All absolutely true. But what is the alternative?
While imperfect - can you suggest a better model that has ever existed anywhere than the in the more liberal social democracies of say, Australia, New Zealand or the Scandinavian countries? I understand the concept of the benevolent dictatorship - but I don't think one has ever existed. Has it?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Neither has an environmental 'pied piper' like Al Gore been in existence, but look how conscious he now makes us all concerning global warming. The world has never before had the capacity to have a central ruler to moderate disputes and equalize wealth. But sooner or later, we must accept the goal of our previous efforts, set aside our stubborn grip on national pride of the past, and let go of personal freedoms in order for the greater good to prevail.

For the time being, stick with leaders like Hillary and Obama, and you'll see how fast we can conclude our transition to a progressive, global life.

Ahuh...for my part I'm not closet anything, and I don't like your chances of getting any Americans to set aside freedoms that enriches life. Well, not enough anyway...stupid Patriot Act...and I'd say they're plenty divided, comes with the terrirtory of overiding greed in many of 'em.

A battle without much blood. As I've said what you've proscribed will abandon all the progress made, and return ideological struggles to brutal physical ones- where we'll just slide backwards.

Or Cuba could have become a complete basket case- you'd leave it just up to whoever lead a military coup? What makes you think that Capatalists wouldn't takeover at a global level, and we'd all be back down the proverbial mine? Or further down as the case may be.

I didn't mention Cuba as its not an example of democracy and central planning together, as was my point. While it has some notable good points ('Sicko' still fresh in my mind), it doesn't matter they're successes- dictatorships are always risky as the next leader might be a mad man, and instead of voting him out or having other pillars to counter-balance him, you need a desperate overthrow, usually where alot of people die.

Power centralisation occurs in both systems, merely there is a far more effective oversite in democracises.

This is really odd. Those three things do exist, yet you say they cannot. And we're not making mere recommendations, we're making laws. Your proscription is to support some unknown elite that you for some reason is going to be nice and socialist, despite history and the current economic elite.

The ones who stone walled it have been constrained by democracy, as you see yourself to have been, from being much worse- chances are those are the Elite you'd end up with. How exactly is democracy more whimsical than a dictator- someone who quite literally can govern by whim alone?

Mantra? Anyway yeah I do- the solution is more democratic participation and some pointy laws, not the abandonment of democracy with an uncertain future. What the Soviets had, both success and failures are not surprising when those that get power do it through subversion and might, rather than open discussion. They weren't a historic accident, they were a perfect example of autocracy- among other things there is no continuity of good leaders, and an inefficient and dangerous centralisation of power.


Us, and by extension those that we elect. Was that an answer to my question, because I can't seem to connect the dots on that one.

This also comes back to the basic point that the system of choice in a dictatorship opperates on a democratic principal of sorts- he with the most soldiers wins. Might is no way to elect a leader.

I'm glad Al Gore cameup- seeing as it was democracy that gave him a name, allowed him to speak out, and democracy that gave him an election win- though a weakened one that had it taken away....in an alternate Autocracy the same forces would have seem 'im silent or dead I'd imagine. Actually seeing as the popular vote, a real voice of democracy, would have seen him as president afterall, I'll notch that up as another one for Democracy thanks KOD.

Right and if its a democracy we'd be the ones running it. You don't believe a proper democracy is possible?

Eh its governing, why mince words. It will be whatever it is, whatever powers and responsibilities it gains. And I don't get this conflict between freedom and democracy- we're governing ourselves, we're free (in ideal anyway, cursed undemocratic elements)

It'd have to assume the right to violence from the nations, can't really have it otherwise. If people can't except that, atleast to a limited extent, then I don't see it forming.

What you've described though is the need for nations to maintain their own power, while they maintain their own significant identity( something I think would cahnge overtime) Instead of them having to rely on weapons, you-

"...[establish] a bicameral global parliament; lower house based on ‘one person, one vote, one value’; upper house based on nation state representation..."

from Bob Brown that I mentioned before. Its modelled off our own system(though it predates it I'm fairly sure), and was adopted for similar reasons when we federated. Its to protect the soverignty of the members for however long they feel they need protection-for as long as they identify more strongly as memebers and not simply as the greater political body. Should be fun.

You're living in a Fantasy world if you believe that, seriously. You're going to have to come to the understanding that war is as much a part of our nature as our desire for Peace as a whole. You might think that one government would prevent war, but war would give way to rebellion, insurrection, and terrorism in its stead. Just different names. As long as there are different ideoligies, different religions, different levels of competence and incompetence--there will be bloodshed. In order to eliminate War, you would have to eliminate everything about our very natures as human beings. You would have to eliminate passion, free will, love, jealousy, hate, pride, zeal, even our survival instinct and everything else which makes us human.

Even when there was paradise on earth, Lucifer raged against the Heavens. It's engrained in our very core. In order for your ideal to be achieved you would have to subjegate people to one rule, one belief system, one set of values and wipe out a thousand different cultures entirely. Even then, you still wouldn't get peace.

ROFLMNAO... Leftists...

Is it just me or are they just becoming more pathetic by the second?

I've been asking for some statute which would support the notion that the US has engaged in an 'illegal' war for 6 years and to this moment not one leftist has managed to respond with a true and valid response...

FTR: There is no greater polluting force on earth than leftism and leftist nations... and 'Climate Change...' it's a joke, much like the leftist ideology pretty much across the board.

Although I will say you people are consistent... The panic you've generated over the Chicken Little syndrome does promise to create an unprecedented famine... and I can't WAIT to hear how such was just another 'UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF GOOD INTENTIONS...'

ROFLMNAO... Leftists...

Agreed friend and well said... There is good news however, at the twilight of this life, he'll find the peace he seeks, assuming he chooses wisely in this life and accepts God's grace.

In a small populatated area, certainly. But I don't want it to be possible.

Based on what, theology? Ideologies can live peacfully together, as our nations are testament to. Empiriscim is very much on my side.

Why does it need to be a small area?

It is impossible otherwise...