If there was a planetwide vote for a one world state... would you vote Yes or No?

[Deleted]

Then I, and many many millions of others across the world, would be working hard to blow up and kill as many representatives of an oppressive apparatus that is seeking to control the entire planet.

If that's terrorism, so be it.

Huh, ok.

I'm not advocating a one world government, just saying what would need to be done in order to make it work. I'm very divided on this issue so I won't even vote

[Yousend]

In an ideal world... Imagine if we could vote through the internet with some form of identification that would be fast and anonymous (so people can't tell others who to vote for). How nice would that be?

[Underverse]

Yes but power would have to be decentralized enough for people at the top to have power relatively equal to people in the middle so it's stable enough to function.

Maybe something like a triumvirate (2/3 vote to pass anything that the senate comes up with) and a senate with presidents of each current nation (which I guess would be called districts?) and then "district" governments that answer to the world government but have a large degree of freedom. The districts could be connected by an over-arching moral code that is somewhat loosely defined and enforced by a court system similar to modern ones. One thing I would add, though, is that the triumvirate should be able to check the court, and vice versa; conflict could be resolved through the senate, ultimately giving the most diverse group of people the most power.

And at least a tri-partisan senate. Because what's happening in the US is retarded. Maybe a system without parties would be more interesting though, since identity would be based much more on location/sense of nationality.

[Gracin]

Not at the moment no. The members of the UN can barely agree on what's needed anyway, like it or not we are decades if not centuries away from a unified government if it ever happens at all.

[bekilrwale]

Would you rather have a monarch? I don't see how a bunch of aristocrats who get to rule because they were born in the right family would do any better than a politician. Yes if you allow everyone to vote it would be a disaster, but that can be countered by baning extreme ideologies (my country's constitution, fortunately, forbids the formation of fascist parties or organizations so it can be done on a global level).

I would rather it be a government where the intellectually inferior have nothing to do in the government and those who are born and skilled leaders are the ones leading us, whether we like their haircut or not. IDEALLY, I would love a totalitarian government that has nothing to do with heredity for passing on rule. A strong figurehead who has the human race's advancement at heart. At the end of his rule, a high council would select the new leader.

[Stelio Kontos]

I would rather it be a government where the intellectually inferior have nothing to do in the government and those who are born and skilled leaders are the ones leading us, whether we like their haircut or not. IDEALLY, I would love a totalitarian government that has nothing to do with heredity for passing on rule. A strong figurehead who has the human race's advancement at heart. At the end of his rule, a high council would select the new leader.

People advocating such garbage are usually themselves not likely to be allowed to be part of the "intelligent ruling minority".

[Underverse]

Then I, and many many millions of others across the world, would be working hard to blow up and kill as many representatives of an oppressive apparatus that is seeking to control the entire planet.

If that's terrorism, so be it.

This is why we can't have nice things.

It's k tho, I'm willing to wait a couple hundred years for religion to become only a tool of mental relief, and not random BS like most are today.

[Reg]

People advocating such garbage are usually themselves not likely to be allowed to be part of the "intelligent ruling minority".

So you'd rather the casts of Jersey Shore and Swamp People to be in a ruling body?

[Mystile]

Hells no, diversity is a good thing.

[bekilrwale]

People advocating such garbage are usually themselves not likely to be allowed to be part of the "intelligent ruling minority".

Nor would I expect myself to be. There are millions more out there more capable of leading a world, and in those millions is an even more superior caste of people. I doubt anyone posting on these forums would have the kind of ability it would take to lead a planet, let alone be the single figurehead of an entire race.

[Stelio Kontos]

This is why we can't have nice things.

It's k tho, I'm willing to wait a couple hundred years for religion to become only a tool of mental relief, and not random BS like most are today.

lol @ thinking religion will die out, in a couple hundred years or ever.

Religion is about as likely to "die out" as homosexuality.

[Underverse]

Totalitarian would be ok if there is someone checking the leader and if the leader can be removed at any time by the suggested council. But then its not really totalitarianism. Any good government needs the checks and balances system otherwise you start betting on the whim of a madman.

[Imadraenei]

I would vote no. It would never work. I think it's funny how people want to pin it on certain groups (right-wing, religious, etc.) but the truth is that different people in different parts of the world have radically different needs and expectations. It's not just limited to one group. We have enough problems with clashing cultures in each individual country as it is (think the Commie Democrats and the Fascist Republicans in just the US), trying to mesh all those already headbutting ideals against countless other conflicting principles is like inviting Trouble to dinner and tucking the napkin into its shirt while pouring it a nice glass of wine.

[Deleted]

lol @ thinking religion will die out, in a couple hundred years or ever.

Religion is about as likely to "die out" as homosexuality.

I might get infracted for this, but to me it seems like you are the proof of why we can't have religion and a one world government. You are very quick to dismiss the opinions of others as garbage because they do not fit your religious ideals, that is fanaticism.

[This name sucks]

To be honest I don't want to be in the same "country" as people who believe that tattos give you magical powers nor do I want to be with people who are willing to turn themselves into a bomb to appease their god.

[Stelio Kontos]

I might get infracted for this, but to me it seems like you are the proof of why we can't have religion and a one world government. You are very quick to dismiss the opinions of others as garbage because they do not fit your religious ideals, that is fanaticism.

No, it's garbage to say one group of humans have an innate right to rule over other groups. I don't care what anyone does or believes, as long as they don't fuck with me or mine as well.

[Underverse]

lol @ thinking religion will die out, in a couple hundred years or ever.

Religion is about as likely to "die out" as homosexuality.

I don't recall typing "die out". It's change. And it will change, otherwise it won't survive. Look at the last hundred years. If the trend continues, which there is a lot of evidence for its continuation, secular individuals will overtake religious individuals in the near future, especially in highly educated social circles. It's already happened to a large degree; if you've been to pretty much any college in the Northeast US religion is a vast minority. (I haven't been to many colleges around the world so I can't speak for them)

Edit: Humans don't have an innate right to rule over anything. It's taken. By strength of body or will or intellect. But we evolved in a social hierarchy with one or a select few at the top. It would be naive to think that we can just get rid of our instincts and emotions and became egalitarian ponies.

[Reg]

No, it's garbage to say one group of humans have an innate right to rule over other groups. I don't care what anyone does or believes, as long as they don't fuck with me or mine as well.

You consider "intelligent people" a group? Or you would prefer global anarchy with no government at all?

[Stelio Kontos]

You consider "intelligent people" a group? Or you would prefer global anarchy with no government at all?

Considering IQ tests are inherently flawed and geared entirely towards white western thinking, how else would you test intelligence?

Why would anyone be so cowed and timid and stupid as to willingly want to be ruled by autocrats or people who say they "know better"? Why should I live under a system where I cannot effect change or live the way I want under a government system I want, and not be expected to get violent, blow shit up, and start cutting throats?

[Deleted]

Why should I live under a system where I cannot effect change or live the way I want under a government system I want, and not be expected to get violent, blow shit up, and start cutting throats?

Thats where totalitarianism comes in. Attempts of rebelion would be dealt with switfly.