Meaning that if we unite as humans under one banner, we should do it also as a true democracy: everyone has a say in government. Due to IT, it isn't just a dream anymore. More than ever, we interact with one another across vast distances in a flash. It's only a matter of time when the hegemon among us will conquer all nations, and then a matter of time when the hegemon will be replaced by a democracy, and hopefully not a representative one, like America's, because corruption will be her downfall.

The point for democracy, in my opinion, is that for us it is the most effective form of government. That effectiveness dissipates under two conditions:
-when the citizen body consists of incompetent voters (as I am beginning to fear the people of Iraq are)
-when the citizen body is too divided

In additional, a world government of any sort would have two key disadvantages:
-Scale; a one world government would be incredibly unwieldy, as we found out when we created an international club at my school out of the four language clubs.
-monotony; the variety of nations allows different ideas to be tested as well as healthy competetiion to take place. Progress would be severely detrimented if both factors were removed.

As for democracy in general, the advantage of representatives is that they are more informed; the average citizen does not recieve briefings on highly complex economic or infrastrcture policies. I believe severe reforms are needed for our current government, but implementing direct democracy would be a mistake if millions of citizens are making decisions for our country based on who their parents oor favorite rock star told them to. Which brings me to the other point on my agenda; having some sort of voters license based on a test of current issues...

School PV

on what grounds would you consider the iraqi people to be incompetent voters?

consider the following taken from a website concerned by the democratic process in america:

First, the average American is ignorant as evaluated by surveys, and a substantial proportion is inclined to believe weird things. As example, right after the 9/11 attack and despite news coverage, young American adults could not locate Afghanistan (83%) or Iraq (87%) on a map, as determined by National Geographic Society survey; 95% of American college freshmen could not locate Vietnam and only 30% could point to New Jersey on a U.S. map. Four years ago a National Science Foundation survey found half of 1,500 people polled believed dinosaurs and humans coexisted on Earth and 45% thought that humans were created “pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years.” News media polls show 80% of Americans think government is hiding knowledge about extraterrestrial life and 40% believe “supernatural intervention” will bring an end to human history. In a Middle Tennessee State University survey, only 50% could identify Kerry as the 2004 presidential candidate who wanted to “roll back tax cuts for the rich” and only 42% knew that Bush favored Social Security savings into personal retirement accounts. A consensus view by qualified people is that about 40% of the U.S. electorate is too ignorant and inept to be part of the democratic political process.

Hey, I never said that citizens will have someone keeping control over them and preventing them from seeing behind the scenes, silly. You are still misunderstanding the meaning of true democracy, that all citizens have the ultimate authority, delegated equally among them, and nations that comprise the global government do not need to give up their identity, but do need to know that their enemies and friends are now brother states, all working together to help each other. And education will prevent incompetent voters, if there are any, because the incompetent (Bush) view the ignorant (Iraqi) as incompetent.

i don't think that democracy does "delegate power equally", instead everyone pretty much has to go along with what the majority says. you are assuming that everyone will agree or at least agree to compromise. surely that is totally unrealistic and probably undesirable. it is natural for different groups to want the right to self-determination - the important thing is how these groups resolve their conflicts peacefully and reasonably - not eliminating differences in an effort to unite everyone "under one banner".

i don't think that democracy does "delegate power equally", instead everyone pretty much has to go along with what the majority says. you are assuming that everyone will agree or at least agree to compromise. surely that is totally unrealistic and probably undesirable. it is natural for different groups to want the right to self-determination - the important thing is how these groups resolve their conflicts peacefully and reasonably - not eliminating differences in an effort to unite everyone "under one banner".

Delegated equally means out of 1000 people everyone has exactly 1/1000 of the vote, and so on. The majority does not force the minority to agree, the minority can do what they want so long as it does not harm the well-being of others. Is it so unrealistic to compromise? I don't think so. And the elimination of "differences" only is the elimination of nationality. Instead of israel and palestine we have humans. No black or white. North Koreans nuking their own would sound ridiculous, so why should it sound any different if we all were under one nation?

your argument defeats itself - what you are describing is not what people want. individuals do not vote to allow others to do pretty much whatever they want without harming others. they vote primarily for the safety and security of their family, their job and possibly their environment. not for the freedom of others. it is sorting out how to do this that leads to disagreements and hence the need for a choice when we vote.
there will always be people who will exploit others and the environment. there will always be people who affect others by their selfish and greedy actions. there are not enough resources, services, jobs, nice homes to go round so we will always compete for them. we should just accept this and concentrate on ensuring that people don't harm each other getting what they want. it is important that people disagree and debate otherwise there would be no questioning of what is the right thing to do.
if it was up to you tristian it seems you would let one omnipotent leader decide everything!

actually, no, i wouldn't. look again, all round you, and see that everyone is not as selfish and greedy as you think. if we all wanted to do our own things without a care for others, society will fail. my argument does not defeat itself at all, and your argument strengthens it: the few people who dissent will be outweighed by the many who care for each other. no omnipotent leader will rule at all, if you paid attention to what i said, you'd notice what a true demoncracy does: no central leader or omniscient power. before you say something more to downplay this, you should think a little more on the meaning of democracy and develop more fully your ideas against it. i'm getting tired of unbased accusations and ridiculous assumptions made by some of these tok students. again, education will open the mind and widen the thinking aperture, thereby preventing the incompetent from existing. those that already exist, as cynics and otherwise, need to find a way to fit into society, not a way to try and destroy it.

good grief!
i think perhaps you need to consider the meaning of democracy pal. you come across as a bit of a facist when you consider those who want to do their own thing as dissenters and necessarily greedy and selfish. you have no idea about democracy if you think it is about everyone agreeing. the resaon you are getting irritated and patronising about everyone else is because your argument is dumb.
"preventing the incompentent existing" sounds like the ideas of a nazi. what on earth do you mean by this statement? before you ask, i am reading what you are saying closely and frankly mister - i don't like it

I believe you guys are tlaking past each other, in part because Tristien's argument is being misconstrued. In any case, I would consider the example of the American civil war. We were a united nation, yet the issues of states rights and slavery were enough to drive them into a bitter civil war. Now, imagine if Iran and Israel were united. Iran would seek to impose Islamic law, Israel would rebel, and we would have war. The only way to have a world government without such conflict would be to strip it of all power to do what member states find offensive. Meaning we would have a similar structure to the United Nations.

School PV

Even further: we all will have a say in the vote; no electoral college, no representatives, and we all can say something in the issues we discuss and decide in.

The majority will rule, and we as a whole will decide what the majority factor is, starting from a set standard like 90% or something, then changing to fit the most popular percentage.

The most basic things like police and healthcare will start from a preset standard, and then change according to the popular vote, and we can all say what we want about these issues to everyone, freely.

Somehow the word "fascist" doesn't seem to fit anywhere on this post. And, yes, people do post dumb things, like the person who said that it was just my idiocy. It is not me, it is the idiots who would respond to that, acting offended. It is they who doubt themselves, and it is they who rush to their own defense upon reading such an "accusing" post. Some people should really think about what they do before they act, before they make themselves look stupid.

How would I be a Nazi if I taught incompetence to death? I've not killed anyone, I've just taught them things to prevent ignorance, and thus prevent incompetence.

i can see exactly where the 'facism' is in these posts. it where someone is suggesting we should have a voter's license to control who actually gets to vote. it is where you are talking about preventing the incompetent from existing, it is where you identify anyone who thinks differently as a dissenter, where you are happy to let the tyranny of the majority rule over the minority. it is where someone can brand a whole nation of people (iraq) as ignorant.

I have a question.

Why would we want one world government? I don't think it would guarantee peace or stability and I think we are pretty far from agreeing on anything. Obviously there is a need for greater understanding between people and cultures across the globe but this does not necessarily mean we should have to sacrifice control of local affairs. It is healthy for people to have the right to choose how they are represented in the places that they live.

I will put up a poll in intok.com and let the people decide!

As far as Iraq, listen to the voters over there some time. I know some are very informed, but it seems like vast numbers are voting simply as their sectarian leaders tell them. This does not make for an effective electorate.

As far as "tyranny of the majority", the alternative is tyranny of the minority or anarchism. Of course, within a democratic framework power should be limited.

As far as restricting who should vote, that is already done. Those under age 18 cannot vote, and either can new immrigrants. Both restrictions are made under the assumption that neither group will be good voters; I'm simply suggesting that an actual test be made to directly test basic voter applitude.

When Tristian talked of preventing the incompetent from existing, I believe he was suggesting through an education. If that is fascism, than are leftist plans to eliminate poverty also fascist?

School PV

the difference is that "incompetence" is a character trait or subjective judgement made by tristien. you may have noticed that basically anyone who doesn't agree with him gets patronised. "poverty" on the other hand is a more objective and identifiable undesirable situation. in fact tristien does not talk about "incompentence" but rather "incompetents" - this involves the branding of a whole person rather than the consideration of particular behaviour.
furthermore i don't think anyone is actually arguing against democracy in this thread but rather questioning the desirability of democracy operating on a global level. it sounds like the worst excesses of american foreign policy - i.e. make everybody else agree with us. all over the world people are VOTING to reject this notion and not just in the middle east but in asia and south america too.

I don't believe "uniting under one banner" would work. Possibly my view is too simplistic, but I think that there are too many differences of culture, opinion, lifestyle and desires for what each person wants out of life for the entire world to form one government.

Logistically, is IT not one of the major problems? I don't think that many 'third world' countries would be able to participate. Surely this raises the question that we would first have to solve the world's economic etc. problems and raise everybody's living standard to what the West regards as acceptable before we could 'unite'?

This also raises another problem - people want to live comfortably in their own cultures, and not have to adopt Western ideals. If "uniting under one banner" means the loss of diverse culture, then is it worth it?

School Exeter College

don't mess with tex-ass!!!

"I like my buddies from west Texas. I liked them when I was young, I liked them then I was middle-age, I liked them before I was president, and I like them during president, and I like them after being president." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Feb. 1, 2006

School don't need'em

If you join a sports team, then do you give up your family's traditions? I never said anything about giving up culture. I "patronize" so many because there are too many people drawing ridiculous and baseless conclusions without actually trying to find a real problem. I mean, nobody said anything about a third world country being able to join, in fact, the very idea of uniting under one banner is designed, in part, to combine the economies of the world, helping those very third world countries that, in fact, can join, at literally no cost to themselves.

*nobody said anything about a third world country not being able to join.*

i think the point was that less powerful countries would not be able to PARTICIPATE.
In fact if you adopted a global democracy then the poorer countries would dominate as they comprise between 3/4 and 4/5 of the world population. The influence of China and India alone would be incredible. I wonder if that is what Tristien had in mind for his global democracy?

I agree Sedaris.

You're on the right track. The poorer majority will have their say over the richer minority.

Ideally, the difference between rich and poor should gradually diminish, as more poor people get richer and, likely, rich people get poorer. It's communism, sort of, but without the dictatorship government.

I still don't think it would work though. Why would we want one world government? I think you'd end up with major problems, such as each national group demanding national self-determination. It would be extremely difficult to please everybody in a world government where everybody has a say, leading to lots of compromises if anything could ever be agreed upon at all.

Which is not the ideal basis for a stable, secure government, a worldwide one or otherwise.

I see your point, but I do not concur that we would disagree to where nothing would be accomplished. It should be where anyone can make a speech to everyone in advocation of their ideas, and thus leaders will come forth, but will not be in "power" as we understand it. People can choose to follow anyone or no one, and if they do not concur with a popular leader(one who is leader due to the speeches they make, but is not in power by a constitutional rule), they won't be forced to bend to the leader's will, at least, I hope that people will make that out to be a criminal action, but all of this I want to test and experiment with when I go to college. There I will have the resources to experiment with a true democracy, and determine its ability to sustain a world government.

plz no one respond to trisiten...he has no idea wtf he is talking about

Why would you say that? I suppose you know what YOU are talking about? Truly, I doubt that you do.

Also, to be blunt, if you had actually read what I had said, you would realize that this topic is pretty much closed.

If the government is optional, then it might be a good idea. But that would be more of a forum. Hey, we could have it in Greece, in one of those ancient buildings!

If the structure is democratic, it would make sense to only allow democracies to participate. They won't get blocked by the authoritarian governments... and they don't go to war with each other.

School PV

The government will become optional once the set time has passed for protection of core rules, designed to help people adjust to the idea of complete freedom in saying their ideas to others, while keeping a certain restraint. And yes, it will be like a forum, i suppose. That is feasable, actually, and kind of what I had in mind.

Government inducted will have to agree to abdicate the power to make decisions to their people, in other words, they will cease to exist, authoritarian or otherwise, upon joining to worldwide government.

And I don't think that the government will fight itself.

Whoa, if the international government is optional and the local governments non-existent, you will have anarchy.

I believe there is something to be said for federalism.

School PV

There will be divisions, yes, but they will have a ruler: the majority, whatever the people determine that to be.