Globalization

[Zairak]

Is it better for the world's population to remain seperated into different nations? Would it be better if there were only one world government? Would the security and relative peace we might gain be worth the possible sacrifice or diminishment of our various cultures?

Further, assuming globalization happened, would it be better to start afresh with a new government, or should an already existing government simply take over the other nations?

Discuss.

[grimfang999]

no, it wont work.

first of, economy. Lets look at the Euro. Globalisation likely means a single currancy. the amount of places using the same currancy will cause difficencies. However, in some ways it might be better because there is no currancies to compare. However, national pride is one major issue. Americans say its the Dollar that will become the globalised currancy. not bloody likely says anyone else. Greece wants to change back to Drachma, well some do, and thats a prime example.

countries want to be countries. they want their own politics, ideologies, and personal glory. England, for example, didnt join the Euro in fear of eventually losing their identity, as well as the power they have with the pound.

peace will only be attained if Americans can keep their bigs mouths shut (government) and stop thinking they are better than everyone else. When they go to war, the British get dragged along too. This is why America is disliked. Diplomacy, not centralisation.

speaking of which, look what happened to the Roman empire. Sure, they were able to remain in control for 700 years, but when the East and West divided the West collapsed. The East properly and quite litterally centralised their government and remained alive for 1100 years. Now, consider this on a global scale. National pride will spark rebellions for the first several centuries, and the empire will quickly collapse due to strikes, military control funds and damage repairs. this will deteriorate the world into the second dark age, we cant risk that.


Its either two ways of achieving globalisation. its either diplomatically agree, which the public will not be happy about, or a mass scale invasion, which people will be less happy about, both leading to mass rebellions and destruction. If these are repelled then we have a death note scenario where there is a society controled by fear.


im going to sum this up in one sentence: I dont see the Turks and the Greeks, or the Turks and the Armenians, or the Turks and the Israilites, or America and the middle east willing to ever hug each other.

natural discrimination as well: the sub-conscioud decision to hang about in groups of people which are of similar ethnic origen than you.

[JesusRocks]

wow... i like the way you ever so subtly make it seem like the turks hate everyone :thatface:

[grimfang999]

sorry its my own hate towards them, no offense to any of Turk related origen.

but ye JR, the Turks do not like anyone. Greece hates them for enslaving them for 400 years, the Turks commited the Armenian Genocide, they have humiliated the Israilian ambassador and then demanded an apology for belittling the Turkish ambassador when he had every right. and now the Turks are starting to hate the Americans for accepting that the slaughter which the Turks deny as a genocide. They pretty much hate most countries in the world because they are other countries

they basically bringpeople to hate them.

oh yeah, did I mention the division of Cyprus?

[Fat1Fared]

wow... i like the way you ever so subtly make it seem like the turks hate everyone :thatface:

well to be fair, they do <___<
>___>

As for globization, well it sounds nice, but Empires sound nice, Communism sounds nice, Democracy sounds nice, meritocracy sounds nice......etc doesn't mean they are any good, in fact most of time they are delusions of glamour which will never work as they are fundamentally inhuman.

Aldous Huxley:
At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.


The problem with Politics is this:

Groucho Marx:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.


And that about sums it up, and this is example of this, the problems with separation exist, but putting everyone in one banner will not magically remove them, in fact most likely exgrasbate this problem.
=(as USA and EU both prove, one big leader is just as incompetent as lots of little ones, his F-ups are just lot bigger scaled) and it will not even remove division as people like to be different, so forcing them to be same will only make even more rueful of their differences.

=Next economically, if everyone is under one banner, then all the worlds problems will come to the door of the one place and so no other can places like Africa be:-
1=easy to exploit (which anyone from western world who criticizes is hypocrite)
2=Means have to deal with their problems as now our problems

=Next, the reason we made different cultures and societies is because of the natural differences in the world and having one centrised government in say UK, will not be able to deal effectively with problems in say Greenland as do not understand Greenland, adding only more problems to the Marx quote

=Finally, do you really wish to unit with places like Iran and will they wish to unit with us, several thousand years of blood and hate is not going to be easy thing to get the masses to forget,

Greece hates them for enslaving them for 400 years

Resist going off track, pain oh pain

[grimfang999]

like I said, it will occur like the Roman empire. economy, military, food will to too far stratched out, it will collapse before it starts

[killshot]

Instead of rattling off the long list of reasons why complete globalization will never happen, I think this topic should be about whether or not it would be beneficial for the world to unite. The way I imagine globalization would work would be to model it after the United States only on a much larger scale. Each country would function autonomously with the exception of a world wide government which oversees legislation that applies to the entire world. In a sense, it would be like how each state in the US governs itself, but all states are still subject to Federal law. The obvious advantage of such a system is to quickly settle disputes within the system and to react quickly to global crisis' such as global warming.

If such a system were to somehow come about, how would you all feel about living in it? Do you think individual freedoms could still be preserved in a system that has to accommodate everyone?

[JesusRocks]

Instead of rattling off the long list of reasons why complete globalization will never happen, I think this topic should be about whether or not it would be beneficial for the world to unite. The way I imagine globalization would work would be to model it after the United States only on a much larger scale. Each country would function autonomously with the exception of a world wide government which oversees legislation that applies to the entire world. In a sense, it would be like how each state in the US governs itself, but all states are still subject to Federal law. The obvious advantage of such a system is to quickly settle disputes within the system and to react quickly to global crisis' such as global warming.

If such a system were to somehow come about, how would you all feel about living in it? Do you think individual freedoms could still be preserved in a system that has to accommodate everyone?

I think any model of supra-national governance would be based more on the European Union model, rather than the US Federal model. I mean, they're similar, but the balance of power and legislative effect is weighted more towards the individual Member States than in a Federal system. It would mean that the sovereignty of each nation would be retained.

The advantages of retaining the individual sovereignty of each nation would make it a lot easier to accommodate a larger amount of diverse cultures, providing that they're willing to agree on the broader aspects.
It would be pretty much the same as living under the systems we currently have.
Open borders would be the most noticeable difference, it would make travelling to different countries a lot easier. But there are a lot of problems with globalisation anyway, which means it's not likely to happen. If we take the European Union as sort of a miniature version of this, then we can see the obvious benefits... much as I don't like the concept of the Euro, I cannot deny that it is a strong currency, and the Euro wasn't affected by the recession as bady as other currencies were, the EU countries with the Euro fared a little bit better... However the issues and problems with the EU are just as plain to see as the benefits, and if we were to expand the benefits of it to the global level, we should expand its problems to the global level - and add in the problems that come about due to an even greater diversity of cultures.

So if we look at the EU as a base model, expand out the benefits and detriments of that system to take account of the rest of the world, and add in the other issues, we should be able to get a glimpse of what a supra-national government encompassing the whole world would look like.

[AllisonWalker]

Globalization would never pass in the United States. It underminds the Constitution and goes against everything this country was founded after. This country is also so diverse and independent, and most people would kick out any congressman or senator who would vote for it. A President would face impeachment. There would be riots. The United States Military would not support it.

[JesusRocks]

Globalization would never pass in the United States.

Why?

It underminds the Constitution and goes against everything this country was founded after.

Again, why?


This country is also so diverse and independent

Like most western countries

and most people would kick out any congressman or senator who would vote for it.

And again, why?

A President would face impeachment. There would be riots. The United States Military would not support it.

Finally, why?


Please enlighten us. The intricate arguments that have been woven into your sweeping generalisations may escape those who are unfamiliar with the US constitution, and your own understanding of the term "globalisation"

[AllisonWalker]

Number one reason: the President of the United States has the highest authority in the country and must be a natural born citizen with fourteen years of residency in the US.

The Gov't would not legally recognize any higher authority over the United States. We also have our Supreme Court, House Of Reps, and Senate. It's a system that can't legally be changed, and there's no real need to either.

[grimfang999]

...well really that point becomes redundant anyway because if it were to be reached through diplomacy then the president would ahve a large say. really the only true way to get everyone to globalise if it is dont very slowly overtime rather than wuickly

[Fat1Fared]

Number one reason: the President of the United States has the highest authority in the country and must be a natural born citizen with fourteen years of residency in the US.


=It was only 5 years ago, never thought have black man in white house, so think that need to accept, that times change, I mean the USA (note USA, not America) is basically globalisation on smaller scale and a more extreme version of EU

PS also the President is not the highest authority in the US, I mean if we go pass the practical truths or conspiracy ideas, the fact is the US is Tripartite system based on Lockes stolen ideals (from Moniquituse)

=Which means you have the Executive (IE Government and President) the Legislature (Congress) and the Judiciary (Courts) all on the same level with separate powers, and anyone can undermine the other to keep them all in balance, so if 2 went against one, easy to override them


The Gov't would not legally recognize any higher authority over the United States. We also have our Supreme Court, House Of Reps, and Senate. It's a system that can't legally be changed, and there's no real need to either.

Then how come you regocise the rights of ADHR, the UN and the UN's human rights division as well as the millions of treaties you have with other countries which effect your sovereign powers

=Killshot for me, the reasons it wouldn't work are the reasons it would not be good thing (there mostly interchangeable,) because only create economic, cultural, practical and social problems (or worsen them should i say) but the main thing I mean, is when ever humans try ideals which go against our very nature, those in power abuse those without it (look at Russian and its Totalitarian Socialism) and look at how the EU has degraded most of the countries within it and has given itself no accountability to those it is meant to represent.
=Look at how the US betrays everything it was made to stand for
=Look at how China forgot all about the ideals of Sun Yat-sen's


=The Price of Power is the lost of Justice and belief, because one cannot have power without using it.

=However I am also going to be against this, as it goes against my feelings that diversity is good thing, I feel when you standise things to one train of thought you stagnate into one ideal and doing that leads onto limiting yourself and stoppes the growth of new idea's as everyone comes to accept 1 ideal as they forget that peoples differences and deviations from the norm are what makes human truly great (yes has problems when counterflicting ideals clash, but that is also part of human nature and would not stop with standisation.)
=They would trade that ability and beauty of being able to question everything for the functional system of standardisation and easy control.
=I am no nationalise and not too fussed about my countries sovereignty par-say, because my countries sovereignty is still my chains, but the chains of my county are better than the chains of my world superpower.
=I mean Killshot, why is it every time countries try to unit a single ideal, like the US’s fruitless mission of giving democracy to the world, (when doesn’t have own democracy, but still different matter) people rebel, it is simple, people do not wish to live in world ruled by those who are not them or close to them, they like being in there own way of living and do not wish to live as others live. I mean lets say I am wrong about the EU being generally a bad thing, why does it work?
=Simple Europe is European, but if European states began adding in African states the problems which technically already there, but less noticeable, would soon be open to world to see, and this the problem that different cultures do not mix, power corrupts and remember only the most powerful would be able to create this, meaning that going to worse of bad group, and will generally leave the common man even more isolated and disenchanted with life as everything becomes even more bland, functional, centisled and controlling

[darkarcher]

=It was only 5 years ago, never thought have black man in white house, so think that need to accept, that times change, I mean the USA (note USA, not America) is basically globalisation on smaller scale and a more extreme version of EU

Just going to throw out a bit of thought here.

The change that you are referring to, Fared, is just a normative change and has nothing to do with the constitutional establishment of the President.

And, if you really wish to use the United States as a small model of globalization, then you would be able to project a trend that true globalization would start off with a lot of individual autonomy, but the central body would gradually begin to take more control from the individual bodies (in times of crises and whatever else) and never give it back. Is it also to be believed that if we are comparing to America, that if a country wants to de-globalize (that is, to sever political control from the central body while maintaining economic status as a separate nation), that the remainder of the global community would fight and subjugate them once more?

And on a lighter note, if we ever do globalize, I hope it's not the Americans who draw up the system because the bureaucracy we would enact itself would bog down the entire system to a ridiculous degree.

[grimfang999]

yeah, to makes things a bit more varied we can also discuss what form of government would be best.

yeah, I dont think America would be in control of the system layout, but ill talk about it a bit later

[JesusRocks]

Number one reason: the President of the United States has the highest authority in the country and must be a natural born citizen with fourteen years of residency in the US.

The Gov't would not legally recognize any higher authority over the United States. We also have our Supreme Court, House Of Reps, and Senate. It's a system that can't legally be changed, and there's no real need to either.

Your points above this are entirely redundant to the concept of a supra-national government.

However you're right in that there may be no real need for your constitutional system to change, BUT to say it legally cannot be changed is a fallacy.
Of course it can legally be changed, but when I said earlier that the member states of a supra-national government would retain their individual sovereignties, I meant that each country's constitutional framework of Legislative, Executive and Judiciary would remain, no changes required. Indeed, your governmental system would stay the same, as well as your political system.

Your President and secretaries would be one of the many heads of state acting as representative of your country in the Executive of the supra-national government.

As Fared said, you already accept the higher authority of the United Nations. A supra-national government would basically be a more involved version of the UN.
If globalisation were to actually occur, it would probably be the United Nations that would take on the role of the supra-national government.

It wouldn't be a case of getting rid of the governments of every country and replacing them with a single world government - that would be an "international government", instead, I'm talking about a "supra-national government" which would be separate to national executive, legislative and judicial systems.

A supra-national government would be over the national governments, and deal with issues relating to economic, trade and military unity, as well as the judiciary of such a system acting as the final appellate stage in some cases, where all national alternatives have been exhausted.

That's the theory, but it's unlikely as Fared mentioned, the EU works because it's to do with the part of the continent known as Europe, and most European countries are happy to take on the identity of "Europeans".

I would propose that supra-national governments for each continent would be the next stage along from completely separate nations, but the stage before reaching the level of a supra-national government encompassing the whole world.

[grimfang999]

right then. Well this is coming from a 15 year old uneducated in politics and law so im likely to get some facts, names or whatever wrong.


If the world were to be globalised, ignoring all the issues of economy, culture, etc., then the government would most likely revert to something similar to the Roman empire. The Roman empire, having been one of the longest reigning and most famous empires, had a combination of democracy and oligarchy. During the Romans rule the economy was better than all the other empires and military costs would be less because the attacks would more likely come from within the borders as rebellions, rather than outside from marauding barbarians.

regardless, if oligarchy was brought in, it would be more awkward than before since most people aside from celebreties and governers live on approximately the same level, and not all celebreties are smart enough for people to put trust in the votes to them. However, if Democracy was brought in and everyone in the world had a vote, the sheer numbers could take a while and there is also the issue to bring in that not everybody knows what is right for everybody else, and cultures are too divided.

However, if we replace the Oligarchy with a hierarchy, of which a person who is granted the power has a stronger say over someone with less, and mix that with Democracy into a Hierarchical Democracy. In some ways, this is already so, as unless im mistaken we do not have to vote for every person who becomes a member of the house of lords or the house of commons.

the basics are simple, the people vote in a leader for their sector (which would be composed of one or several cities, a certain land size at least. This is similar to a Mayor). The leaders of each sector can vote in a leader of their region, and the leaders of each region vote in a leader for the country, and each countries leader enters a council which then elect the world leader.

like I said, in some ways it is similar to the currant systems, but in some ways it is not. the most noticable is that the people do not vote for the leaders of their country or of the world, just of their sector and region. While it seems offensive saying it, but a majority of vote from the common man, who some of which while educated, may not truely know what is right for the rest of their country nor fully understand the leaders intentions. What this ensures is that the people will vote in a well educated individual who cares for his people and can make the right choice when choosing the people above him.

in short, the power system is:

1. public
2. "Mayor"
3. county ruler (voted by mayors of region)
4. country leader (voted my rulers of counties)
5. world leader (voted in by country leaders)

The flaw of this is that the final score is not a true majority of Earth, but on the other hand it is a passed on trust through several people. Each rank will have their own poer over their area, but the larger the decision the higher in rank it goes. This is far easier for management than one man or government ruling the world, and the peoples desire can be heard. with telecommunications, new decisions can be discussed with the higher ranks with ease, so if a decision is made which goes against national or international law, then it can be prevented.


this could work in theory, but then this needs politicians who have more emotion and the intellegence to make the right choices for a strong and benevolent leader.



like I said, I am not as educated in law and politics a some of you here, so this was only a possability I formed while in the bath and briefly looking at the definitions of common democracy and systems of the roman empire, so there are bound to be flaws in it. Go ahead and point out what you can see

[AllisonWalker]

I don't think any of you get it. The idea of Globalizing the United States goes against everything the founding fathers fought for. Changing the Constitution that far would never go with the majority of Americans and I doubt the Supreme Court would find it constitutional. Also, most Americans wouldn't want MORE bureaucrats telling them what they can and can't do.

Also, the UN can't force people to join. It has no real power(and by real power, I mean military force). Whenever something really bad happens, like the genocide in Rwanda, the UN has been unable to stop it. I have no faith in them.

The United States has no real reason to globalize anyways.

That's the theory, but it's unlikely as Fared mentioned, the EU works because it's to do with the part of the continent known as Europe, and most European countries are happy to take on the identity of "Europeans".

And we call ourselves Americans because we live in the North America. The United States is much larger than Europe too. Europeans have to be dependent on their neighbors. We don't.

[grimfang999]

you cant really put any faith in any collection of countries which run under seperate rule. look at NATO. Argentina attacks British terratory, we get no help, even to this day.

as for America itself, all your actions in the past have gone against what your founding fathers fought for. they fought for peace and prosperity. America goes and invades other countries. The American government practically enslaves the Native Americans (not literally but in a sense), they ignore the "American dream" and people were forced to roam around looking for money and living in poverty. when the statue of liberty was brought into New York, a poem was written called "the new collosus". it said:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

however, in various books and plays, that is mocked, such as in "A view from the bridge", where Brooklyn is described as "the gullet of New York swallowing the tonnage of the world".


putting it in this context, what is the uniting of the world but another contradiction to what Americans fight for?


now, for the UN, there is no garantee it would be them. By you saying power is military force is silly. Globalisation could not happen out of fear of or simply by invasion, ot in this day and age.

I want to be blunt on a point about the majority of Americans, but im not going to be. All im going to say is that it could be more beneficial than they see


as for the

The United States has no real reason to globalize anyways.

then that may be too late. I believe Globalisation is beginning to happen and ironically America is to blame for it. Its gradual, but it is happening in a sense. If we are talking full scale globalisation, I can think of a few reasons why. However, i think we should be moving on to if it does happen, not if it will

[AllisonWalker]

as for America itself, all your actions in the past have gone against what your founding fathers fought for. they fought for peace and prosperity. America goes and invades other countries. The American government practically enslaves the Native Americans (not literally but in a sense), they ignore the "American dream" and people were forced to roam around looking for money and living in poverty. when the statue of liberty was brought into New York, a poem was written called "the new collosus". it said:

American citizens have the right to pursue happiness. Doesn't mean you'll get it.

And the Native Americans weren't legally citizens at that time either. It's not much different from how Europe treated Africa, China, and India, except they weren't actually living there, just controlling all the people who did.

[darkarcher]

I don't think any of you get it. The idea of Globalizing the United States goes against everything the founding fathers fought for. Changing the Constitution that far would never go with the majority of Americans and I doubt the Supreme Court would find it constitutional. Also, most Americans wouldn't want MORE bureaucrats telling them what they can and can't do.
You seem to have a misconception of the contents of the Constitution. Yes, globalization would be against the ideals of the founding fathers, but the Constitution itself is a political document. Globalization would not go against it, and it is quite capable of being changed even now.
Also, the UN can't force people to join. It has no real power(and by real power, I mean military force). Whenever something really bad happens, like the genocide in Rwanda, the UN has been unable to stop it. I have no faith in them.
A valid concern.
The United States has no real reason to globalize anyways.

And we call ourselves Americans because we live in the North America. The United States is much larger than Europe too. Europeans have to be dependent on their neighbors. We don't.
Hardly. The US does very little of its own manufacturing anymore. We are almost completely dependent on China to provide us with factory-made materials. For quite some time now, the United States has been importing a higher gross than it exports, showing that we rely on other nations moreso than they rely on us.

[AllisonWalker]

Hardly. The US does very little of its own manufacturing anymore. We are almost completely dependent on China to provide us with factory-made materials. For quite some time now, the United States has been importing a higher gross than it exports, showing that we rely on other nations moreso than they rely on us.


That could be because of economic problems from the last decade, but that doesn't mean things will change.

We rely on China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Canada.

You seem to have a misconception of the contents of the Constitution. Yes, globalization would be against the ideals of the founding fathers, but the Constitution itself is a political document. Globalization would not go against it, and it is quite capable of being changed even now.


You can't amend it so the federal gov't wouldn't be the highest authority in the country.

[grimfang999]

there are many other differences. For one thing we did not completely change their way of life to the point of completely merging into us. in the end they are choosing to come to our country. Another thing is that they got their land back afterwards, the Natives will never.

and besides, Legal citizens? Art not human thou? a human is a human, and their way of life is their way of life.

American citizens have the right to pursue happiness. Doesn't mean you'll get it.
it is often interpreted, however as a promise, which few have fulfilled. Read "Of Mice and Men", that is all about the pursuit of the American dream

however, this debate is getting to the point of irrelevence

That could be because of economic problems from the last decade, but that doesn't mean things will change.

We rely on China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Canada.

no, its more to do with industry. I have taken business studies, companies tend to put factories in poorer countries to exploit the poor and the weaker currancies. In addition, MEDCs work in tertiary and quaternary industries, rarely in primary and secondary

[darkarcher]

That could be because of economic problems from the last decade, but that doesn't mean things will change.

We rely on China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Canada.
It was like that before the recession. Started back in the 80s or earlier iirc.

You can't amend it so the federal gov't wouldn't be the highest authority in the country.
Please inform me the exact text of the Constitution that would prevent some sort of globalization. An article and section number would be nice as well.

[AllisonWalker]

Article II, Section II
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

He's the highest authority in the country.

[grimfang999]

...that proves? all it proves is that if the president agrees them the USA will follow

[AllisonWalker]

No one else can be recognized with more power than the President.

[grimfang999]

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

this only classes for the United states, and as much as you would like to think it, there is a world outside the USA, and the Globalisation does not even have to be based in the USA. The president would still have the same amount of power he once has in the USA, all thats different is that in my hierarchy layout there is one more person above him, who is not subject to American law

and he could make a treaty to agree that he will serve as a member as the world government

[AllisonWalker]

all thats different is that in my hierarchy layout there is one more person above him, who is not subject to American law Then legally, we wouldn't be subject to him either.

The US is where I live. It's larger than Europe and just as diverse. So yeah, that's my world. You being an European, you're used to being so close to other countries and having to play nice to keep the peace. That's not the case here.

[grimfang999]

The world government would have world laws, so you too would be as a subject to that government and the world "president", especially since the USA president agreed to it as well

[AllisonWalker]

The world government would have world laws, so you too would be as a subject to that government and the world "president", especially since the USA president agreed to it as well

And that wouldn't be constitutional. We follow our American laws, nothing else.

[grimfang999]

*sips hot chocolate*

Britain has to follow EU laws, and before we joined we would have said the same thing. If a treaty is made by the president that America would be part of the Globalisation and that makes them have to follow the laws, and that treaty becomes constitutional.

any other objections?

[AllisonWalker]

*sips hot chocolate*

Britain has to follow EU laws, and before we joined we would have said the same thing. If a treaty is made by the president that America would be part of the Globalisation and that makes them have to follow the laws, and that treaty becomes constitutional.



Haha, no. Supreme Court is the authority over what is and is not Constitutional, not the President. And Congress has to pass treaties. Anything that would give up our power to some "higher authority" would never pass.

Just look at Health care. Shit like that does not go down easily.

The power of a centralized gov't and its abuses is exactly why we split from Great Britain. The majority of us here have no desire to "globalize" with Europe or the world. It goes completely against our culture and history.

[grimfang999]

and if they agree to it? what if they see more benefits than staying independant? you never know, the supremem court of that time may not be so arrogant as to think that they should have all the power to themselves, and if they are as smart as they should be they would be able to see quite a few advantages to the Globalisation. Less need of war for one thing, and a single currancy Globally may stablise the economy, since changing exchange rates do play a part in recessions and slumps.

now if we continue like this we wil end up going around in full circles. shall we just say the supreme court said they would join and get to how the world government would organise the Earth

[AllisonWalker]

and if they agree to it? what if they see more benefits than staying independant? you never know, the supremem court of that time may not be so arrogant as to think that they should have all the power to themselves, and if they are as smart as they should be they would be able to see quite a few advantages to the Globalisation. Less need of war for one thing, and a single currancy Globally may stablise the economy, since changing exchange rates do play a part in recessions and slumps.

now if we continue like this we wil end up going around in full circles. shall we just say the supreme court said they would join and get to how the world government would organise the Earth

Grimgfang, the Supreme court wouldn't. End of story.

Supreme Court's job is to see if something is Constitutional or not. If it's not Constitutional, it will NOT pass. It doesn't care about theory or benefits.

[grimfang999]

all im going to say to that is that nothing is certain. that is all.

[darkarcher]

Allison, you did not prove that globalization is unconstitutional. You merely pointed out that the President has executive power within the United States. Any sort of world government is more likely to be a legislative power, which sort of undermines what you were saying.

Here's an interesting section from Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

According to this clause, any treaty made by the United States would have the same level of supremacy as the Constitution as far as the laws of the United States are concerned.

[grimfang999]

im going to leave the debate to Darkarcher now, since I really only know the basics of politics and I especially dont know how the American system works, but I learned a fair amount

[AllisonWalker]

Darkarcher, I don't think you get it.

They wouldn't be an AMERICAN executive power. And you can't have someone approve the Presidency in executive power. A world leader would be an executive power.

A treaty like that could never pass. It would kill all American autonomy. That's what the constitution does. It clearly states who has the authority and who answers to who. Checks and balances, the branches of government, etc etc. A world leader doesn't fit into that. There is no higher authority, and checks and balances would be broken with something like a world leader. There's no place for it.

Or a real reason to. We're not dependent on Europe. The United States could produce everything it needed now if the gov't would get it's nose out of the way. We don't need oil and we could manufacture our own goods. It would be more expensive, but would be worth the cost than giving up our freedom.

[darkarcher]

Darkarcher, I don't think you get it.

They wouldn't be an AMERICAN legislative power.

A treaty like that could never pass. It would kill all American autonomy. That's what the constitution does. It clearly states who has the authority and who answers to who. Checks and balances, the branches of government, etc etc. A world leader doesn't fit into that. There is no higher authority, and checks and balances would be broken with something like a world leader. There's no place for it.

Or a real reason to. We're not dependent on Europe. The United States could produce everything it needed now if the gov't would get it's nose out of the way. We don't need oil and we could manufacture our own goods. It would be more expensive, but would be worth the cost than giving up our freedom.

I'm not saying it would ever happen. I would be absolutely shocked if it did. I'm just saying that you called the concept unconstitutional, which it isn't. It does, however, go against the American ideology of government.

[grimfang999]

Allison, you really should learn business studies. The government has nothing to do with the manufaction. what you ae suggesting is to make your country an LEDC, because the reason why companies manufacture in LEDCs, is because they have lower costs and that means increased profit.

really now though, what is more important? World peace or a few pieces of paper written 200 years ago in an outdated declarence?

[AllisonWalker]

It would. It breaks the branches of government. Those branches are the only powers any American has to answer to(the President, the Supreme Court, and Congress). Everyone answers to the other and no one can have more power than the other. Any outside force cannot be made more powerful than our constitution. Any amendment made would have to be passed by Supreme Court and I'd bet my life on it that a Global executive or legislative power wouldn't be passed.

World peace? LOL Impossible idea.

"Those who desire security over freedom deserve neither security or freedom.

[darkarcher]

really now though, what is more important? World peace or a few pieces of paper written 200 years ago in an outdated declarence?

That's like saying the English Constitution (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, etc) is unimportant because of how old it is.

[darkarcher]

It would. It breaks the branches of government. Those branches are the only powers any American has to answer to(the President, the Supreme Court, and Congress). Everyone answers to the other and no one can have more power than the other. Any outside force cannot be made more powerful than our constitution. Any amendment made would have to be passed by Supreme Court and I'd bet my life on it that a Global executive or legislative power wouldn't be passed.

World peace? LOL Impossible idea.

"Those who desire security over freedom deserve neither security or freedom.

It's only against the spirit of the Constitution, but not the text.

[AllisonWalker]

It's only against the spirit of the Constitution, but not the text.

Any outside Legislative, Judicial, or Exexcutive power couldn't be recognized by the American people. Our branches of gov't have the highest authority in the land(US).

[grimfang999]

Those who desire security over freedom deserve neither security or freedom

incorrect quoting:

if one would lose a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both

which really when you look at today is a load of bullcrap. We have been given liberty, and look where it has lead us. we need more security more than anything.

and as for world peace i use that in a somewhat broad term, but Globalisation is pretty much world unity, so why not the term world peace?

It would. It breaks the branches of government. Those branches are the only powers any American has to answer to(the President, the Supreme Court, and Congress). Everyone answers to the other and no one can have more power than the other. Any outside force cannot be made more powerful than our constitution. Any amendment made would have to be passed by Supreme Court and I'd bet my life on it that a Global executive or legislative power wouldn't be passed.

not even when the new power has control over every power that runs by what you said? if they all agree then it renders that saying pointless. and also, It wouldnt break your government up.

That's like saying the English Constitution (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, etc) is unimportant because of how old it is.

as I said I was bound to make mistakes due to my unfamiliarities with politics and law

[AllisonWalker]

which really when you look at today is a load of bullcrap. We have been given liberty, and look where it has lead us. we need more security more than anything.

"Us"? You aren't "us".

It's called paraphrasing and it's not bullcrap.

it renders that saying pointless.
It's not about what is or isn't good, it's about what's legal and not legal.

It wouldnt break your government up.
It ruins our checks and balances made to protect the American people from abuse by one all too powerful force of gov't aka your "global" leader.

[Kochiha]

Would you believe that this discussion has been the primary topic of my Political Science class all semester?

The definition of "globalization" does NOT refer to the process of organizing all nations under a particular hegemony. It is primarily economic in nature, and refers to the general cooperation between nations as a result of the rejection of Machiavellian policies and the use of complex interdependence between nations by having non-governmental organizations (NGOs) be the primary mediators between nations rather than countries.
Identify the main problem in the above theory.

[grimfang999]

"Us"? You aren't "us".

It's called paraphrasing and it's not bullcrap.

us is used as the western world. with increased liberty, and due to human nature, we are taking advantage of our freedom to the point of crime. sure, too much security will make things too unhappy, but what needs to be is a better balance of liberty and security, as society is like a child. Too much of either and the child will likely become insolent and troublemaking.


im not going to argue this any further about whether or not the USA will. Fat is more the expert. Now can we leave the wills and nots and go to the ifs? I sound like some sort of cultist saying world leader all the time and all im trying to do is steer the conversation to how the world goverment would best be structured if Globalisation did take place, not how likely America is to agree to it

[grimfang999]

The definition of "globalization" does NOT refer to the process of organizing all nations under a particular hegemony. It is primarily economic in nature, and refers to the general cooperation between nations as a result of the rejection of Machiavellian policies and the use of complex interdependence between nations by having non-governmental organizations (NGOs) be the primary mediators between nations rather than countries.

if its in this case then, and not to the point of world unity, then is it all so terrable?

[darkarcher]

Would you believe that this discussion has been the primary topic of my Political Science class all semester?

The definition of "globalization" does NOT refer to the process of organizing all nations under a particular hegemony. It is primarily economic in nature, and refers to the general cooperation between nations as a result of the rejection of Machiavellian policies and the use of complex interdependence between nations by having non-governmental organizations (NGOs) be the primary mediators between nations rather than countries.
Identify the main problem in the above theory.

How would one structure the NGOs in such a way that they are not heavily swayed by the governments?

[JesusRocks]

That's like saying the English Constitution (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, etc) is unimportant because of how old it is.

The difference is that our constitution is constantly in a state of change. The last major change of our constitution happened in 2005 with the Constitutional Reform Act. Our constitution is made up of the ordinary laws of the country, not a declaration of the country's values.

And, Allison... what you do not understand here is that a world government would be primarily Legislative, not Executive. Such legislation would be proposed by the elected Executive heads of state.

It would not change the US constitution in any way... in ANY WAY

It would not undermine the US's system of Judicial Sovereignty.

(Also no, your President is not the highest power in the US. Your President is simply the leader of the Executive branch of the government. Your Judiciary is the highest power in the country, it enforces the constitution and the President is subject to this.)

It would not be unconstitutional for there to be a legislative power over the US government affecting the legal system of the country, since you do already have that to a degree by giving effect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and such.

By your argument, the United Nations, and the power it does have is unconstitutional. (It's useless saying that it has no "real" power and trying to prove this by speaking of something happening elsewhere in the world that the UN is also responsible for. Try looking at the laws in your own country which are affected by the UN.)


Also:


It ruins our checks and balances made to protect the American people from abuse by one all too powerful force of gov't aka your "global" leader.

This statement completely ignores the content of the last 1 1/2 pages.

There would be NO "global leader" it would be led by a collection of the heads of state of each country under the supra-national government, as properly represented as possible.

[Fat1Fared]

OK, though this topic has turned out to very interesting and some well made points have arisen from it, it feels little disjointed at moment, so going to try my best to make a summisation of everything to give it back a its first train of thought. (something tells me, this is going to be long post, 0_o)

1=Dark, my point with Obamra was not quite as supreme as may have appeared, I merely used it to show that the world and wants of that world can change very easily and nothing is unpredictable or dramatic as political idiomatic’s and it doesn’t take much for what seems well set ideal to disappear even if it appears to an irreproachable law or ideal.

2=Ok, Allison though your faith in your constitution is very amiable in a context, it is also somewhat naïve in the face of real world politic’s, I think Darkarcher has made good summary in the case, that this is not against your constitution, even if it is against some of your countries founding principles, but think I need to reinstate, your country is a tripartite system, therefore each of the governing bodies is restricted from sovereign omnipotence by the other, in fact your view of your system is more that of the French system before it joined the EU (or EC as well then.)
=Now the reason I bring this up again is because what it means is your laws are far from set or impervious as you may believe they are and your Federal State could very easily go into to globalisation if it so wished, now as Darkarcher stated, this is unlikely at the moment, but then as grim well stated, no one believed Britain would join Europe and many still cannot too this day. (PS do not say US isn’t Britain therefore never happen as such an argument is simply lacking on all grounds and has no actually appraisal value or strength)
=Though must say in regards to in your first and second points, your second point about the supremacy of your courts then seemed to conflict with everything you said on your presidential powers point, so not sure where you stand at moment.

(I really do not wish to be condescending, but cannot think of better way to put this, so can only say sorry for the air that comment portrayed)

=Now to finish going to say your points about Founding fathers are simply flawed and illogical, the fact is even if we ignore the fact that the ideals of your founding fathers are completely out of date and touch with real modern world and have been sense before WW1 (maybe even sense they were made,) and that they are not this perfect ideal many Citizens of US believe they are, the simple fact is, the USA left behind those ideals a long time ago in the face of reality and the pursuit of power.
-Wars like Iraq would never have happened, the Joining of UN would never have happened, World and present day globalization (as believe it or not, there is already a high globalization out there, just not a full unitizing one yet) would not have happened, they would not import anything, they would not restrict political and religious ideals, they would not allow Febural power to displaced the work it is, they would not allow a fundamental class system to run through there higher sects of society……..etc, trust me you should read some Edward Dowling: he would interest you, though you may not like what has to say as sort of crushes everything most US citizens are stereotyped to hold dear.
PS just an off the cuff question, you do know your county took most of its principles from English and French philosophy right?

3=Ok after spending way too long on 2, try to speed things up, Dark have you read the Manga Charter or Bill of Rights, their names and status really overplays what they are, Britain didn’t even have protection or fundamental rights of Citizen before 1998, there really not important and more just left there for symbolic sake, but unless someone had very limited (and I mean limited) moan about there status to ownership of land or place as employee, in modern day not even sure it would be possible, let alone practical to try and use them in actual legal sense. (Plus what JR said, though sometimes I wish it wasn't allowed to change, then the disgusting thing which is New Labour wouldn't be allowed to give itself more powers while having gull to call it a constitutional reform of accountability, if so great why did HoL's cry out in horror at it and why did it allow Executive even more control of treasury...etc, only good thing it did was made Prime Minster more accountable in acts of War)

4=Next with UN, trust that has lot more power than you may think and could a hell of lot more than does, it just chooses not too, because its aims at this time would not served by helping countries like Rherinoa, however going into this deeply, for contexts of this conversation would be pointless, as just highlighting the fact that if it wanted to do this, it could why because the UN is not some abstract force outside the scope and multiparty of world governments, it is world governments and therefore if it choose to do this, it would be the world governments choosing to do this, therefore there would be no debate or force needed, as happened by association.

5=Next, this point about the standing of Europe and USA, well think that going to (despite maybe being bit of tangent, think may help us when looking at which would be more likely to use)
=Right now, the USA is weaker than Europe, simple as that, Europe is making more money, trading on far stronger footing, exporting more, if any county other than Britian actually cared, stronger in military terms, more politically stable, more economically stable, more trading links, more allies, growing faster (though that is also because younger) and several other points bring in, but basically Europe has taken over USA in terms of actual power (rather than perceived power) I mean got to give it credit, only taking 50 years, (even with stagnation in middle,) to get to stage 3 of free movement of trade status is impressive and scary.
-Now I do not like EU, and that is partially because I’m English and so conditioned by socialization to dislike it and reject the idea of being European, but it is also because of the way it is structured and the fact it firmly puts the power within the hands of a select few politicians who are almost completely unaccountable to the masses.
-There are also other things like the fact it is completely self-relating, economically driven, and highlights all the problems with democracy or lack of it, but these are off topic.
-My point actually is that despite disliking the EU, if (and at this time, that is big if) we were take globalization as a fully unifying force, it would be model most likely adopted, because of its strength, adaptability, fact most linked to modern world and the fact it is one unifying force which throws an acceptable balance individual state and globule power these states are accepting a servant role too.

6=This leads nicely onto next point, how it would work, well think it would work in the way Britain allying to Europe worked (Use this example as very profound example of crash between sovereign state and new servant role being ironed out over time because of tentative nature and incompatibility of state in question.)
=Basically the state signs up to a treaty which sets out the new rules, regulations and legal systems, that state must follow in order to allow it to be in the unifying force and then this will open up all the nice lovely treaties they get for doing this, whatever they may be….trade, free movement, “peace”……etc
=Next this where the state of variant clash occurs, as the state then needs to adapt its legal system to match and servant to that of global one, now this will depend on a state by state structure, some may adapt easily, others like Britain may find themselves in massive state of chaos (which why used Britain instead of say Germany) as here, treaties are an Act/Right of Executive and the Executive (legally at least) is submissive to Legislature, which means that the Judiciary here cannot enforce Executive actions without the “expressed” delegation of legislature (AKA Parliament) and so in British Legal System for nearly 5 years the EU had no actually authority here what so ever, meaning no rules of the EU had any status here ether, (ironically in US because your Executive and Judiciary are not submissive, treaties do have effect and not able to be stricken off ether, so your conflict could be legally a lot less severe than my think)
= Then when Parliament finally got act together and passed a rather clever, if somewhat chaotic and revolutary act to give EU law status here, (though was somewhat own-goal by our Parliament as well, because made first entrenched law in our history and actually finally give our Judges power to override presadent and implied repeal doctrines) you then get state of change over, where slowly through smaller acts being passed and court cases being decided, the 2 laws begin to intertwine and become one until get to state where almost interchangeable and the State is completely submissive to global power, which has overriding status, but does not have day to day running powers or cultural breach powers which still fall under status of the individual sovereign power (of course this takes decades and they never truly become one until almost all cultural identity is lost by which point at new stage innately and then unknown what happens as in EU at least, such state not yet arisen in even EU friendly countries like Germany and Ireland)
=Finallu on this, how would it work on world stage, well suspect there would be similar 3 (or 4 depending on how look at it) way system as is in EU now, with an elected Parliament, a governmental (independent) commission and an internally voted Legistature which would involve all countries sending representatives to each section (would probably be court as well which enforce and legalize everything)
=Then there would be some arbitrary test to show power each state had in the decision making system which would probably be the last major link to the hierarchy of old world

6=Finally Kos, think is good point, globalization as it stands in present day is thing of mass trade and the breaking down of economic/ tariff barriers, however I think Zairak when made this thread had more fundamental and close set ideal of unifying force in mind, than that because this wouldn't be leaving the old state and individual powers as sovereign, but also wouldn't be completely abolsoving them ether, they would merely be taking a serivant role to a new higher power

[AllisonWalker]

Everyone knows the American Constitution was based off of English law, Fared. I'm not an idiot.

No point in arguing about it, it's never going to happen.

[AllisonWalker]

The difference is that our constitution is constantly in a state of change. The last major change of our constitution happened in 2005 with the Constitutional Reform Act. Our constitution is made up of the ordinary laws of the country, not a declaration of the country's values.
Don't compare British law with American law. The Constitution isn't a declaration of values, but a set of rights all citizens have and a guide to how the government works.

And, Allison... what you do not understand here is that a world government would be primarily Legislative, not Executive. Such legislation would be proposed by the elected Executive heads of state.


It would not undermine the US's system of Judicial Sovereignty.

No one should have to follow Global laws alongside the laws of their own nation. The Supreme Court is the highest judical authority in the land and that won't ever change.

(Also no, your President is not the highest power in the US. Your President is simply the leader of the Executive branch of the government. Your Judiciary is the highest power in the country, it enforces the constitution and the President is subject to this.)
He has the most power for anyone person, but yes, the Supreme Court is there to counter him if he gets power hungry, alongside Congress.

It would not be unconstitutional for there to be a legislative power over the US government affecting the legal system of the country, since you do already have that to a degree by giving effect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and such.
You mean those UN laws that no one actually follows? LOL


By your argument, the United Nations, and the power it does have is unconstitutional. (It's useless saying that it has no "real" power and trying to prove this by speaking of something happening elsewhere in the world that the UN is also responsible for. Try looking at the laws in your own country which are affected by the UN.)
There is no real power unless you can inforce it. The UN has no real control over the United States. This country, for better or worse, has been doing pretty much whatever it wants since WWII. Besides, you can leave the UN.






This statement completely ignores the content of the last 1 1/2 pages.

There would be NO "global leader" it would be led by a collection of the heads of state of each country under the supra-national government, as properly represented as possible.

Grim was talking about a global leader. Global leader, global congress, it doesn't matter.

Done.

[JesusRocks]

The US constitution is a declaration of your country's values, no matter how you look at it. Those fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as the guide to how your government works, are indeed your country's values.

Fared it right, you are holding your constitution very highly in esteem, and, a fine constitution though it may be, your esteem of it is quite naiive. And so it seems is your confidence that the only laws enforced in America are American laws, and that America is not subject to any international law. This is not legally sound. American law is subject to all kinds of international law. Ranging from various treaties with other nations, to things like the UDHR. And yet, none of this international law undermines America's sovereignty.

And of course you can leave the UN, sure a little easier than the UK can leave the EU, but while America is a member of the UN, it is bound by the laws they make. So you're still bound by those international laws, even if you have the sovereignty to then pull out.

On a moot point, telling me not to compare the US and UK constitutional systems flies in the face of the subject of Comparative Law... As one of only 4 nations that have uncodified constitutions, the UK has a lot to compare with America's constitutional system. Especially since the UK has a system of Legislative Sovereignty and the Rule of Law (no validly enacted law can be deemed unconstitutional by any court, because the law itself is the constitution), while the US has Judicial Sovereignty (laws can be overturned if they are unconstitutional)

The concept of a supra-national government is primarily designed to help the economy through making trade easier and to help prevent wars by instead providing a tribunal system for Member States with disputes to argue their cases before a court... in a nutshell... International Human Rights Law also enables the individual to appeal for a judgment against the State for breaching his/her rights and freedoms...

None of this is a bad thing, and none of it seriously undermines the sovereignty of any Member State. Sure, neither the UN nor the EU have got it right, but the concept is there, even if it needs some work.

Personally I don't think something like that on a global scale will ever happen, but there certainly are good reasons in favour of it.

[darkarcher]

Don't compare British law with American law. The Constitution isn't a declaration of values, but a set of rights all citizens have and a guide to how the government works.
The idea between the two are the same, and very available for comparison.
No one should have to follow Global laws alongside the laws of their own nation. The Supreme Court is the highest judical authority in the land and that won't ever change.
I already pointed out that the constitution states that any treaties entered by America serves as supreme law alongside the established law of America.[

[AllisonWalker]

They have to be approved by Congress first. That's what makes it legal. If it isn't approved by Congress, it isn't legit.

[darkarcher]

None of this is a bad thing, and none of it seriously undermines the sovereignty of any Member State. Sure, neither the UN nor the EU have got it right, but the concept is there, even if it needs some work.

Personally I don't think something like that on a global scale will ever happen, but there certainly are good reasons in favour of it.

And herein lies the great flaw with almost all social systems. They look immaculate on paper, but when an attempt is made to put them into practice, the imperfection of people distorts the original idea into something less efficient.

[darkarcher]

They have to be approved by Congress first. That's what makes it legal. If it isn't approved by Congress, it isn't legit.

But that's not what I'm saying.

You say that we shouldn't have to follow global laws in addition to federal laws. I'm telling you that we already do.

[AllisonWalker]

But that's not what I'm saying.

You say that we shouldn't have to follow global laws in addition to federal laws. I'm telling you that we already do.

Global laws that we approved. If it's not approved first, then it's not legal in the first place. Some global gov't body creating laws that we don't get to approve or reject is insanity.

You guys need to find your definition of Globalization and stick to it. And why does there need to be one when there's already UN?

[JesusRocks]

But that's not what I'm saying.

You say that we shouldn't have to follow global laws in addition to federal laws. I'm telling you that we already do.

*tagteams up with dark-kun*

Which is also why I'm saying that following international law as well as federal law does not undermine America's sovereignty, because even though you are subject to international law, it is because congress agreed to be bound and gave legal effect to them.

(This law talk, even though it's regarding comparative and international law which are subjects i do not study, and constitutional law which is a subject I no longer study, is getting me fired up to do my essays)

[Fat1Fared]

Everyone knows the American Constitution was based off of English law, Fared. I'm not an idiot.

No point in arguing about it, it's never going to happen.

ok, I won't go far into why this is wrong, which it is, as though some of your fundamental laws are based on ours, as hangover from British rule time (however both laws are detracting from one another by the year) your constitution was not a creation of English Law, in fact it was generally a rejection of english law of supermecy, and English Law (not british) came long before even the basic ideas which your constitution was then based off, where even in pipedreams, it was based off European (mostly English and French) "theories" not actual policies, but to link this back on tract, the reason I asked this is because I wanted to prove a point, and that is from your very founding your state was linked to the old world and this is why your founding fathers dreams to cut themselves off from it, would never work

PS Dark/JR, I already put the exact way your system works (as simply as could all be it) to Allison and why it proves you right, it seems she doesn't wish to agree, so may as well accept that lol, though JR interesting food for thought about why it is good, and think now need to take it back down that track, rather than how works,

[JesusRocks]

Global laws that we approved. If it's not approved first, then it's not legal in the first place. Some global gov't body creating laws that we don't get to approve or reject is insanity.

You guys need to find your definition of Globalization and stick to it. And why does there need to be one when there's already UN?

No one ever said this. In fact, by saying that you retain your sovereignty, I'm saying the exact opposite - you DO get to approve or reject.

[Fat1Fared]

And herein lies the great flaw with almost all social systems. They look immaculate on paper, but when an attempt is made to put them into practice, the imperfection of people distorts the original idea into something less efficient.

alass it is a shaming truth, but problem is humans are intiately never going to work within these things because goes against our general nature of being interocular rather exovert (99% of poeple could never see the bigger picture enough to work these things and those that can are normally those who only look at these things in search of how to abuse them for own gain)

[AllisonWalker]

ok, I won't go far into why this is wrong, which it is, as though some of your fundamental laws are based on ours, as hangover from British rule time (however both laws are detracting from one another by the year) your constitution was not a creation of English Law, in fact it was generally a rejection of english law of supermecy, and English Law (not british) came long before even the basic ideas which your constitution was then based off, where even in pipedreams, it was based off European (mostly English and French) "theories" not actual policies, but to link this back on tract, the reason I asked this is because I wanted to prove a point, and that is from your very founding your state was linked to the old world and this is why your founding fathers dreams to cut themselves off from it, would never work

We did cut ourselves off and I don't think anyone here regrets that.
And those "theories" work. It's over 200+ years old and still stands today. Nothing is perfect, but what the US has is one of the most balanced branches of gov't in the world.

And United States has no desire to be like Britain, Fared. It's not the 18th century anymore.

[AllisonWalker]

No one ever said this. In fact, by saying that you retain your sovereignty, I'm saying the exact opposite - you DO get to approve or reject.
Is it better for the world's population to remain seperated into different nations? Would it be better if there were only one world government? Would the security and relative peace we might gain be worth the possible sacrifice or diminishment of our various cultures?

Further, assuming globalization happened, would it be better to start afresh with a new government, or should an already existing government simply take over the other nations?

Discuss.

The original question.

[JesusRocks]

We did cut ourselves off and I don't think anyone here regrets that.
And those "theories" work. It's over 200+ years old and still stands today. Nothing is perfect, but what the US has is one of the most balanced branches of gov't in the world.

And United States has no desire to be like Britain, Fared. It's not the 18th century anymore.

Oh wow. I'll concede this on one point only - separation of powers. Your Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are the most separated in the world, which is a pretty good thing. Meanwhile the UK's Executive and Legislature are merging, and the Judiciary is having to drift further away from them to provide the right kind of accountability.

However, I wouldn't say it's the most balanced overall...

[AllisonWalker]

I didn't say it was THE MOST, but ONE OF THE MOST.

[JesusRocks]

The original question.

Still doesn't mention that member states might not be able to approve or reject the laws... :V

[AllisonWalker]

Still doesn't mention that member states might not be able to approve or reject the laws... :V

It says only one gov't to rule them all.

[JesusRocks]

oh poo I can't contain myself

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/379389216_17ac5f4b89.jpg

If there were to be one government replacing the existing governments of the world, then you'd have a problem because trade would effectively cease and the economy as we know it would collapse... and take a while to get going in a different form.

However if there were to be one government and still allow for the existence of individual sovereign nations... the economy would more than likely get better... see the EU for an example - EU members subscribed to the Euro currency fared better than the other nations in the recession...

[AllisonWalker]

My choice of words worked.

[JesusRocks]

My choice of words worked.

However - I have edited, there is now susbstance to the image :V

[AllisonWalker]

Yeah, that one gov't thing with individual sovereign nations doesn't work in a country where you're one of the 3rd Largest country in the world with a higher population than number 2 and 3. Changing the currency would be a hassle and it's better to be responsible for our own economic problems than be burdened with a troubles of others(who are an ocean away from you).

Iceland and Greece aren't looking too hot.

[Fat1Fared]

We did cut ourselves off and I don't think anyone here regrets that.
And those "theories" work. It's over 200+ years old and still stands today. Nothing is perfect, but what the US has is one of the most balanced branches of gov't in the world.

And United States has no desire to be like Britain, Fared. It's not the 18th century anymore.

-you did, then how come you have more troops around the world than other state and how come your on some 1 state mission to make all world a democracy, how come your involved in world politics's such as UN, how come trade with other states, how come give up world releif....etc (your not cut and whoever said you were is lier)

-Next, you said this is not then18th century and need to stop living in past, then go on about how system hasn't changed sense then and this a good thing <facepalm> (not even sure what this was meant to prove, my point was not that British system is better than yours, as whole other debate, just that your county is linked to rest of the world whether you like it or not)
PS also British System was made in the 16th century and then complicated in 17th, just so know

PS JR, shame some these interesting points cannot be looked at further, like the two systems of separation (PS though techically the Judges are moaning the 2005 act made them closer and less able to make government accountable

[AllisonWalker]

you did, then how come you have more troops around the world than other state and how come your on some 1 state mission to make all world democracy, how come your involved in world politics's such as UN....etc (your not cut and whoever said you were is lier)

And what does that have to do with being like Britain?

Next, you said this is not then 18th century and need to stop living in past, then go on about how system hasn't changed sense then and this a good things <facepalm> (not even sure what this was meant to prove, my point was not that british system is better than yours, just that your county is linked to rest of the world whether you like it or not)
I'm just pointing out that Britain is no longer the World Power and how is the British system exactly better than ours?

[Fat1Fared]

=JR, I think I must be writing this wrong, can you please explain it to Allison, that this has nothing to do with whether USA is like Britain (which I stated it wasn't) or which system is better (whole different matter) just that the USA is not some artomious state which is isolated from rest of world

[AllisonWalker]

=JR, I think I must be writing this wrong, can you please explain it to Allison, that this has nothing to do with whether USA is like Britain (which I stated it wasn't) or which system is better (whole different matter) just that the USA is not some artomious state which is isolated from rest of world

It's not an island 11 hours away from France (the size of Texas) either.
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm
You don't get it.

[Fenrir502]

Oh yeah?

Well...

Our eagle is cooler than America's eagle!

[grimfang999]

Allison, you really are being too stuborn about this. all that is happening is you are sticking to one point and isolating yourself when everyone else is against you trying to explain the workings of the laws, politics, and the simple word "if".

and when I was talking about the "world leader" if you read my hierachical democracy he would simply be the head of the council, pretty much doing what the president/prime minister of any other country does, technically just be a figure-head announcing things and suggesting things which may or may not happen. The real choices come from the united government.

and to answert JR, yes, each country would have control over their own country, but the larger the issue and the more world-spread it is the higher in the heirarchy it goes to. for example, if social healthcare were to be suggested to become global, it would be given the the world council, and if it is a single country or region, then it goes to the reightful council of that area.

all really im suggesting is granting ultimate power to a form of the UN and enfusing hierarchy with democracy to gain a more logical way to gain the selected leaders of each rank

and id like to thank JR, fat and dark for bringing in the law aspects of this, because as I did say im not a law student, merely a philosopher with some degree of political knowledge

[JesusRocks]

Pedantic constitutional lawyers believe that America's definition of a constitution is a bastardisation of its actual definition. The UK's uncodified constitution fits the more accurate (and indeed oldest) definition of the term.

However this is mostly a spiteful retort to those nations who turn around and say "the UK does not have a constitution"

I would say that one reason I think the UK constitutional system is better than the US system is because I prefer the concept of Legislative Supremacy to the American system of Judicial Supremacy.

And Fared's right, he's saying what we've all been driving ourselves off topic to say, that America is not a State completely independent of the rest of the world. It is heavily dependent on international law, and heavily subject to international law.
Saying that it's just because Congress has to agree to be bound, does not make it any less binding - once they're bound, they're bound unless they decide to pull out of it. In theory Congress could do this, but practically, in most cases it would majorly harm the US economy to do so. That's the same with pretty much every other western country.

The UK retains the power to pull out of the EU, but to do so at this stage would cripple us, since we've agreed to be bound by EU law since the 1970's.

That is the very nature of international law.

And Fared is trying to say that, you say that America doesn't want, or wouldn't need to have a world government, and yet that is exactly what America is striving for. America is essentially on a mission to take over the world via business and politics, and by changing the governmental structures of other countries to fit in with your democratic ideals. And to further highlight this, the US is one of the founding members of the United Nations... Remember that the UN building is also in Manhattan...
To say that America has no interest in world governance or international law is to ignore reality.

[AllisonWalker]

I never said it had no interest, but that it's not like an European country who's completely dependent on it's neighbors. We're not a country who's people often have to go abroad on a regular basis. Most people don't have passports because they don't need them. Globalization is not in our culture, nor is it something we're completely dependent upon. We trade the most with Canada, Mexico, China, and Japan, and for the most part, our relationships with them are good.

Having good relations with the rest of the world is important, but not at the expense of our freedom and autonomy.

[greymagick711]

And Fared is trying to say that, you say that America doesn't want, or wouldn't need to have a world government, and yet that is exactly what America is striving for. America is essentially on a mission to take over the world via business and politics, and by changing the governmental structures of other countries to fit in with your democratic ideals. And to further highlight this, the US is one of the founding members of the United Nations... Remember that the UN building is also in Manhattan...
To say that America has no interest in world governance or international law is to ignore reality.

Wow...I'm American, and I totally agree with this statement.

But I have to wonder if other countries are do this same as well, as is, trying to implement their own policies onto other governments and the like.

On a side note, it almost sounds like we're the bad guys.

Yeah, I'd be the first to admit that most Americans have a belief and love for their government and nation, and that the 200 year old built-on-political theories gov't structure is the best (200 years? That's a bit young for a nation, IMHO). Then, I'd like to say that Americans would think that they're being helpful by, um, suggesting this point of view onto other nations. And if the world would be united as a whole, why not the American way?

Yeah...no. Even country has its flaws, and America definitely has its own. Before I'd vouch for America as head of something, I'd say it would be my duty as an American citizen to try an correct our glaring, glorious flaws. As of yet, the truth is that there seems to be no system out there that truly works for one given country, regardless of size/population. And though some propositions might work on paper, other might not agree to the policies of that theoretical government.

I'd like to point out that when discussing new laws and such, many times nations look to others with that policy already instilled. And though the countries might differ greatly, the comparison is still (one could say, incorrectly) made.

With Globalization, the EU and UN are pretty good councils despite all the differences in their members. Furthermore, comparing the number of counters in the world to the people they preside over is like comparing a basketball to Jupiter. (Okay, I know, exaggeration. :P)

If there was going to be one big, united world, the leaders and government systems would at least have to be agreeable. Compromise doesn't always cut it, either. So there is some sort of dilemma here.

On the other hand, many other things are being globalized already. The economy, for one, and all of its subsets like the market and trade...Not to mention this wonderful thing called the internet, which is flattening the world's information for people everywhere to use. First the market, then the information network...media's on its way to being globalized as well.

I'd say that we're headed on a path for Globalization regardless. People, we can somehow make the work.

[Turtlicious]

And who's to say other nations would strive to do the same if they had the same amount of power