Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[Shi Huangdi]

"a government where people can elect different leaders but not change the policies "

Huh!? What do you mean we can't change the policies? We have had politicians all over the spectrum from LBJ to Reagan? Do you honestly think that policies we enacted would have been the same if say, Mondale had beaten Reagan in '84? If Goldwater had beaten Johnson in '64? The USA is a democracy, Cuba is not.

[Urban Ranger]

che,

and proportional elections for at least one legislative house.

I take this you meant either the Congress or the Senate? Wouldn't this need a constitution amendment?

[Velociryx]

KOTA: It depends on what you mean by a world government. If you mean, will the UN under the plan outlined above come to more and more resemble the "United States of Earth", I'd say possibly, but not in any of our lifetimes.

I would say, however, that the UN as outlined above would become a defacto major player in international affairs, gaining "superpower" status almost overnight, having sufficient resources and teeth, thanks to the combined contributions of all its member states to be a bulwark against ANY nation (including the USA).

The thing is, a restructured UN offers us a LOT of important advantages. Unlike any individual nation-state (which must of course, often look to the shorter term, and see to its own self interests), this organization HAS no shorter term. It would exist to be our Moral backbone. It would exist to do the things that no singular nation-state could do effectively on its own. Part of the reason for that is its pluralistic nature. Rather than it being a case of the US, or France, or China simply dictating terms to a large hunk of the world, the UN (made up of representatives from all over the world), would get to participate in crafting policy, and helping to steer the ship. This equates to *automatic* coalition building....where the UN goes, it goes in accordance with its own mandate, and under the direction of the world body. And, as the UN would be in the position to take a longer-term world view, it would not get bogged down in short term crisis management, save for the commissions that focused on specific areas (such as disaster relief, as mentioned above).

Also, I should point out that as a significant part of the UN's restructuring, one of the things that should come about from this is the election, not appointment of each member's UN representative. Give the UN the teeth described above, and it becomes necessary to hold him directly accountable to the voters of the nation he represents (and obviously, building this into the charter would strain and stress the non-democratic nations who are members....a good thing, IMO, given the changes to the charter I have proposed).

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

As far as Cuba goes, Che and I both believe that its more democratic, but for different reasons. I don't think it has anything to do with voting. The Cuban government works more for ALL of its people, not giving special priviledge to a select few. The US government does give priviledge to a select few. I'm trying to say that the US is elitist and therefore less democratic.

[Velociryx]

I disagree. What you are saying is that in Cuba, there are no "perks" and special privleges for the upper echelon of the Communist party, and this is clearly not the case.

They have their elites, just as we have our elites, and the elites eat better, have air conditioning, and more freedom.

The *disparity* between the elites is undoubtedly different in the two countries, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. Further, the USA has a high degree of social mobility. I've never been to Cuba, so I can't speak for them, but clearly, social mobility isn't as important there, if the different between the elites and non is not so great (ie - moving "up" doesn't get you as much of a marginal benefit there as it does here).

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Another important distinction - In Cuba, you can rise through the ranks by being a "good little Communist" here, you rise through the ranks thanks to your own effort and hard work. The former is passive....you make yourself subservient to the will of the ruling Communist party, don't rock the boat, further its ends, and you go places. Here, you put your nose to the grindstone and make your own future, parties be d@mned.

-V.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
Vel- I like your plan.

But a question that arises is this:
Do you ever think there will be a worldwide government? Not like the UN, with many nations part of it, but a government elected by all the people on earth?

My thought on that is no. People are too partisan.

I personally think it's inevitable. History has been a steady process of smaller political units merging into a larger one. We began as isolated hunter/gathers, then we formed villages. The villages turned into city states which in time became nations. And we can see with the EU that this process is still continueing today.

And we can also see that we are evolving a global culture. A typical Japanese today doesn't dress very much differently than a Canadian, who looks the same as an American or a German. We watch the same movies, in large part, and listen to the same music forms, though the individual bands may be different. Just recently on Jay Leno, I saw a band from South Africa perform, and if that fact wouldn't have been announced, I would never have been able to tell the difference.

Now you may ask so what? Well the point is that nationalism arises in part because one country's culture is different than another, which gives them a unique identity. In time though there will so little distinction between nations that any squabbles that result will be more like Californians griping about New Yorkers, instead of like the US against the Soviets. The concept of national borders will be used merely for the process of local governance, rather than a dividing line between one nation and another.

[Velociryx]

I largely agree, however, I think the process will be a very slow one (thus, not likely in any of our lifetimes). But on balance, I agree.

-=Vel=-

PS: In other news, there's a picture of my thumb on the front page of our local paper! Well....and also one of my books.... (got to participate in an article about "bookcrossing.com" which I'm using to help get the word out 'bout the books!)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I largely agree, however, I think the process will be a very slow one (thus, not likely in any of our lifetimes). But on balance, I agree.

Certainly. It probably won't even happen in your grandchildren's lifetime for that matter. Another thing we need to have is a universal language, since language is the ultimate form of culture. But we can see today how widespread the use of English is becoming all over the world, that process has begun. It's the language of business, and in large part of science. Eventually it will evolve to the point that we all speak a form of it. It probably won't be recognizable to those of us living today as English, just like many people haven't a clue what Shakespeare was trying to say, but it will happen eventually.

[Ned]

Vel,

Bush I arrested Noriega. Why do you believe we need a Democrat president to clean up our residue? You will only get decisive action from a Republican president. Democrats are too force adverse.

I agree the UN should have a democracy test to be in a leadership role in any organization or the SC. But, since any such reform would have to be ratified by all participating countries, which will not happen, I think we simply kill the UN and start a new organization structured along the lines you suggest.

NATO has a democracy test. We could expand NATO into a world organization.

[Velociryx]

Ned....not sure where you got the notion that I think we need an elected Democrat to do the above. IMO, the party-politics of the USA won't much matter. What WILL matter is electing a president who has UN reform on his mind, and the political will to get us there.

Personally, I think that the US has sufficient influence in the UN to push through the needed changes, but that remains to be seen. If not, then yes, I'd be strongly in favor of ditching it for an organization with a Democracy test as a place of beginning, and NATO would be as good a place as any to start (which actually might not be a bad idea....as the movement gained strength, the the UN--which would not dismantle itself with our leaving--could eventually be merged with the new organization, forming a "house of representatives" as it were, to the organization).

Willem....agree on all counts, and it's a good thing to see. (and who knows, with advances in biotech, maybe we WILL be around to see it.... )

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ned
NATO has a democracy test. We could expand NATO into a world organization.

NATO is primarily a military organization, it wouldn't be equipped to deal with the types of issues that the UN now does. And it would be very difficult getting many nations to feel comfortable having a Western based military alliance running the world.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I disagree. What you are saying is that in Cuba, there are no "perks" and special privleges for the upper echelon of the Communist party, and this is clearly not the case.

They have their elites, just as we have our elites, and the elites eat better, have air conditioning, and more freedom.

The *disparity* between the elites is undoubtedly different in the two countries, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. Further, the USA has a high degree of social mobility. I've never been to Cuba, so I can't speak for them, but clearly, social mobility isn't as important there, if the different between the elites and non is not so great (ie - moving "up" doesn't get you as much of a marginal benefit there as it does here).

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Another important distinction - In Cuba, you can rise through the ranks by being a "good little Communist" here, you rise through the ranks thanks to your own effort and hard work. The former is passive....you make yourself subservient to the will of the ruling Communist party, don't rock the boat, further its ends, and you go places. Here, you put your nose to the grindstone and make your own future, parties be d@mned.

-V.

1) What do you need social mobility if there is equality?

2) I'm not arguing for absolute equality. I'm just satisfied if every one has a fair share of the pie and no one is living filthy rich while other go without.

3) Social Mobility is soooo insignificant Vel. So many people work their nose to the grindstone as you say, and they end up homeless or deep in debt. Most of the rich in this country made it to where they are because the kissed good ass, stabed someone in the back, or they were particularily ruthless. Of course, there is the case where they were born with it

P.S. I created another thread. You might have to go through a few pages though its not to popular yet

[Velociryx]

Just replied to your other thread!

And I must disagree that social mobility is irrelevant.

While it'd be nice to see that everybody has a piece of the pie, that MUST come with the precondition that those who want a piece of the pie must be willing to work for it.

If you are out busting your a$$ every day to make a living, and I don't feel like doing that, should the government just give me my share, even though I'm not willing to do anything? It's not that I'm not capable, I just don't want to.

And, IF there's a mechanism in place to provide for people like that, why would anyone want to? Where would the incentive be for hard work to get ahead? Why bother....you can just sit at home, eat bon bons, and watch the soaps all day and do just fine.

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

The Global spread of Democracy would make the world a safer place to live. Tin-Pot dictators love lobbing missiles at each other. They love mobalizing their armies and playing god in their local regions (and sometimes, beyond that). If we wish to see a dramatic dropoff, and perhaps even the disappearance of such things, then a democratized world is a fine way to start. In short, a democratized world is a SAFER world.

I cannot agree that democracy are less warlike when you have states like India, Israel and the US being as bad as any dictatorship.

A Democratized world is a better educated world. I'll get to this later on, and go into more detail, but for Democracy to work, the people of a given country must be at least somewhat educated, literate and informed. Better education is a stabalizing force, and leads to increased innovation in every nation.

India has abysmal literacy levels compared to China. Better education is a stabilising force? Don't be daft.

More opportunities for trade and commerce. Given the greater safety and security that a democratized world represents, businesses from all over the globe would have a higher degree of safety when opening up shop in these newly democrized nations. This leads to the creation of more jobs, and has the effect of raising the standard of living in those nations. As their standard of living increases, their demand for goods and services increases, and the market grows stronger. Businesses are risk-averse, however, and will not make this move in a region of instability unless it is on an extremely short term basis (contractually, rather than, say, investing in a physical plant or facility).

A bit optimistic about the effects of business aren't you? I very much doubt that the disparity of development across the world is down to 'instability', and lack of democracy. You mention what I assume are large multinationals 'setting up shop'. This is not always benign, since this may involve corrupting local politicians, hiking prices for a basic utility and gaining a stranglehold over an area. And let's not forget that multinationals are perfectly happy to deal with dictators. What about indigenous business start-ups and nationalised industries? Are they undemocratic?

None of this, however, will be possible with the UN in its current running condition. The system needs an overhaul, and it needs it now. The US should use its influence in that organization, and in cooperation with its allies, fix everything that's broken about the UN (this list is, currently too long to even contemplate putting here, and should be more fully explored in another thread devoted to that singular topic), and it needs to be done with all possible speed.

I don't want to see the UN Americanised under the guise of it being 'broken'. Not everyone accepts so unquestioningly the vague assertions leveled at the UN.

Another part of the UN revamping would be to either kick out, or sorely curtail the involvement of non-democratic governments (perhaps by denying any non-democratic government veto powers--yes, that means you, China--or by banning non-democratic nations from serving on any council positions, or both).

The UN serves peace, not democracy. Quite rightly too. Peace is far more important.

[Willem]

Originally posted by DuncanK

3) Social Mobility is soooo insignificant Vel. So many people work their nose to the grindstone as you say, and they end up homeless or deep in debt. Most of the rich in this country made it to where they are because the kissed good ass, stabed someone in the back, or they were particularily ruthless. Of course, there is the case where they were born with it

Social mobility is very important. People are ambitious creatures, they have aspirations beyond just those of providing for their immediate needs. And some are more ambitious than others. If you try and develop a social system that doesn't allow for people who want more from life, you will have a system where there's no longer any incentive to excell, and/or one that creates some resentment and frustration. Why do you think the Soviet Union failed, and why China is moving towards a capitalist system?

One of the problems that I see occuring in the argument of capitalism vs. socialism is this idea that they are mutually exclusive. They're not! There's no reason why you can't have a capitalist system that has a fair means of income distribution, either through social support like Unemployment Insurance, disability funding etc. or simply through a fair minimum wage. Take a look at a public traded company, it's owned by shareholders, which is in essence a socialist principle. Add to that things like profit sharing, stock options and a few more schemes I'm sure I haven't heard of, there'e no reason why the two ideas can't cooexist.

I think one of the problems with your view of capitalism is that you're basing it solely on the American model, which is the extreme version. The European nations, as well as Canada, are experimenting with a model that tries to incorporate aspects of both philosophies. Now I don't want to open a debate on the merits of welfare states vs laissez faire democracies, but I see no reason why the two should automatically be opposed to each other.