What Kind of World Gov't?

[mactavish]

What I really want to know is this: if you were forced to live in a world with a single government, what would you prefer? (This is for my alien masters so that when we DO conquer your planet, we can set up an effective yet benevolent regime!)

[calguard66]

Unless the "world government" consist of every nation in the world eventually petitioning to become a state of the United States, like Texas did, I'm not interested... and probably wouldn't be even then.

[C5]

World democracy. With the new technologies, you could make it much more effective than it is now.

Oh, and mactavish, if your alien masters happen to have holodeck technology available or a way to create clones of Ezri Dax, I'm perfectly happy with their ruling no matter the system

[Niner]

Over-centralism frightens me, so I chose Alliance over Federation.

[Dan Stack]

I voted other... I find the democracy idea terrifying - a majority can do terrible things. I'd prefer something like the US system of checks and balances vs. a pure democracy.

[Joe Dizzy]

Something else.

I don't know what. If I knew I'd write a book and be hailed as a visionary for millenia to come.

Right now every form of gov't we have come up with, can not function on a global scale.

[First of Two]

You forgot Republic, wherein the people elect representatives who make the big decisions, which is what the USA actually is, not a Democracy.

I would have gone with Empire, but only if I got to be the Emperor, and besides, being ruler of the whole Earth would be too much work... I'd take just North America north of the Rio Grande.

First of Two for Emperor... You've been doing worse for decades.

Before we can consider World Government, we need to see many more regional versions of the United States. Canada could be considered there. The EU is partway there. No one else is really close, not even the Russian Federation.

[qerlin]

No world government. I would actively take up arms against such an action.

[Cybrludite]

If such a thing had to be I'd go with a very limited representative republic at most. A loose confederation would be better. Alliance implies something to ally against with a limited scope. Most of them have been military, like NATO, others have been economic, like OPEC. Economic alliances are generally called Cartels. The main problem would be getting everyone to agree to such a thing without it being done at the point of a bayonet. Everyone is going to want the body to look out after their own set of biases & interests. Depending on how power is divvied up, you could have situations like the ICC fiasco. Not only is the US unable to join because of our own constitutional set-up, but we're being take to task for wanting the same protections for our peacekeepers that other countries have gotten for theirs. Likewise, most of the ICC's restrictions are awfully vauge & are prone to being subjectivly applied. For example, they define "humiliation" of your opponents as a war crime. So, everyone who told a joke about Osama bin Laden being, um, under-endowed is a war criminal now? Likewise the bit on "eviromental damage" is quite silly. The impact of an attack must be measured against its concrete benefits. So, sinking an underway replenishing ship that's supporting an invasion fleet might be a warcrime if a flock of brids is inconvienced by it? Better make sure that no endagered fish species are in the area before you drop depth charges on that sub... Sillyness like this is why most Americans don't much care for plans for world government.

[pathstrider]

I'd have to say a federal system - it can (and note that word ) give a nice balance of issues that should be handled on a local (And by local I mean unit about the size of a European country or American state) level and ones, like the Macroeconmic running of the economy on a larger, and more efficient level.

Can you tell I'm an Economist?

I'd also point out that the federal system has been shown to work quite well (USA, EU, Germany).

I'm a big advocate of one world government - but not for sentimental or idealistic reasons. I'd argue that there are many issues that cannot be handled on a country level (International money flows, just to give one example) - we have an almost world economy, so why not a world political system?

Plus, I don't really care if the corupt/Ego tripping/annoying/uneducated politicians are near or far away from me

Mark

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

I would dearly love to see a truly united world government. I very much doubt it will happen within my lifetime, but maybe my grandchildren will be fortunate enough to see it.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

I fear the day we have a one world government; and as a future aide to politiciens I'd do everything against it.

I voted for an Alliance. Though, I'd prefer if we had a choice on whether we could refuse some states. I don't see the point in including impoverished nations into an alliance which would work together and have people leech off of them.

In truth the United States has a good system. Everyone (usually) gets a good enough deal which makes most people happy. It would be better if the district creation and re-drawing system was revised.

Might I suggest mactavish that you not invade us? It'll just open up a whole new set of problems.

[Kerlof]

Bureaucracy Hell I'm a realest, in the end that is who runs it all! You do know there is nothing more terrifying in the universe than a little man afraid for his job. Hence all governments are Bureaucracies....

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
Likewise, most of the ICC's restrictions are awfully vauge & are prone to being subjectivly applied. For example, they define "humiliation" of your opponents as a war crime. So, everyone who told a joke about Osama bin Laden being, um, under-endowed is a war criminal now?

From the ICC statute document:

Article 8 (2) (b) (xxi)
War crime of outrages upon personal dignity
1. The perpetrator humiliated, degraded or otherwise violated the dignity of one or more persons.
2. The severity of the humiliation, degradation or other violation was of such degree as to be generally recognized as an outrage upon personal dignity.

While I am no expert on international law I take it this is part of the already exisitng international conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, etc.

Likewise the bit on "eviromental damage" is quite silly. The impact of an attack must be measured against its concrete benefits.

From the ICC statute document:

Article 8 (2) (b) (iv)
War crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage
1. The perpetrator launched an attack.
2. The attack was such that it would cause incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
3. The perpetrator knew that the attack would cause incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

So why are you complaining that the impact must be measured against the results when this is already written in the ICC statute??? Maybe you shouldn't just take anything you hear for granted and get a little more detailed information first.

[Kerlof]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 8 (2) (b) (iv)
War crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage
1. The perpetrator launched an attack.
2. The attack was such that it would cause incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
3. The perpetrator knew that the attack would cause incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment and that such death, injury or damage would be of such an extent as to be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to stay clear of this deep part of the thread but I can't.
Sorry but this is really too vague and open to too much interpretation. I mean who makes the jugement call on the direct overall military advantage anticipated. Where is the criteria under which this judgment will be reached? Sounds like a law suit tool for aspiring lawyers to me.