I'd disagree, but you'll have to tell me what specifically changes between the two for it to be feasable.

The problem with a democracy is that there is too much special interest. Democracy is an unstable form of government. A socialist democracy is more stable and cares more about the people's voice in all things than our federal republic....Look at all republics throughout time and one in particular comes to mind...Rome before it became an empire...a republic ruled by the rich...does that not describe the current government in the United States? If a government is for the people by the people shouldn't the people's interest come first before everything else?

I agree actually.


It wont happen in the foreseeable future. Certainly not until the world has been completely democratized.


I think it is way premature. It wont happen for centuries at least.



Good...then we'll do that with the world government as well.



Strong leadership that that is immune from retribution has proven itself incapable of resisting corruption. For that reason, we cannot allow rulers to remain out of the control of the masses.



Because they are superior to the alternatives. The most powerful, most advanced, and wealthiest nation in history is not socialist...or a dictatorship...or an oligarchy. Empirical evidence proves that democracy is superior to all other political ideologies.



Your opinion is insufficient evidence of that.


The Bill of Rights are just Amendments...they have no special powers than any other Amendment has. And, like other Amendments, they can be superseded. We already did that twice, remember?

There is no law in our system that cannot be changed if there is enough support for it. None.



Yes. Because not all information has equal value. And what you personally consider important, may not be that important to someone else.


Because your view of their "ignorance" is just an opinion. You yourself probably dont give all information equal value.



I'm not. The answer is "choice".

Thats the whole point of freedom.



For the Islamofacists, yes. But I am not interested in solving their problems. In fact, I'd like to create more for them.


None of those things would mean you are enslaved. I agree.

The fact that you would have no say in them is why you would be enslaved.

And technically speaking, none of it would really be free. You would just pay for it in other ways.


No human being is capable of such objectivity. Therefore, your government cannot work.


And failed. Non-democracies have been declining, not increasing.

By contrast, democracy has been spreading for the last few centuries.


So you admit that Cuba is incapable of competing with us under their current system. Good. We agree.



Where are they now? Nature does not recognize excuses.

And the Soviets were not around that long...America is a young nation, and even we have existed far longer than the Soviets did.


No, it does not. Because the rich cannot override the votes of the non-rich. And the non-rich outnumber the rich by a wide margin.

The Rich do not have any really power under our system. They have the same vote as anyone else.


Who gets to define what the Peoples' interests are?

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Interesting. Did you think that these (4) things have been instituted by popular vote? No...........they have been provided through mandate by our courts' judges (primarily appointed judges) with no regard for democratic opinion. Democracy is an outdated concept whose time has come and gone. Real progress can only be provided by central directive.

Case closed Enough of that Dragon speech crap!! Cease NOW

The solution to war at least for the United States is to not start them.

That would only be true if you ignored the whole of human history. In your case, Australia is protected somewhat by it's geographic isolation. But even that will not be sufficient protection after a time, or are you forgetting World War II. You can't sit there and honestly say that everyone in Australia is happy and contented. No country could lay claim to that. It just doesn't exist.

You're right in saying that ideologies can live together, if they choose to but different ideologies choose not to. It doesn't matter what society you're talking about there are always groups that are dissatisfied with it, and there are always other places not as successful or prosperous that will want to blame you for it. Therein lies the flaw in the original statement.

I think there will possibly be a world govt in our lifetime or our children's lifetime.

I mean there's already a European Union, a South American Union, an African Union, and an Asian Union; plus a North American Union and Pacific Union in the works. How long will it take these Unions to unite into one massive worldwide government that will encompass all but a few obscure nations?

However, I think one world government is a bad idea, sure it will mean peace, but at what price? What if the people in charge get corrupted by their power to govern the world, (remember the little idiom: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) What if some nations get in a dispute with other nations as to how much authority the world government should have, then the world union splits into two, possibly leading to world war.

__________________
"I pity those that take authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." – Ayn Rand

Sorry - I can't agree. I'm from Illinois and the rampant corruption even on the state level is overwhelming. I can't fathom a "world government" the wouldn't be at least as equally susceptible to the temptations of power. Besides, would it be a parliamentary system or representative democracy - and if either, then for how long?
Frankly any government is ultimately reliant on the characters of it's leaders - if people were perfect then communism would be the perfect form of government. They're not and it's not. At least a representative democracy relies on the mediating mediocrity of all of it's constituents to prevent to much or to little progress.
A "supreme world government" must fail simply because it will rely on the character of the people elected to it and if the history of the elections of the worlds most democratic country (USA) is any indication, then the elected officials in a world government can't possibly expected of be of better quality.
It's a grand Utopian idea, and I wish it could come true - but I'm a realist.
Don't stop trying - either there's something better for us all, something tangible, something practical or were all just waiting to paint caves with ochre - again.

Humans couldn't have a world government. They aren't smart, communicative, understanding, trustworthy, or peaceful enough. Insects maybe.

__________________
It is human to love and divine to forgive

My concern is not whether God is on our side, my greatest concern is to be on God's side... - Abraham Lincoln