*DAMN R6 Forum

     I have here a simple (simple to say, at any rate) plan for what I think will be a stable world peace. First, get rid of the U.N. It is a joke (not even a good joke. More like a "knock, knock--orange you glad I didn't say banana?" kind of joke). A world gov't in some form is required, but the U.N. is not that by any means. Once the U.N. is dismantled, create a true world government, loosely based on the model of the American government--specific desirable innovations are internal checks and balances and methods for member nations (citizens and companies, in the American version) to object and appeal actions of the gov't (something akin to a world Supreme Court). The world gov't must have its own military force, mandatorily funded and possibly supplied by the nations of the world. That is the fundamental flaw with the U.N. It has no teeth.
     Once there is a workable world gov't in place, universal dearmament for all nations (citizens may still have guns... just no armies), with mandatory, random, unannounced inspections by world gov't inspectors. You see, no individual nation will be able to wage war, and the gov't will be composed of all nations on an even status so as to avoid wars of retribution and/or powermongering using the gov't as a tool.
     After that, you can more or less sit back and give peace a chance. Each nation will be giving a small amount of its GNP to the world gov't, because the gov't has no economic power, no way to make money on its own. So it taxes the nations, in effect. This tax will be far less than what most nations are currently spending on armies, and the result will be that the nations will have vastly more money to use on improving the lots of their citizens and their economies. The world becomes richer, very few wars are fought, technology (hopefully) blooms, and life is good for the first time ever.

Sounds all happy and good. I would be slightly concered about a possible tyrannical government although that would depend mostly on good leaders and good citizens.

Okay, now the hard part. How do you get the nations of the world to agree to this plan?

Perfect!  But, in order to succeed, there first has to be a benevolent despot in a position of extreme power.  That is, one nation, most likely the United States, has to achieve virtual hegemony over the rest of the world.  Then, being led by an enlightened leader, the country graciously founds the world government, and rescinds its control, although gradually enough so that no wrongful power can take over.

This coup of leadership, if it could be accomplished, would benefit mankind forever.

Furthermore, I suggest myself as the man to do this  ;)  (A light note to end a serious position)

Other countries don't really matter in this this instance, because according to precedent that the US has set in its foreign policy, it would never join a fair national government. From perverting the terms of the International Criminal Court to bowing out of the Kyoto protocol, the US just hasn't been willing to cooperate in large-scale world agreements. In the past, this has even been directly stated . The policy drafted under George Bush Sr. was that "henceforth the goal of American foreign policy woul dbe to prevent any other nation from becoming a superpower." (This was not stated in a speech, but rather accidentaly leaked to the New York Times).

So if anyone is looking for the US to be a benevolent despot, I have my doubts as to whether that would ever happen. As I said in the other thread, we would have to become less self-centered in order for anything like that to ever be considered, and it doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon.

No, no, no!  See, it will only happen if I am your leader  ;)

And I suggest the US only because it currently has the best established power base.  China is another option but I couldn't be the leader there  :D

     How you get other countries to agree to this, I dunno. A plan like this requires the realization that humans are riiiight on the brink of racial suicide, and have been for a good 50 years now. We've teetered towards and away from that edge over the past 5 decades, and recently it looked as though we were finally edging away altogether. Now, we're charging right at it again. Any person who is willing and able to think rationally can see that this is the case. It seems, however, that any given world leader is not either willing or able to. I'm of the opinion that in the next fifty to a hundred years, either a drastic change takes place, such as the one I've outlined here, or the human race will be dead. Our luck has held for 50 years. I don't like relying on luck.

     As for America, I think that our government has gotten out of hand. It is no longer a government for the people, by the people, of the people. In actuality, it hasn't been that for a long time, but recently its actions have become offensive and arguably insane. We need a new government. The Framers of the Constitution had the right idea, and if it were up to me to create a new American gov't, I would simply use the original Constitution + the Bill of Rights, perhaps with a couple of additional amendments but only one change to the original text: the removal of the assumption of slavery. At any rate, a coup or outright revolution is called for, but revolutions do not happen until the offenses against the people have become intolerable... which is not the case here. The offenses against the American people are eagerly accepted by Americans in the name of "security," and the offenses against other peoples are heartily approved of in the name of "peace." I'm duly impressed by the Bush administration's mastery of media brainwashing techniques. About the only way I see for the above plan to come about in our lifetimes is if there were a revolution or coup, and the government was put into the hands of sane people (who would, in all likelihood, quickly become insane due to their newfound power) who instituted the first steps towards a world gov't before they became corrupt.

The idea sounds good enough but I wouldn't want an American gov't, I'd prefer something of a world coalition in that case.


But wouldn't it be better if all of us just reverted to our roots and walked naked in the forest in peace with nature?  ;D

     I didn't mean an American dominion. I meant using the principles of American gov't as a good starting point, seeing as how it's based on liberty, freedom, and guaranteed rights.

     Humans may have walked naked in the forest, but we've never been "at peace with nature." Mass extinctions of all large animals closely followed every human expansion into new territory. I'm talking about expansions such as c. 50,000 years ago when groups of humans migrated into the North American continent.

Well there are better principles of governing than the American model... although perhaps those are the ones that would be needed for complete world peace, I don't know.

I was just kidding about the naked in the forest thing ;)

  Very nice, all good. And sinse it won't be an American government, I say it should be an Canadian one. They seem to be able to stay out of trouble, there no swiss, but everyone seems to love them.

Ah geez. Another globalization thread. Good luck getting Iraq to agree. They won't conform to nuttin' until then need too. They won't need to until they run out of oil. Summary: Never.

Ben

     I'm intrigued. Please elaborate. :)

For example I don't like the two party system, doesn't give enough of a choice, in sweden have around 7 different parties that are all atleast over 4% (which is the limit for a party to enter the parliament). It gives a bit more flavour to it. I don't like the whole really repbulican deal, I like representative democracy much more because it gives the people more power imo.

     Ah, I see what you mean. We technically have a multi-party system... but due to reasons that I am not aware of, Democrats and Republicans remain the major powers, with no substantial threats to their voter base. I'd like it to be otherwise, personally.

     As for representative democracy, that's what America is. A republic is where an elite group has voting power and the elected representatives are responsible to that group. A democracy is where (nearly) everyone gets the vote. I don't follow your meaning.