Skip to content

Uno Mundo

Political Discussion
55 12 1.3k
  • @erie-dawg said:

    Imagine the corruption that would be involved in something like this. How would voting work? Biggest country by population size = automatic winner?

    Wasn't it written somewhere about one ruler for all the people being the end of times?

    I'd imagine countries would still elect their own president (or whatever) and all those heads of state would make up a congress and elect a leader amongst themselves

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    I'd imagine countries would still elect their own president (or whatever) and all those heads of state would make up a congress and elect a leader amongst themselves

    Like every state has a governor.

    WSS

  • Right except the governors would select the president. Which would probably actually be a better system than we are currently using.

  • Right except the governors would select the president. Which would probably actually be a better system than we are currently using.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Right except the governors would select the president. Which would probably actually be a better system than we are currently using.

    I would think the citizens vote for president of the world who would preside over the governors of each country.

    WSS

  • Logistically impossible

  • Also incredibly flawed

  • Logistically impossible

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Logistically impossible

    No doubt that's true today. Imagine 300 years ago without the electoral college?

    Communications in time will make it possible for every human being on earth earth to vote.

    Soon enough most people will speak a version of the same language.

    I think it's a fucked up idea but...

    WSS

  • Right except the governors would select the president. Which would probably actually be a better system than we are currently using.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    Right except the governors would select the president. Which would probably actually be a better system than we are currently using.

    That's what happens here, in a small version. Each of the 650 seats in parliament is independently elected, and then those 650 elect their leader, and whichever party has the majority of seats forms the government. Or, gets first crack at a coalition.

  • @the-cysko-kid said:

    Right except the governors would select the president. Which would probably actually be a better system than we are currently using.

    That's what happens here, in a small version. Each of the 650 seats in parliament is independently elected, and then those 650 elect their leader, and whichever party has the majority of seats forms the government. Or, gets first crack at a coalition.

    @gftchris said:

    That's what happens here, in a small version. Each of the 650 seats in parliament is independently elected, and then those 650 elect their leader, and whichever party has the majority of seats forms the government. Or, gets first crack at a coalition.

    So how would you fellas feel if a muslim was the supreme leader or whatever title and he wanted to implement sharia law throughout the world. I've been out and never want to see a new world order myself. I just see a mess of corruption myself.
  • Until islam evolves from a medieval mentality it would be incompatible with any sort of global leadership.

  • What I'm saying is that I trust there would be enough self interest from the rest of the world to say "yeah no we're not going to elect a global theocrat"

  • I'm thinking that there will be a lot of very serious changes to the planet and humanity before a one world government is feasible.

    (imagine trying to tell the citizens in the thirteen hundreds how things would be today.)

    But I don't think that would be impossible. Adolf Hitler won the election in Germany.

    The world could easily become a dystopia. Remember boys history did not begin 100 years ago.

    WSS

  • @gftchris said:

    That's what happens here, in a small version. Each of the 650 seats in parliament is independently elected, and then those 650 elect their leader, and whichever party has the majority of seats forms the government. Or, gets first crack at a coalition.

    So how would you fellas feel if a muslim was the supreme leader or whatever title and he wanted to implement sharia law throughout the world. I've been out and never want to see a new world order myself. I just see a mess of corruption myself.

    @erie-dawg said:

    So how would you fellas feel if a muslim was the supreme leader or whatever title and he wanted to implement sharia law throughout the world. I've been out and never want to see a new world order myself. I just see a mess of corruption myself.

    I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

  • @erie-dawg said:

    So how would you fellas feel if a muslim was the supreme leader or whatever title and he wanted to implement sharia law throughout the world. I've been out and never want to see a new world order myself. I just see a mess of corruption myself.

    I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

    @gftchris said:

    I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

    I hope athiest is never a requirement for anything as I see athiesm as sort of a religion unto itself. Most self identified athiests seem to be insulting, loud mouthed,nihilistic jackholes that go out of their way to push their beliefs on others and ridicule people of faith. (Hint: I'm not what you would call a person of faith) Rather I'd just as soon see religion as not a prominent issue.

  • Beyond Thunderdome

    WSS

  • @erie-dawg said:

    So how would you fellas feel if a muslim was the supreme leader or whatever title and he wanted to implement sharia law throughout the world. I've been out and never want to see a new world order myself. I just see a mess of corruption myself.

    I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

    @gftchris said:

    I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pipe+dream

  • @gftchris said:

    I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

    I hope athiest is never a requirement for anything as I see athiesm as sort of a religion unto itself. Most self identified athiests seem to be insulting, loud mouthed,nihilistic jackholes that go out of their way to push their beliefs on others and ridicule people of faith. (Hint: I'm not what you would call a person of faith) Rather I'd just as soon see religion as not a prominent issue.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    I hope athiest is never a requirement for anything as I see athiesm as sort of a religion unto itself. Most self identified athiests seem to be insulting, loud mouthed,nihilistic jackholes that go out of their way to push their beliefs on others and ridicule people of faith. (Hint: I'm not what you would call a person of faith) Rather I'd just as soon see religion as not a prominent issue.

    It's more a point of being able to trust someone to make rational decisions about things in direct contradiction to their religion. For example, take any religious person who believes their god made the universe and put the earth at the centre (mataphorical, not physical), and that we must exclusively be the only life in the universe because why would god have put life elsewhere? I wouldn't be too happy appointing that person leader of the world in charge of exploring space and dealing with anything we find there.

  • @the-cysko-kid said:

    I hope athiest is never a requirement for anything as I see athiesm as sort of a religion unto itself. Most self identified athiests seem to be insulting, loud mouthed,nihilistic jackholes that go out of their way to push their beliefs on others and ridicule people of faith. (Hint: I'm not what you would call a person of faith) Rather I'd just as soon see religion as not a prominent issue.

    It's more a point of being able to trust someone to make rational decisions about things in direct contradiction to their religion. For example, take any religious person who believes their god made the universe and put the earth at the centre (mataphorical, not physical), and that we must exclusively be the only life in the universe because why would god have put life elsewhere? I wouldn't be too happy appointing that person leader of the world in charge of exploring space and dealing with anything we find there.

    @gftchris said:

    It's more a point of being able to trust someone to make rational decisions about things in direct contradiction to their religion. For example, take any religious person who believes their god made the universe and put the earth at the centre (mataphorical, not physical), and that we must exclusively be the only life in the universe because why would god have put life elsewhere? I wouldn't be too happy appointing that person leader of the world in charge of exploring space and dealing with anything we find there.

    You know, like in Soylent Green.

    Brave new world, 1984 etc

    WSS

  • And what has Obama done with our space program? Last I heard we were forced to hitch a ride with the Russians into space because Obama has decimated our space program.

  • @gftchris said:

    It's more a point of being able to trust someone to make rational decisions about things in direct contradiction to their religion. For example, take any religious person who believes their god made the universe and put the earth at the centre (mataphorical, not physical), and that we must exclusively be the only life in the universe because why would god have put life elsewhere? I wouldn't be too happy appointing that person leader of the world in charge of exploring space and dealing with anything we find there.

    You know, like in Soylent Green.

    Brave new world, 1984 etc

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    You know, like in Soylent Green.

    WSS

    Never watched it, but I don't doubt there are plenty of dystopian movies that involve eradication of religion, just as there are plenty of instances of dystopias fuelled by religion.. I know you have this whole contrarian thing going, but don't you ever get tired of not really making a point of your own?

  • It will be essential for space exploration. As it is now though I don't think anyone from any major country could accept foreigners bossing then around.

    @the-cysko-kid said:

    It will be essential for space exploration. As it is now though I don't think anyone from any major country could accept foreigners bossing then around.

    I think space exploration, just like auto and aviation industries, is going to be pioneered by private industry, not governments.