my ideas

**ServiusTheGreat** · May 21, 2008, 03:07 PM

hey guys,before i put my theories up id just like to say im 15 so if you want to turn back do it now,over the past few weeks ive done nothing but study history, philosophy and world religions.and ive noticed that nearly all religions have been twisted and corrupted for temporal power in life,and not salvation after death.i mean nearly all religions are founded on the principles of peace,knowledge and brotherly love,not conversion by the sword or 'holy' wars as so many leaders have called them. even now people are dying needlessly for their religion.

and in so many countries people are dying of starvaion when the wealthy countries of the world are easily able to help but do not, it is for these reasons that i think that the world should be united in a socialist state that allows people to keep religion but leaves it as far away from goverment as possible,with each country having equal members and a sway over the affairs of the world,socialism gentlemen is te way of the future but will never come into power with todays corrupt goverments

**themoob** · May 22, 2008, 07:30 AM

Well done Captain Obvious about the first part

And with the second, states have more than enough trouble keeping their own people happy with them, to think that somehow the whole world could exist as one state is extremely far fetched.

**Fluttershy** · May 22, 2008, 07:53 AM

socialism gentlemen is te way of the future but will never come into power with todays corrupt goverments

Care to explain why socialism is the future? Besides the fact that you like it

and what makes you think that a world government would be any less corrupt then todays governments?

**Xan** · May 22, 2008, 02:10 PM

i cant agree with most of what you are saying but i do like the part about keeping religion out of politics.
Decisions shude be based on facts not suprestison

**themoob** · May 22, 2008, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Xan

i cant agree with most of what you are saying but i do like the part about keeping religion out of politics.
Decisions shude be based on facts not suprestison

You think political decisions are based on facts as opposed to superstition? Need I point to Iraq?

**Cyphon88** · May 23, 2008, 05:48 AM

Not bad, although i would quibble at the use of the word state. Depends on what variation you mean. Personally the state in its current incarnation wouldn't be within my utopian ideal. Which is what this thread is heading towards and discusses in the OP.

**ServiusTheGreat** · May 25, 2008, 07:30 PM

well themoob i am only 15 and have only recently started studying politics so take it easy,and the reason i think socialism is the way of the future is this.eveyone gets an equal share people are not exploited by others,everything is controlled and run by the state not private orginazations,people would be appointed to various positions by their natural abilities not how much money they have.

the world state thing would be like the un but with more power the leaders of countries would be appointed by the central goverment and all the countries would have equal members so each has a effect on the world

**Commander_Vimes** · May 25, 2008, 08:20 PM

Yes, but what happens, when you get a religion, which has rules, which contradict what's happening with thee law, Do you either, oppress thee religion, saying thee law goes first, meaning they can't follow what their religion says and therefore, disrupts, and anger..
Or do you, let, thee people of that religious group, do what they want since it's complete freedom...
Or do you try and attempt to compromise with them, by finding some sort of middle way, which means, some of thee more devoutist, religious, people don't agree, and you'd be giving a bit of leeway through thee law...

**Farnan** · May 25, 2008, 09:47 PM

I think your ideas are crap.

A world state would be one of the worse things to hit the world, and a world socialist state would be unsustainable.

**ServiusTheGreat** · May 25, 2008, 11:52 PM

thanks for going easy guys

**ServiusTheGreat** · May 25, 2008, 11:52 PM

thatell teach me to think for myself

**Sidmen** · May 26, 2008, 12:08 AM

The problem with a socialist state would be that it would drag the 'rich' people's standard of living into the mud, while boosting up the 'poor' countries out of the sewer and into the mud.

While communism sounds great to the world's poor, it would be resisted by the world's rich - even violently. So, this world state would quickly crumble while directly opposed by the rich nations, since the poor nations wouldn't be able to sustain it. Your best bet would be to make the world government a secular federation, not atheist like you propose. As a secular federation (democratic) you could run programs to industrialize and modernize the poorer countries, keep hunger down to a minimum (with a world wide foodstamps program). It would also allow certain things to be universal like courts and laws with penalties over 5 years in prison (cutting out lots of abuse).

**themoob** · May 26, 2008, 02:37 AM

Servius:

Socialism and communism are nice, happy ideas, but don't function because people are inherently self interested, a society with those ideals would require some heavy altruism... which won't happen.

Also, everyone having everything equal is absurd, especially when you note that everyone is not equal.

P.S. I'm only 17, don't take it to heart :p

**Cyphon88** · May 26, 2008, 05:39 AM

keep hunger down to a minimum (with a world wide foodstamps program)

Considering we already produce enough food to feed the world 2 times over (to a good level of calories IE 2500 recommended a day, at least) this shouldn't be an issue. And even if i'm off on that statistic, it has definetly been proven that we could feed 30 billion people on this planet (sustainably) on minimum rations. So the 10 billion we're expecting this century should be easily dealt with.

Socialism and communism are nice, happy ideas, but don't function because people are inherently self interested, a society with those ideals would require some heavy altruism... which won't happen.

This is because this is the way that society is currently constructed. All social progoms come from the ruling elite and affect the entire way for society to work. Its not in the Elite's interest for people to work together, as it disables their power.

it would be resisted by the world's rich - even violently.

I think 90% of the world's people would beat 10% anyway. People when sufficiently organized overwhelm the few. Look at any protest when people try to exercise their human rights, and then the police come in and use any means necessary to stop them, they don't always win.

Although Sidmen, the federalisation is a possible way for a world government. And with the increase of RTA's (south america's was launched last week in Brazil) the federalisation of governments is continuing. But as i've said earlier, i would quibble with the idea of states in their current westpholian(sp?) format as truely the way a utopian society in the OP would work.