly authoritarian, and indeed an oversized military in peacetime is a bad thing, in terms of the economy and other factors.

Morally, I'm opposed to the UCF system with every fiber of my being. Practically, it's unneeded and unnecessary, and so prone to corruption that it's little different from other systems that have failed in the face of competition from the free world.

Finally, your remark about the suggested systems of Socrates and the like is really stupid. "Oh, but these systems are worse than mine, so you should like mine." That reasoning is dumb, pure and simple. Just because Stalin's USSR was worse than Brezhnev's USSR doesn't mean Brezhnev's USSR was a good government to live under.

And with that note, I must be going to bed.

[Azeron]

I wouldn't say that. As it was clearly stated in the film, the power of government flows through the capacity of the body politic to make itself manifest through violence. In this repect the body politic = government, which would be a greek model of democratic government (although a very progressive form), which was clearly shown in the film. The body politic, the people willing to kill and die then define membership into the politcal leadership cast on a non-discrimantory basis, in effect and equal opportunity employer. You don;t have to aggree with the status quo or whatever ethos has been established, but you still have to AFFIRMLY ELECT to become a citizen. (no one sticks a gun to your head) As you can see the second sky marshall in the movie was a big fat black chick who reminds me of joyclen elders. obviously there is plenty of room of political dissent.

To say the systems are entirely different in principle, I would not say thats the case. The US is not the far from the UCF idealogically. When you elect to become a citizen in the US after immigrating, yiou have to achknowlegde the authority of the state to order you to die and kill for the state. In the UCF that would not be the case, you would just bhe a civilian and just reside in the state. A very progressive policy indeed.

[Azeron]

well Steve, in the US you can be compelled into service, but in the UCF you cannot be compelled. Its a moral choice that every civilian has to make, to decide if thier personal values jive with the goals of the state.

YOu seem to suggest that the US is not capable of degenerating into a facist or more likely as seen in europe a socialist dictatorship. the US gov is quite corrupt. though not quite as corrupt as most nations in the world.

I think the UCF strength lies in the fact that people who affirmatively elect to defend the state with thier lives, are more prone to make choices that are for hte best of the state and the people thereof, than those that just think they can make a quick buck becasue a canidate says they will give them something. (welfare, etc) The civilians swear an oath to defend the UCF, and its charter, not to any person in particuloar. Thats a big point. the main reason Rome fell is because Roman soldiers swore allegience not to the state but to the generals. the UCF parrallels the US in this regard.

The UCF is practical, free market, democratic state. I don;t see why it couldn't function. As far as governments goes, the UCF is really better than most government on the planet today.

[weemadando]

Here's my plan:

senate: each current nation gets 2 Senators. Can run as many times as wishes; term 3yrs.

Representatives: for every 10 million people (at the most) 1 seat See above for info on terms and running.

Supreme Court: every continent gets to send 1 Judge to the Supreme Court.(with the exception of the continent with the highest pop. wich will send 2 in order to end the possibility of a tie. Antartica will be the only continent not to send any Judges, Senators etc. since there are no permament settlements.) Can only run once; term 10yrs.

President: elected by popular vote, in case of tie congress decides: restricted to one 5 year term; chooses running mate

Cabinet: see President

Major difficulties: language, cultural differences, what about the worlds monarchs? and Christian fundies

Too American, it will never be accepted.

In theory the idea is good, but like I said, you'll need to change some of the names and terms in order for it to be a generally accepted concept.

[weemadando]

My theory.

You divide the world according to socio-geographic boundaries, say, electorates of 10-20 million. From each of these one person is elected for a four year term. These electorates are mutable and will change as the population structure changes. Call this the "Lower House" for reference purposes.

Structure the rest of the world according to ethnic/geographical boundaries, be it along the lines of race, religion or otherwise. Try and make about 16 zones. Say 7 for continents, and another 9 or so for the social groups. From each of these 6 or 10 delegates are elected. Call this the "upper house" for reference.

Now, to the leader, inevitably political factions will emerge, and as such do you want to have the leader of this government being the leader of the faction with the majority in the lower house, do you want them to be directly elected, do you want them to be elected by the vote of the combined houses of parliament, or should it be that people who wish to apply come forward and are drawn by random ballot (a la HHGTTG)?

Each of those methods will have their detractors.

Allow Cabinet to be constructed in whatever method the leader chooses, though conflict of interest and seperation of powers should be STRONGLY considered. Also it should also be considered whether or not they are actually allowed to be members of parliament, or whether or not they should be exclusive members of parliament.

Anyhow, I'm about to be booted off this computer at work, so I'll edit in some more stuff later. Liek cyberdemocracy theories.

OK. Bye

[Steve]

How does the fact that a black woman replaced a white man as the UCF military commander prove that there is dissent? It proves nothing. Dietz fucked up and he got canned, it happens in democratic states, it happens in totalitarian states (the USSR).

You are simply delusional if you think that a society that reserves suffrage solely for those who undergo two years of military service, with all of the indoctrination that comes with it, will manage to maintain civil rights for the portion of the population that didn't serve. Unlike you, I have a healthy view of reality and humanity; the system you describe is even more prone to corruption than our's is. It's a pipe-dream. A stupid fantasy. If you think it'd work you need to get your head examined.

And, you also forgot that in the movie, you had to have served to get certain jobs, or to get through the red tape on having children (The government restricts that too, surprise surprise).

well Steve, in the US you can be compelled into service, but in the UCF you cannot be compelled. Its a moral choice that every civilian has to make, to decide if thier personal values jive with the goals of the state.

And in the US I can vote by virtue of being a citizen of 18 years of age or older. In the UCF I have to serve in the military to get that cherished right, and other rights. I'll take the possibility of being compelled into service during a national emergency, thank you very much.

If you don't get my point, I shouldn't have to have my values "jive with the goals of the state" to vote! I should be able to vote anyway, so that way the People can control the State as they are meant to. That is what a modern democracy is about. I don't give a shit about what the Greeks did, that's ancient history.

YOu seem to suggest that the US is not capable of degenerating into a facist or more likely as seen in europe a socialist dictatorship. the US gov is quite corrupt. though not quite as corrupt as most nations in the world.

On the contrary, I know this is a possibility. Which is why the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We should be vigilant to threats to our freedom (such as those the Bush administration of today seem to be leaning towards) and act against any threat that presents itself. Our unalienable Rights must be guarded jealously.

But we, at least, have that power. The people in your UCF are either disenfranchised because they did not serve, or have served and are thus enfranchised, and have had their hearts and minds and devotion to their principles compromised by two years of intense indoctrination by the State, in which the State has been able to turn them into being it's devoted maintainers instead off a free-minded electorate.

'Tis not a free nation, nor one with the ideals of a modern Western state. 'Tis a State of Tyranny, one that every freeman and freewoman should hate with all their hearts and minds, and work with every ounce of strength they possess to avoid.

I think the UCF strength lies in the fact that people who affirmatively elect to defend the state with thier lives, are more prone to make choices that are for hte best of the state and the people thereof, than those that just think they can make a quick buck becasue a canidate says they will give them something. (welfare, etc)

Exactly my problem with it. We should not have to vote in favor of what is best for the State, but for the People. And these things are not interchangeable! It is the very heart of democracy that the People vote their own conscious, what they think is right, not what the State has told them is right.

The civilians swear an oath to defend the UCF, and its charter, not to any person in particuloar. Thats a big point. the main reason Rome fell is because Roman soldiers swore allegience not to the state but to the generals. the UCF parrallels the US in this regard.

And the soldiers and officers of the Soviet Union swore an oath to the Soviet Constitution and the Communist Party, not to a single leader. The same for other totalitarian states that are not run by one man alone. Your point proves nothing.

And, to be perfectly honest, despite how much my American heart hates the idea of bowing to another person, I would prefer being a subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Britain to living in a US with your delusion in control. At least the United Kingdom and her monarchy acknowledge the rights of the People to a goodly extent and allow suffrage. And even then, I would rather stay here and fight against the "Citizens' Government" in the Democratic Resistance.

The UCF is practical, free market, democratic state.

It is as practical as the United Federation of Planets in the TNG era.

Whether it is free-market is irrelevant, that is merely a measure of economics, not of political freedom. Fascist states can be free-market.

It is a piss-poor pseudo-democracy. It violates all ideals of the modern Western democracy, that being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. By ensuring that only those indoctrinated by the State count on Election Day, the State has effectively nullified the Loyal Opposition, or reduced it to those handful strong-willed enough to go through two years of intense indoctrination, not get "washed out", and become citizens. It can do as it pleases. The UCF is a government of the State, by the State, for the State, and thus, as a freeman, I hate it with all of my heart and mind.

And, at the same time, as a rational man, I recognize that unlike what you and Heinlein would want to believe, the UCF is just as impossible a system as the UFP; the human condition would prevent it from becoming what you feel it is, and in the process a large number of people would either become subject to direct government indoctrination or disenfranchised, left without any guards or guarantees for their liberty.


Ask yourself. Assume the UCF's existance, say it inhabits a nice region of space. Now put it beside another human government, this one a full democratic republic in the style of the modern US, with full enfranchisement for citizens, the recognition of their unalienable Rights and thus guarantees to their freedom, and one that has the sufficient industry, technology, and economic base to confront the UCF and ensure that the UCF's over-sized army and navy can't be used to overrun it. Now, assume that at least at the beginning, there is free emigration from both states to the others. Care to tell me what's going to happen?

Don't worry, I'm already sure.

The UCF undergos internal hemmoraghing. Many of it's best and brightest minds not enfranchised leave for this other state, where their rights are guaranteed and they can vote. The Rico family and those like them would also likely emigrate. Now, you can stop this by halting emigration, but now you're causing internal stress in the system and limiting the rights of the people. That can go a long way toward bringing your system down, military or no military.

And, finally, don't even think about attacking your freer neighbors. That wouldn't be pretty. There can be no greater nor hotter a wrath than the wrath of a free people upon those who attack them and threaten them with destruction and oppression. Japan and Germany found that out the hard way.

[NecronLord]

The civilians swear an oath to defend the UCF, and its charter, not to any person in particuloar. Thats a big point. the main reason Rome fell is because Roman soldiers swore allegience not to the state but to the generals. the UCF parrallels the US in this regard.

Fool, The legionaries of rome did not swear to their generals
they swore allegience to;

Senatus Populesque Romanus
The Senate and People of Rome

they even had it stamped on their standards
SPQR

In short Azeron, Shut Up!

[Kelly Antilles]

One of my pet peeves is someone trying to shove their ideals down my throat.

I'm an American and I find huge flaws with our government. Why would anyone want a world government ran the same way? Majority rule is horrible, in my opinion. We're supposed to be a country where it is your inalianable right to free speech and to do what you wish, yet it doesn't happen that way.

A united government would be nice, but it would never come about in the next millenea. Why? Just look around you. Someone at this very moment is arguing with someone else. The chances that argument will end in one or the other's death is pretty high in this day and age. What about the "race" factor? Racism is a broad term and there are so many racists in this world.

My theory is that materialism has created the problems we have in the world. Crime is materialistic. Think about it. If you didn't need money for food or other things, the crime rate would be so much lower. People would have less stress related problems. This world is so materialistic.

One last comment: We have a semi-united government in the United Nations. There is a representative from every nation. However, we (as in all nations) don't listen to them all the time. It is a start towards a uniform government.

[Azeron]

Fool, The legionaries of rome did not swear to their generals
they swore allegience to;

Senatus Populesque Romanus
The Senate and People of Rome

they even had it stamped on their standards
SPQR

In short Azeron, Shut Up!

Neocron,

You are an uneducated idiot. The french foriegn legion has the flag of france on thier sidearm, yet they only swear allegience to the general, who in turn swears allegience to France. the argument is non sequitor or doesn't follow through.

They did not have tattoos back then, they branded symbols with a hot iron.

The Armies were fielded by rich aristocrats who would take in the booty from victories, not by the state (or until later in the empire)

In other words

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU SNAIL BRAINED HALFTWIT WHO ONLY KNOWS ROMAN HISTORY THROUGH THE MOVIES!!

[Spanky The Dolphin]

SEIG INGSOC!!

[NecronLord]

Fool, The legionaries of rome did not swear to their generals
they swore allegience to;

Senatus Populesque Romanus
The Senate and People of Rome

they even had it stamped on their standards
SPQR

In short Azeron, Shut Up!

Neocron,

You are an uneducated idiot. The french foriegn legion has the flag of france on thier sidearm, yet they only swear allegience to the general, who in turn swears allegience to France. the argument is non sequitor or doesn't follow through.

Strawman. this has nothing to do with rome

They did not have tattoos back then, they branded symbols with a hot iron.

Strawman, this is beside the point, but actually they did have tatoos, and this only happened in the later empire

The Armies were fielded by rich aristocrats who would take in the booty from victories, not by the state (or until later in the empire)

another strawman from your collection?

In other words

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU SNAIL BRAINED HALFTWIT WHO ONLY KNOWS ROMAN HISTORY THROUGH THE MOVIES!!

Ah a pile of strawmen and a flame, now I see why you are a VI.

[NecronLord]

Oh and at least I can copy six letter words, even if unfamiliar to me, wheras you seem unable to do so. so for your benefit it is written

NECRON

[Azeron]

I was going to reply to steve, but neocron's stupidity is incredible

strawman - Neocron

YOu fucking idiot!! first you insinuate that since thye had a tattoo that they must have sworn allegience to rome, then when I pointed out your jackass stupidity by pointing out it is possible to have an insignia and not swear allegience by pointing out france. (I don't even think they branded soliders for most of thier history).

You are an idiot of imence porportions!!! Shut your stupid mouth before you speak moron. You are way out of your league in roman history.

[Azeron]

Iwish mike had never used the word strawman. these idiots on the boards seem to hide behind thier idiotic asrguments misusing "strawman" at every turn. I think Mike should just filter it out

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Why? Because it's the only debating tactic you're able to use?

Dumb ass.

[Azeron]

Shutup you war monger. we aren;t going to invade any countries anytime soon just to uphold women's rights.

spanky stop obsessing over me, I don't like guys that way.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

As soon as you learn to shut the fuck up, dear.

[Tosho]

Now, to the leader, inevitably political factions will emerge, and as such do you want to have the leader of this government being the leader of the faction with the majority in the lower house, do you want them to be directly elected, do you want them to be elected by the vote of the combined houses of parliament, or should it be that people who wish to apply come forward and are drawn by random ballot (a la HHGTTG)?

Before I get to my post I'd like to say That I understand that this plan at the least will take centuries if not milleniums to implement, but as the old saying goes rome wasn't built in a day. Secondly my original idea for this subject was that we could point out flaws in the original design and try to fix them, in other words I'm actually glad to see flaws pointed out so that we can think of ways to fix them if possible. Finnally as for the reason the plan is so "American" is because I'm an American and logically know my system of goverment the best, not to mention The only way this plan is going to get off the ground is if the people of the world work to make a plan wich incorperates the best of each system.

Personly I beleive the best way is for the people to elect the leader, According to the logic that the people know better than their representitives who would be a competant leader for them. Why not become a democracy you ask? This thread might make people think I'm a idealist but at least I'm pessimistic enough to beleive a world-wide democracy would be unwieldy to say the least.

[Raptor 597]

Now, to the leader, inevitably political factions will emerge, and as such do you want to have the leader of this government being the leader of the faction with the majority in the lower house, do you want them to be directly elected, do you want them to be elected by the vote of the combined houses of parliament, or should it be that people who wish to apply come forward and are drawn by random ballot (a la HHGTTG)?

Before I get to my post I'd like to say That I understand that this plan at the least will take centuries if not milleniums to implement, but as the old saying goes rome wasn't built in a day. Secondly my original idea for this subject was that we could point out flaws in the original design and try to fix them, in other words I'm actually glad to see flaws pointed out so that we can think of ways to fix them if possible. Finnally as for the reason the plan is so "American" is because I'm an American and logically know my system of goverment the best, not to mention The only way this plan is going to get off the ground is if the people of the world work to make a plan wich incorperates the best of each system.

Personly I beleive the best way is for the people to elect the leader, According to the logic that the people know better than their representitives who would be a competant leader for them. Why not become a democracy you ask? This thread might make people think I'm a idealist but at least I'm pessimistic enough to beleive a world-wide democracy would be unwieldy to say the least.

Sorry too burst your bubble, but all democracy is a pretty name for mob rule.

[Tosho]

[/quote]Sorry too burst your bubble, but all democracy is a pretty name for mob rule.[/quote]

I know, I'm not for a democracy on this scale, but a democracy ran correctly on a proper scale is the best form of goverment