View Full Version : Would the world be a better place if the US ruled the world?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-11-2005, 22:21
Well the title pretty much says it all. Do you think the wortld would be a better place if we all lived under the government of the US? Nations would become states with all the same rights and privilges of our current states. If you dont like our form of government what one would you prefer in such a situtaion? Remember you can only choose one nation and form of government to rule the world.
Darn it this belongs in the back room where Beruit when I need him?
discovery1
07-11-2005, 22:24
This is probaly going to be moved...
No. The all or nothing system that tends to run in our gov is I think a bad idea. Proportional representation is a good idea I think(a party gets 10 percent of the votes, they get 10 percent of the seats).
The_Doctor
07-11-2005, 22:43
I think the world should divided into city states.
Each city state has its own elected council and public forums where people can discuss things with other people and the council members. This will make the council member more accountable to the people and force them to talk to the people.
Each city would send a representative, which is elected by the city council, to a global council.
The heads of state would be an Emperor, preferable me, ~D and two elected (by the global council) Consuls, one left winger, one right winger, so everything neither side can get total power. They will all have equal power.
TheSilverKnight
07-11-2005, 22:44
no, plain and simple. The world would not adapt to American politics and the Americans wouldn't be liked all around the world for it.
Isn't this a political thread? Perhaps it should be moved to the backroom.
Louis VI the Fat
07-11-2005, 22:46
Do you think the world would be a better place if we all lived under the government of the US? Nations would become states with all the same rights and privilges of our current states.Well, considering the state that most of the world is in, of course.
If you dont like our form of government what one would you prefer in such a sitution? Remember you can only choose one nation and form of government to rule the world.The centralized, dirigiste French form!
Paris should rule you rule you pityful peasant lot. :knight:
Marcellus
07-11-2005, 22:58
Would the world be a better place if the US ruled the world?
Put quite simply, no. People (as in people of a nation) want to be self-governing, not ruled by another group of people with completely different cultures.
Kagemusha
07-11-2005, 23:04
No.clearly and absolutely no.Not under USA or any other national state. :bow:
tibilicus
07-11-2005, 23:28
Would the world be a better place if the US ruled the world?
Put quite simply, no. People (as in people of a nation) want to be self-governing, not ruled by another group of people with completely different cultures.
:bow: Agreed
discovery1
07-11-2005, 23:46
Maybe a better way to word the question would be 'Would the world be better off under a government that is modeled exactly like the one that holds sway over the US?(House, senate, exec, state govs with a lot of power etc)' Well, on second though yes, since even our very imperfect democracy is better than a dictatorship right(this is assuming that most of the world lives under dictators, which may be wrong). A proportional representation system is better though.
No - I think the world would be a much better place if there were NO nation states.
Darn it this belongs in the back room where Beruit when I need him?
Humping trees up a hill in 30 degree celcius all day and almost barfing from the heat. GAH!
As to your wishes...
Moved.
No it wouldn't. The set up of the US government is regiculous and very suceptable to corruption from outside sources. A british style parlimentary system would be best as a form of global government.
Marcellus
07-12-2005, 00:07
A british style parlimentary system would be best as a form of global government.
But with Proportional Representation
A british style parlimentary system would be best as a form of global government.
A system where 37% of the voters produces a majority of 55% in the parliament? No thanks ~:)
CBR
Marcellus
07-12-2005, 00:10
A system where 37% of the voters produces a majority of 55% in the parliament? No thanks ~:)
CBR
Hence, proportional representation ~:)
Kagemusha
07-12-2005, 00:12
You should all submit to the Nordic wellfare state. :knight:
It would be for your own good. ~D
Papewaio
07-12-2005, 00:16
NZ. It was the first to have womens right to vote.
Or The Commonwealth of Australia... at least the voting system is one of the most advanced. Federal and State system.
Sjakihata
07-12-2005, 00:17
If a government HAD to rule the entire world - I'd like it to have form as any of the scandinavian systems, or better yet direct democracy.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 00:19
or better yet direct democracy.
Now theres a very scary thought.
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 00:35
If a government HAD to rule the entire world - I'd like it to have form as any of the scandinavian systems, or better yet direct democracy.
Number one i dont want to vote on every little issue as that would be very time consuming, and a lot of people are way to stupid/uneducated to make the descisions.
While I agree with PAPEWAIO about NZ, the world is not ready for a "World Goverment".
We need to ensure all countries have a fair and proportional representation within their borders first. Add to that, full democratic freedoms for all citizens over 18, free education for the first 10 years of school. Once the world is full of educated and democratically minded peoples can we look to a world goverment.
Even advanced countries like the US and the UK do not have "proportional representation". They need to be changed first
PanzerJaeger
07-12-2005, 03:11
Most of the world would be much better off if they got the same benefits as US states do. Imagine what a boon that would be for Africa and parts of Asia, it would bring them into the 21st century.
I certainly wouldnt give them a place in congress though.. :no:
Would this mean I'd have to pay taxes for the Ganges Valley Authority? Yikes. If you think pork-barrel politics is bad with just 50 states, the mind boggles at the level of corruption and piggishness an assembly for the entire world would demonstrate ...
NZ. It was the first to have womens right to vote.
Or The Commonwealth of Australia... at least the voting system is one of the most advanced. Federal and State system.
Which you copied from Canada, you silly Auzzy.
NZ. It was the first to have womens right to vote.
Or The Commonwealth of Australia... at least the voting system is one of the most advanced. Federal and State system.
Which you copied from Canada. The first and best dominion, on which all the others are based. ~:cheers:
But with Proportional Representation
That would probably be the only fair way to implement it.
Kanamori
07-12-2005, 03:38
Proportional representation is a good idea I think(a party gets 10 percent of the votes, they get 10 percent of the seats).
With all of the different political cultures of the world, making it proportional would leave the government too ineffective.
Papewaio
07-12-2005, 03:48
Australia has a different (read superior ~;) )voting system which I stated.
The executive is all but identical with the British heritage of cabinet government kept intact, with the Prime Minister being the leader of the largest party in the Australian House of Representatives or Canadian House of Commons. In both countries, MPs represent single member constituencies, known as divisions in Australia and ridings in Canada.
Unlike Canada, which uses the first past the post voting system, Australia uses instant runoff voting (known in Australia as preferential voting) for almost all elections. While it is more complex than Canada's system, it ensures that MPs have a majority of votes.
Australia has also introduced compulsory voting, something Canada has not done. There is no pressure to introduce such a measure in Canada, although poor electoral turnouts in the past two elections are beginning to make Canadians seriously consider some sort of electoral reform
Nor can you say our government system is based on the Canadian when both are based on the British.
Ah but the british system is unitary ours (Auzzyland and Canukistan) is federal. Which we did do first. Canada also will never do big reforms to our government system. 2 failed constitutional accords in the late 80's proved that. The NDP had to arm twist for 8 years to get limited proportional representation that's coming in the next federal election. It's sad that we can't have any kind of serious talk about changing some parts of our parlimentary system that need overhauling, *cough*the senate*cough*, without the Quebec seperatists hijacking it for their own agenda.
Also how does that compulsory voting thing work.
Papewaio
07-12-2005, 05:22
Turn up to the voting location. Have your name crossed off.
Then decide if you want to vote. Most people at that time will vote even if it is a donkey vote.
You get fined if you don't turn up, not if you don't vote.
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 05:28
The world would be much better if we could unite and make one single democratic nation of earth, but if that happend today imagine the revolts in the middle east alone.
Well the title pretty much says it all. Do you think the wortld would be a better place if we all lived under the government of the US? Nations would become states with all the same rights and privilges of our current states. If you dont like our form of government what one would you prefer in such a situtaion? Remember you can only choose one nation and form of government to rule the world.
Darn it this belongs in the back room where Beruit when I need him?
Maybe it's my national pride, but yes, I do think the world would be a better place. (Letting the flaming begin :charge: )
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 05:44
I have no doubt about it but its amusing seeeing all these people say otherwise. The world would be better off under the rule of any number of democratic nations. Pindar keeps hinting at this sort of thing with his democratic nation only United Nations. Again if all the free world made the spread of democracy their main concern much of the worlds problems would be solved.
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 05:50
I have no doubt about it but its amusing seeeing all these people say otherwise. The world would be better off under the rule of any number of democratic nations. Pindar keeps hinting at this sort of thing with his democratic nation only United Nations. Again if all the free world made the spread of democracy their main concern much of the worlds problems would be solved.
Except many nations would reject democracy, such as many middle eastern nations.
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 05:54
Not possible. Who would then buy all the US dollar to cover the deficit and who would produce all those cheap stuff needed for the consumers..... ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 05:55
Except many nations would reject democracy, such as many middle eastern nations.
You really thik so? I doubt it. Sure their governments might not like it but I think the people would think differently. You dont think everyone wants to be free? Are the people of the middle east different than those in the rest of the world? How do you know when they have never been given a choice?
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 05:58
yes i do. What do you think the average middle easterner's reaction to seperation of church and state would be?
sharrukin
07-12-2005, 06:02
You really thik so? I doubt it. Sure their governments might not like it but I think the people would think differently. You dont think everyone wants to be free? Are the people of the middle east different than those in the rest of the world? How do you know when they have never been given a choice?
In Algeria the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS; Islamic Salvation Front), after winning municipal and provincial elections, was about to win the 1991-92 parliamentary elections, when the army stepped in to depose Bendjedid and cancelled the elections.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 06:03
yes i do. What do you think the average middle easterner's reaction to seperation of church and state would be?
Who said they had to do that. I remember people saying that the Iraqis didnt want democracy either. Democracy just means they get to vote their own leaders into power .
King of Atlantis
07-12-2005, 07:24
Fine, they dont want "western" democracy.
Franconicus
07-12-2005, 07:52
Well the title pretty much says it all. Do you think the wortld would be a better place if we all lived under the government of the US? Nations would become states with all the same rights and privilges of our current states. If you dont like our form of government what one would you prefer in such a situtaion? Remember you can only choose one nation and form of government to rule the world.
Darn it this belongs in the back room where Beruit when I need him?
I am confused. Your proposal is that all nations become states as part of the United States with equal rights? That would be great. I would accept that immediately (Even though some details should be adjusted first) But that would not mean that the US as we know it today would rules. Right?
You can also take any other state that has democracy - maybe not GB, I do not like kings and queens.
If all nations join the US the problem with illegal immigrants would be solved :2thumbsup:
Gawain of Orkeny
07-12-2005, 07:59
I am confused
How so?
Your proposal is that all nations become states as part of the United States with equal rights? That would be great. I would accept that immediately (Even though some details should be adjusted first) But that would not mean that the US as we know it today would rules. Right?
Yes Washington would be the capital but as you said every nation or state as it were would get 2 senators and the same proportion as our current states in the house. Since the constitution only says that the president for instance must be born in the US anyone in the world could be preisdent. It certainly would be a huge improvement over what we have now.
If all nations join the US the problem with illegal immigrants would be solved
Of course as there would be no such thing as immigrants just out of staters ~D
Red Harvest
07-12-2005, 08:02
I guess I'm having trouble understanding why the US would want to "rule the world." That doesn't fit with our normal vision of things. Self determination has become a principle, and that doesn't fit with "ruling" others. Although the U.S has had imperial/colonial episodes in the past, one of our most redeeming traits has been to rebuild allied countries and defeated enemies rather than to subjugate either. Many might resent us for various reasons, but I hope they can respect our ability not to try to treat them as conquered subjects.
In answer to the question: some places would probably be better for it (autocracies/dictatorships, etc.) but others would be hurt by it. Our govt. is not one that necessarily will plug into other cultures.
And single nation rule of the world is fraught with danger. It represents the "ultimate monopoly." No matter how good the motives, I can't see how it would turn out positively.
Franconicus
07-12-2005, 08:24
How so?
The title 'US ruled the world' cunfused me. Because equal rights mean world population rules. By the way, it would not make much sense to call this global state 'United States of America', right. Maybe it should simply be named 'United Nations'. ~:cool:
Yes Washington would be the capital but as you said every nation or state as it were would get 2 senators and the same proportion as our current states in the house. Since the constitution only says that the president for instance must be born in the US anyone in the world could be preisdent. It certainly would be a huge improvement over what we have now.
Go ahead! I guess the next president could be Chinese! :chinese:
ScionTheWorm
07-12-2005, 08:30
I see it as a horrible future scenario. Doubt it would be possible under any circumstance unless having a very surpressing gouverment and a very agressive and massive policeforce. I don't think american values is a good starting point either, at least not their current leaders. When decisions are based upon commercials for the people, and being most popular for the leaders, it obvious fails... and I doubt they wouldn't favour their own continent above the rest of us.
And besides, somebody has to be poor for me to be "rich", so one country may not be the best things for the west - now we don't have to shear
bmolsson
07-12-2005, 08:46
One thing is for sure, Bush wouldn't have been president in the democratic global united states. Most probably some Indian or Chinese....... ~;)
Franconicus
07-12-2005, 08:56
German! Everybody loves Germans.
Duke Malcolm
07-12-2005, 09:06
A world ruled by a democracy where only British subjects can vote for their representative to a chamber, say, the House of Commons. Lords can automatically get a seat in the House of Lords. The leader of the majority in the House of Lords is made Prime Minister, and has ultimate control over the Earth, under only the reigning monarch. The monarch appoints governors or viceroys for each ex-nation, who govern the ex-nation, with a systems of consuls, maharajahs, and a good many other subordinates.
Ja'chyra
07-12-2005, 09:34
In a word, no.
The whole idea is based on the assumption that the American system is ideal or at least the best available which I don't believe is true, but I have no idea which system is.
Yes Washington would be the capital but as you said every nation or state as it were would get 2 senators and the same proportion as our current states in the house. Since the constitution only says that the president for instance must be born in the US anyone in the world could be preisdent. It certainly would be a huge improvement over what we have now.
Why Washington? I would say that there are cities with a far better claim to capital. Also would that mean that the US would only have 2 senators? And what would this new super state be called? United States by any chance?
I think the only chance we have of being a united planet is when we find someone, or something, else to fight. That being said the idea of an united planet is a good thing, but unworkable at present.
Most of the world would be much better off if they got the same benefits as US states do. Imagine what a boon that would be for Africa and parts of Asia, it would bring them into the 21st century.
I certainly wouldnt give them a place in congress though..
Oh, so, you want to rule them without giving them their say, anyone for a dictatorship?
ScionTheWorm
07-12-2005, 09:53
Oh, so, you want to rule them without giving them their say, anyone for a dictatorship?
dictatorship is in theory not the worst way to go, as long as the guy in the steering seat isn't a goddamn maniac. but wouldn't work unless a massive police network or technology providing good control over the population of earth. impossible to make everybody have their way, so would be a real challange.
But would we all get democratic rights or would we be undemocratic colonies like Guam, Saipan, Puerto Rico?
ScionTheWorm
07-12-2005, 10:57
should be an undemocratic society, but with an elightened leader which would know best for everybody. he would probably turn into a maniac though, if he was human. I just can't picture peace with 1000 different democratic colonies wanting it their way; would be wars etc, and no longer an united world
Louis VI the Fat
07-13-2005, 00:52
German! Everybody loves Germans. Who's going to tell him? ~:rolleyes:
Ser Clegane
07-13-2005, 11:49
Who's going to tell him? ~:rolleyes:
Tell what? ~:confused:
I don't get it ...
:thinking:
:thinking:
Oh ... :shifty:
Franconicus
07-13-2005, 12:20
German! Everybody loves Germans.
Sorry, I meant German beer! Everybody loves German beer! :barrel: :medievalcheers: :smitten: ~:cheers:
I have to learn to write more carefully. ~;)
Louis VI the Fat
07-13-2005, 12:54
And who said the Germans didn't have a sense of humor? ~;)
Bitte ein Bit für mich auch! ~:cheers: ~:grouphug:
Don Corleone
07-13-2005, 13:27
Great gadzooks, how did I miss this thread for so long:
No, non, niet, nunca, bui, however else you want to say it... no way Jose. For one thing, equating every other country to a US state is ridiculous. It's already unfair that Rhode Island gets two senators, the same as California, but China only gets two senators two?
Aside from which, as long as the capital was in Washington DC, it'd never fly. For any sort of a 'global republic' to work, it would require a new government, not incorporating everybody else into ours, or people would feel disenfranchised. Someplace remote, like the Andes Islands, or Iceland would be a good choice for a new capital, but NOT DC.
Franconicus
07-13-2005, 14:30
And who said the Germans didn't have a sense of humor? ~;)
Bitte ein Bit für mich auch! ~:cheers: ~:grouphug:
Merveilleux! Why don't we change to German. It is always strange to see Germans and French conversate in English :argue:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.