• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

YOUtopia, MYtopia: The Global Community is Everyone's Responsibility

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well here it is, folks...the first installment of the jallman manifesto on perfect government. This is a purely theoretical exercise meant to assist me in refining some of my personal beliefs concerning the role of government, religion, social responsibility, and ultimately to come to a conclusion about the human condition. Some of the assertions put forth will be highly offensive to some and totally logical to others. Remember, this is an exercise...a philosophical undertaking with few real applications. I invite all comments, but lets not turn this into a flame war, please. In this first thread, I will offer an overview of the governmental structure I am presenting. Subsequent threads will explore how to achieve that structure along with strengths and weaknesses of this political philosophy. This is an evolving process, so please feel free to chime in and help me out, even if it is to prove me wrong.

First and foremost we will begin with an assumption that national boundaries have become the reason for most global conflict. In this age of information, global communication, and the movement of resources easily and efficiently there is almost no need for these boundaries to exist. It is my belief that national boundaries are not needed anymore and that one government in the hands of one central body of governance and headed by one steward is the optimal direction for the future of the planet. It is the responsibility of the individual to look to the steward of the world, hereafter referred to as the Global Chancellor, and offer him/her dedicated loyalty born of the ideal that humanity has all potential to achieve Utopia. In this endeavor, the individual must sacrifice a little in the beginning in order to achieve greatness later.

The Global Chancellor is responsible for the welfare of the entire human race. As such, he is given all authority to decide the outcome of international conflict, all public policy, spending, global development, and any other powers needed to carry out his duties as the steward of humanity. As this is a massive responsibility, he will have the power to appoint a "cabinet" of viceroys who act as provincial governors of predetermined regions of the world. These viceroys answer directly to the Global Chancellor and are appointed or dismissed at his discretion. The viceroys of the regions will be given the power to initiate armed conflict in the pursuit of maintaining loyalty to the Chancellor. Eventually, such need for armed conflict will become obsolete and that power can be taken from the viceroys altogether.

The Utopian Global Community will have a total divorce of Church and State, except where social aid is influenced. All social aid shall come through a state endorsed Universal Church which retains autonomy of doctrine but its charity works will be subsidized by the Global Community. All other operations of the Universal Church shall be the responsibility of the Church and its congregations. It is imperative though, that initiatives be taken to ensure that the Universal Church does not require membership in order to take part in social aid programs.

It should be instilled in every human being that the Global Community is the responsibility of everyone. Each and every person should maximize his or her potential; that is showing loyalty to the Global Chancellor. The Global Community understands that everyone needs help sometimes, but no one will live off of a government check. To this end, every global citizen will be given the same access to education and training with some preference of choice being given to those who choose to train for service to the Global Chancellor and the Utopian administration. The Universal Church would also have its own career paths with the ability to wield influence socially as an advocate between the masses and the Utopian administration. As education is a social aid program, the administration of education will be given to the Universal Church.

It is not the interest of the Global Community to decide personal morality for its citizens. To this end, the Global Community will not interfere with the personal choices of its citizens. There shall be no laws governing the interactions of consenting adults, no laws governing entertainment, social custom, or religious affiliation. The only time the Global Chancellor or the Utopian administration will exert authority is when such practices directly bring harm to another citizen or when these practices undermine the authority of the Global Chancellor. As steward of humanity, it is the Global Chancellor's responsibility to create policies which protect the individual while forming a cohesive society on a global scale.

This is a brief overview...later threads will take up the ways to achieve such goals and their ramifications...any interest or comments are most welcome.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
jallman said:
Well here it is, folks...the first installment of the jallman manifesto on perfect government. This is a purely theoretical exercise meant to assist me in refining some of my personal beliefs concerning the role of government, religion, social responsibility, and ultimately to come to a conclusion about the human condition. Some of the assertions put forth will be highly offensive to some and totally logical to others. Remember, this is an exercise...a philosophical undertaking with few real applications. I invite all comments, but lets not turn this into a flame war, please. In this first thread, I will offer an overview of the governmental structure I am presenting. Subsequent threads will explore how to achieve that structure along with strengths and weaknesses of this political philosophy. This is an evolving process, so please feel free to chime in and help me out, even if it is to prove me wrong.

First and foremost we will begin with an assumption that national boundaries have become the reason for most global conflict. In this age of information, global communication, and the movement of resources easily and efficiently there is almost no need for these boundaries to exist. It is my belief that national boundaries are not needed anymore and that one government in the hands of one central body of governance and headed by one steward is the optimal direction for the future of the planet. It is the responsibility of the individual to look to the steward of the world, hereafter referred to as the Global Chancellor, and offer him/her dedicated loyalty born of the ideal that humanity has all potential to achieve Utopia. In this endeavor, the individual must sacrifice a little in the beginning in order to achieve greatness later.

I will agree that national boundaries are a social construct. However, I feel that the majority of disagreement in this day and age is caused by ethnic conflict. I don't see how eliminating national boundaries would solve this problem, or how appointing a single leader (who could not possibly know the full background of every conflict) would help either.

The Global Chancellor is responsible for the welfare of the entire human race. As such, he is given all authority to decide the outcome of international conflict, all public policy, spending, global development, and any other powers needed to carry out his duties as the steward of humanity. As this is a massive responsibility, he will have the power to appoint a "cabinet" of viceroys who act as provincial governors of predetermined regions of the world. These viceroys answer directly to the Global Chancellor and are appointed or dismissed at his discretion. The viceroys of the regions will be given the power to initiate armed conflict in the pursuit of maintaining loyalty to the Chancellor. Eventually, such need for armed conflict will become obsolete and that power can be taken from the viceroys altogether.

So the viceroys are in charge of regions. But are there also a team of advisors to the chancellor on different aspects of ruling? Agriculture, economics, education, etc...surely you can't expect him to be proffecient in all aspects needed to govern the world. One would imagine these viceroys would also need their own cabinet.

Which leads me to my second problem with viceroys. Having them serve at the sole discretion of the chancellor opens a pandora's box of problems. Corruption, all the -isms (appointing your family, friends, whatever). Not to mention the issues that a group of people would have when a viceroy from outside their area is assigned to govern them.

The Utopian Global Community will have a total divorce of Church and State, except where social aid is influenced. All social aid shall come through a state endorsed Universal Church which retains autonomy of doctrine but its charity works will be subsidized by the Global Community. All other operations of the Universal Church shall be the responsibility of the Church and its congregations. It is imperative though, that initiatives be taken to ensure that the Universal Church does not require membership in order to take part in social aid programs.

And how exactly would you ensure that the church isn't playing favorites? It certainly has every reason to do so. Establishing a favor system would gurantee the church a large following.

And why exactly is the aid funneled through the church? Do you not trust the government to do it?

It should be instilled in every human being that the Global Community is the responsibility of everyone. Each and every person should maximize his or her potential; that is showing loyalty to the Global Chancellor. The Global Community understands that everyone needs help sometimes, but no one will live off of a government check. To this end, every global citizen will be given the same access to education and training with some preference of choice being given to those who choose to train for service to the Global Chancellor and the Utopian administration. The Universal Church would also have its own career paths with the ability to wield influence socially as an advocate between the masses and the Utopian administration. As education is a social aid program, the administration of education will be given to the Universal Church.

Whoa, the church is in charge of education? I can promise their will be a large amount of people who do not want a church in charge of their children's education.

How exactly is this chancellor appointed? Or will you discuss that later?

It is not the interest of the Global Community to decide personal morality for its citizens. To this end, the Global Community will not interfere with the personal choices of its citizens. There shall be no laws governing the interactions of consenting adults, no laws governing entertainment, social custom, or religious affiliation. The only time the Global Chancellor or the Utopian administration will exert authority is when such practices directly bring harm to another citizen or when these practices undermine the authority of the Global Chancellor. As steward of humanity, it is the Global Chancellor's responsibility to create policies which protect the individual while forming a cohesive society on a global scale.

If people are free to practice their own religion, why does the Universal Church have so much power? It will create conflict.


Interesting so far, although a tad optimistic of human nature. Suppose that's why you call it Utopia.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kelzie said:
I will agree that national boundaries are a social construct. However, I feel that the majority of disagreement in this day and age is caused by ethnic conflict. I don't see how eliminating national boundaries would solve this problem, or how appointing a single leader (who could not possibly know the full background of every conflict) would help either.

Well of course the Global Chancellor would be expected to be versed in the art of diplomacy and would definitely have advisors and a staff just like any other leader does. That kind of goes without saying. Elimination of national boundaries was a bit premature, but clearly, there would have to be a trivialization of the boundaries and a completely erasure of nationalism in exchange for loyalty to the global community. The philosophy is that we are human beings first and our Global Chancellor is the good steward of humanity.


So the viceroys are in charge of regions. But are there also a team of advisors to the chancellor on different aspects of ruling? Agriculture, economics, education, etc...surely you can't expect him to be proffecient in all aspects needed to govern the world. One would imagine these viceroys would also need their own cabinet.

Of course...a global government would have a structured beauracracy with departments and organizations with the purpose of carrying out administration of the state. Viceroys would also have their cabinets and sub departments to head up with the purpose of making administration easier for them. But, global decisions and policies are under the direct jurisdiction of the Global Chancellor.

Which leads me to my second problem with viceroys. Having them serve at the sole discretion of the chancellor opens a pandora's box of problems. Corruption, all the -isms (appointing your family, friends, whatever). Not to mention the issues that a group of people would have when a viceroy from outside their area is assigned to govern them.

I am working on this region thing, but it is very complex as you can imagine. I am thinking that the number of regions should be kept to a minimum and should be divided on boundaries determined by ethnic majorities. Viceroys, at least in the beginning, would have to be representative of the ethnicities within their region and most likely natives of the regions. As for the appointment of the viceroys, if the global citizenry is led to have faith in the Chancellor as a good steward, then there should be no cause for nor toleration of dissent when he chooses a new viceroy.

And how exactly would you ensure that the church isn't playing favorites? It certainly has every reason to do so. Establishing a favor system would gurantee the church a large following.

Well, see...that is one of the issues that is going to be brought up later. The Universal Church isnt exactly just a church, but a utility of the government. You grabbed that one early on...Establishing this favor system is really no different that Bush's faith based initiative which seems to be working from all I have read. In fact, that is where I developed the idea from. And it is intentional that the system would guarantee the Church a large following and for a very express purpose as you will see later.

And why exactly is the aid funneled through the church? Do you not trust the government to do it?

The Universal Church, which should at its inception be an inclusive organization built on the philosophy of empowering every citizen to come to resolutions of faith and relationship with deity based on personal journey while holding fellowship with those whose interest is in the edification of humanity. The Universal Church is to be a bastion of good will and faith in man's potential to commune with deity, and so, the Universal Church is the perfect outlet for dispensing humanitarian aid and charity of all types. It, optimally, would be filled with men and women who devote themselves to the cause of global harmony.

Whoa, the church is in charge of education? I can promise their will be a large amount of people who do not want a church in charge of their children's education.

This is a Global Community. It is not neccessary for everyone's wants to be met, only their needs and personal freedoms to be fulfilled. The priests of the Universal Church would be men of learning and scholarship, and so it makes sense that they would be equipped for administrating educations, secular or otherwise. consider the Catholic Church, whose priestly population is filled with lawyers, doctors, scientists, administrators and so on. I look at my own education in a Catholic school and see that I was more equipped for college than most who went through secular schools. I find nothing wrong with putting the clergy in charge of secular education. Even more so if that clergy's image is tied directly to the success of the Global Community.

How exactly is this chancellor appointed? Or will you discuss that later?

I imagine that in the first days of the Utopia, that the Global Community would rise from some type of power struggle, whether military or diplomatic. The Global Chancellor would have to be a remarkable person to seize power, but I would hope that a Global Chancellor would arrive on the scene as man of peace and interest in the stewardship of the human race. Passing the reigns of power is something I cannot quite decide, but I am working on this.

If people are free to practice their own religion, why does the Universal Church have so much power? It will create conflict.

The Universal Church has the role of acting as ambassador between all other religions...settling conflict, cataloguing religious texts and artifacts, giving scholarly support, and eventually absorbing all other religions into itself over time. I expect this to be a very long process running well into the Utopian dynasty and sometimes requiring the armed support of the Global Community and edicts from the Global Chancellor to succeed. The Universal Church has a very important part to play in the Utopian Administration, but it is something that will have to be eased into to earn the people's trust without outright armed enforcement. That role will be defined in detail later. But suffice to say, that while the Universal Church will maintain adherence to the pretense of religious freedom the Church does have the goal of assimilating the entire world into a more humanistic approach to religion.

Interesting so far, although a tad optimistic of human nature. Suppose that's why you call it Utopia.

I think you will find my approach more given to overcoming human nature through the various utilities of society. Make no mistake, I believe human nature's potential must be brought to reality by rising from the ashes of destruction. This first post was only an overview...getting there is where the real meat of this discussion lies.
 
Last edited:

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Alright I find your idea of utopia quite interesting and actually not far off from what mine is. I agree with the idea that the less power is divided, the easier it is for progress to be made.

But a problem your utopia has is why does their need to be a "church" cant it just be a government department? I am not a religious person and the fact that the aid/education given to the world would be run by a church bothers me.

There's alot of information to soak in from your posts, and these are just my intial reactions to it.

I've spent more of my time thinking about how to fix our country because you need a starting point or an example, being young I have yet to work out alot of details about how I would change things, but I do have a rough idea. You can see it at the link in my signature.
 

cherokee

Devil Dog
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
789
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would have to add that

Men would have to wear burka’s. (The bee keeper suits)

Women would be allowed to walk around nude and since I would be the Supreme Leader all women I chose around me would have to go topless.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
SSlightning said:
Alright I find your idea of utopia quite interesting and actually not far off from what mine is. I agree with the idea that the less power is divided, the easier it is for progress to be made.

But a problem your utopia has is why does their need to be a "church" cant it just be a government department? I am not a religious person and the fact that the aid/education given to the world would be run by a church bothers me.

There's alot of information to soak in from your posts, and these are just my intial reactions to it.

I've spent more of my time thinking about how to fix our country because you need a starting point or an example, being young I have yet to work out alot of details about how I would change things, but I do have a rough idea. You can see it at the link in my signature.


Well as far as the Universal Church, mankind is not ready to let go of its religions...but if we can urge religion to slowly let go of mankind, first by assimilating all religions into one body, and then by having that one body slowly disperse those religions through introducing humanism as a doctrine, then eventually that Universal Church does become nothing more than an arm of the government. Besides, dont you see how convenient it would be for the Global Chancellor is the Universal Church also gave its endorsement of divine right to rule to him and his dynasty?
 
T

The Real McCoy

jallman said:
Well here it is, folks...the first installment of the jallman manifesto on perfect government. This is a purely theoretical exercise meant to assist me in refining some of my personal beliefs concerning the role of government, religion, social responsibility, and ultimately to come to a conclusion about the human condition. Some of the assertions put forth will be highly offensive to some and totally logical to others. Remember, this is an exercise...a philosophical undertaking with few real applications. I invite all comments, but lets not turn this into a flame war, please. In this first thread, I will offer an overview of the governmental structure I am presenting. Subsequent threads will explore how to achieve that structure along with strengths and weaknesses of this political philosophy. This is an evolving process, so please feel free to chime in and help me out, even if it is to prove me wrong.

First and foremost we will begin with an assumption that national boundaries have become the reason for most global conflict.

I disagree. Seems to me that they play even less of a role in conflict than they historically have and that today's wars are clashes of ideologies.


jallman said:
In this age of information, global communication, and the movement of resources easily and efficiently there is almost no need for these boundaries to exist. It is my belief that national boundaries are not needed anymore and that one government in the hands of one central body of governance and headed by one steward is the optimal direction for the future of the planet. It is the responsibility of the individual to look to the steward of the world, hereafter referred to as the Global Chancellor, and offer him/her dedicated loyalty born of the ideal that humanity has all potential to achieve Utopia.

I don't think any human being (or oligarchy) should ever be allowed to wield that type of global power. Technology has evolved exponentially faster than man's benevolance. While we've managed incredible feats such as splitting the atom, walking on the moon and manipulating the very code of life itself, we as a species have still yet to overcome our self-centered nature and corruption in such a government would become inevitable and unimaginably devastating.


jallman said:
In this endeavor, the individual must sacrifice a little in the beginning in order to achieve greatness later.

Could you elaborate on this statement? Not sure I follow ya...


jallman said:
The Global Chancellor is responsible for the welfare of the entire human race. As such, he is given all authority to decide the outcome of international conflict, all public policy, spending, global development, and any other powers needed to carry out his duties as the steward of humanity. As this is a massive responsibility, he will have the power to appoint a "cabinet" of viceroys who act as provincial governors of predetermined regions of the world. These viceroys answer directly to the Global Chancellor and are appointed or dismissed at his discretion. The viceroys of the regions will be given the power to initiate armed conflict in the pursuit of maintaining loyalty to the Chancellor. Eventually, such need for armed conflict will become obsolete and that power can be taken from the viceroys altogether.

Are you serious? I mean, no offense or anything because from what I've seen in other threads, you seem like a very bright individual so it makes me wonder how you could possibly envision this government as something to strive toward.


jallman said:
The Utopian Global Community will have a total divorce of Church and State, except where social aid is influenced. All social aid shall come through a state endorsed Universal Church which retains autonomy of doctrine but its charity works will be subsidized by the Global Community.

Would this Church glorify the Chancellor?



jallman said:
It should be instilled in every human being that the Global Community is the responsibility of everyone. Each and every person should maximize his or her potential; that is showing loyalty to the Global Chancellor.

Sounds far too much like communism... or some Orwellian nightmare.


jallman said:
The Global Community understands that everyone needs help sometimes, but no one will live off of a government check. To this end, every global citizen will be given the same access to education and training with some preference of choice being given to those who choose to train for service to the Global Chancellor and the Utopian administration. The Universal Church would also have its own career paths with the ability to wield influence socially as an advocate between the masses and the Utopian administration. As education is a social aid program, the administration of education will be given to the Universal Church.

It is not the interest of the Global Community to decide personal morality for its citizens. To this end, the Global Community will not interfere with the personal choices of its citizens. There shall be no laws governing the interactions of consenting adults, no laws governing entertainment, social custom, or religious affiliation. The only time the Global Chancellor or the Utopian administration will exert authority is when such practices directly bring harm to another citizen or when these practices undermine the authority of the Global Chancellor. As steward of humanity, it is the Global Chancellor's responsibility to create policies which protect the individual while forming a cohesive society on a global scale.

How would these ideals be enforced? I envision forced labor camps and killing fields.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Real McCoy said:
I disagree. Seems to me that they play even less of a role in conflict than they historically have and that today's wars are clashes of ideologies.

Okay, so far we have arrived at national boundaries not being the problem, but ideologies and ethnic boundaries as being the problem. All the more reason to divide the territories of the viceroys among boundaries determined by ethnic majorities. This makes total sense now that you guys have pointed it out. I am thinking 7-10 territories should suffice. National boundaries within those territories that remain intact can be acceptable for a while, but over time, I would still like to see those national boundaries disperse as the Global Community solidifies its power.

I don't think any human being (or oligarchy) should ever be allowed to wield that type of global power. Technology has evolved exponentially faster than man's benevolance. While we've managed incredible feats such as splitting the atom, walking on the moon and manipulating the very code of life itself, we as a species have still yet to overcome our self-centered nature and corruption in such a government would become inevitable and unimaginably devastating.

Of course you dont because you have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that power should be dispersed among the people and you probably have a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism. You are not alone and that is why it would be neccessary for the Utopian Administration to break those ideas down, both in their physical manifestations and on a psychological level. However, I am of the contention that if you centralize power under one steward, you can achieve great progress. Those in positions of authority that report to the Global Chanclellor would have to be made to understand that any sign of corruption will be punishable up to death. These are to be men and women who are held to the highest of standards and ethics. Corruption undermines loyalty to the community.


Could you elaborate on this statement? Not sure I follow ya...

Giving up small things like 25 choices of breakfast cereal in exchange for everyone being able to have breakfast cereal, even if it is only one or two kinds. Giving up SUVs in exchange for a standard vehicle assignment based on family size. Simple things like this that would make the world better for everyone.

Are you serious? I mean, no offense or anything because from what I've seen in other threads, you seem like a very bright individual so it makes me wonder how you could possibly envision this government as something to strive toward.

I dont take any offense, as I said this is a purely philosophical exercise. Some of the ideas I promote will probably make Orwell shiver and Ayn Rand cringe. I know this, but trust that I am only thinking about how to achieve global harmony in the most efficient way.

Would this Church glorify the Chancellor?

Okay, you got me. In the beginning, surely this church would carrry the endorsement of the Utopian Administration. However, as the church gains the following of the society and weilds influence accordingly, it will be the responsibility to the church to lend divine right to the Utopian Administration and its head of state. Eventually, I see the pontiff of the Universal Church and the Global Chancellor working hand in hand, one lending poltical power to the Utopian Adminisration and the other lending its social/moral affirmations.

Sounds far too much like communism... or some Orwellian nightmare.

Communism didnt hold a candle to what I am thinking about. Communism was faulty from the start. It relied on a group to weild power together with no real steward to reign them in. It trivialized the need for spirituality and giving the masses somethingto hope for. Communism was bleak and drab with no benefit, only existence. I am talking about Utopia here...with every citizen working in harmony to glorify the human race and our potential. Reward those who serve the Global Community and quickly bring punishment to those who undermine it.

How would these ideals be enforced? I envision forced labor camps and killing fields.

Labor camps and killing fields are not what I envision, but I can see how you would show some concern. Actually, I have a much better idea. Its time to introduce the global currency card. All currency will be tracked through a global banking system. No money would ever be put into print, but rather moved electronically. Every citizen would recieve a global currency card which is how they buy, trade and sell. Your paycheck goes directly into your global currency account where taxes are automatically deducted. The remainder stays as a credit to your account. When shopping, spending for entertainment, or making transactions between citizens, the global currency card is the only way to perform trade. No work, no credit to your global currency account. Plus, think of how easy it would be to track illegal activity...I mean, normally when some crime is committed, you can follow the money back to the perpetrator. It also makes it easy to track any person on the planet so that dissenters may be ferreted out with ease. No killing fields, no labor camps, just tight control on the resources.
 

SSlightning

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
jallman said:
Okay, so far we have arrived at national boundaries not being the problem, but ideologies and ethnic boundaries as being the problem. All the more reason to divide the territories of the viceroys among boundaries determined by ethnic majorities. This makes total sense now that you guys have pointed it out. I am thinking 7-10 territories should suffice. National boundaries within those territories that remain intact can be acceptable for a while, but over time, I would still like to see those national boundaries disperse as the Global Community solidifies its power.



Of course you dont because you have been indoctrinated from birth to believe that power should be dispersed among the people and you probably have a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism. You are not alone and that is why it would be neccessary for the Utopian Administration to break those ideas down, both in their physical manifestations and on a psychological level. However, I am of the contention that if you centralize power under one steward, you can achieve great progress. Those in positions of authority that report to the Global Chanclellor would have to be made to understand that any sign of corruption will be punishable up to death. These are to be men and women who are held to the highest of standards and ethics. Corruption undermines loyalty to the community.




Giving up small things like 25 choices of breakfast cereal in exchange for everyone being able to have breakfast cereal, even if it is only one or two kinds. Giving up SUVs in exchange for a standard vehicle assignment based on family size. Simple things like this that would make the world better for everyone.



I dont take any offense, as I said this is a purely philosophical exercise. Some of the ideas I promote will probably make Orwell shiver and Ayn Rand cringe. I know this, but trust that I am only thinking about how to achieve global harmony in the most efficient way.



Okay, you got me. In the beginning, surely this church would carrry the endorsement of the Utopian Administration. However, as the church gains the following of the society and weilds influence accordingly, it will be the responsibility to the church to lend divine right to the Utopian Administration and its head of state. Eventually, I see the pontiff of the Universal Church and the Global Chancellor working hand in hand, one lending poltical power to the Utopian Adminisration and the other lending its social/moral affirmations.



Communism didnt hold a candle to what I am thinking about. Communism was faulty from the start. It relied on a group to weild power together with no real steward to reign them in. It trivialized the need for spirituality and giving the masses somethingto hope for. Communism was bleak and drab with no benefit, only existence. I am talking about Utopia here...with every citizen working in harmony to glorify the human race and our potential. Reward those who serve the Global Community and quickly bring punishment to those who undermine it.



Labor camps and killing fields are not what I envision, but I can see how you would show some concern. Actually, I have a much better idea. Its time to introduce the global currency card. All currency will be tracked through a global banking system. No money would ever be put into print, but rather moved electronically. Every citizen would recieve a global currency card which is how they buy, trade and sell. Your paycheck goes directly into your global currency account where taxes are automatically deducted. The remainder stays as a credit to your account. When shopping, spending for entertainment, or making transactions between citizens, the global currency card is the only way to perform trade. No work, no credit to your global currency account. Plus, think of how easy it would be to track illegal activity...I mean, normally when some crime is committed, you can follow the money back to the perpetrator. It also makes it easy to track any person on the planet so that dissenters may be ferreted out with ease. No killing fields, no labor camps, just tight control on the resources.


I love your currency idea. Also I agree with you about how people today think that any type of sole leadership is evil. But one needs to realize that the dividing of power also slows progress. So much more can be done if there is no one there to tell him not to, of course a good leader would have to be in charge otherwise disaster would result from this government. But in all fairness human nature is really the downfall of all governments.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Real McCoy said:
Sounds far too much like communism... or some Orwellian nightmare.

yeah what a nightmare... humans in harmony caring for one another :roll:
 

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There are certain principles that I believe a perfect government would have to have:

*A leader with the kind of power you are wanting to give would have to have a knowledge of all things and would have to choose by his free agency to be bound by virtue in all things. Only God fits here and so the leader of a perfect government would have to be either God or a man or woman of the true and living God (I am not talking about priestcrafts where a man or woman sets themselves to be a light to the world but the real thing.) Without this, then it is impossible to have a perfect government(becuse mortal human beings do not possess a perfect perspective because their are limits to human knowledge.) So without a TRUE theocracy then you can only try and get the best government possible (non perfect) which would have to have a structure in place that has a realistic understanding of human nature or else the kind of government you are giving will more likely end in despotism imo.

*The power that this global chancellor has cannot have come from any kind of coersion or force but rather by people using their unfettered free agency to choose to follow this leader. Those who choose not to would have to have the freedom to create their own ideas of the perfect government.

*the charity or pure love of others without any selfish ulterior motives would have to be in the hearts of the people for a true "utopia" to exist. This spiritual attribute cannot by developed by force and coersion (such as government legislation that forces virtue.)


Here are some cool verses from LDS(Mormon) scriptures that hint at how God has recieved His power and perfect kingdom(at least it seems to me):

"The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."(D&C)

“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.....No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile ...... and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever." (D&C 121:34-46)
 
T

The Real McCoy

Che said:
yeah what a nightmare... humans in harmony caring for one another :roll:

Not sure what reality you subscribe to but here on Earth, we humans are incapble of constructing such a utopian ideal.

I'm curious, what would your ideal (national and/or international) government be?
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
laska said:
There are certain principles that I believe a perfect government would have to have:

*A leader with the kind of power you are wanting to give would have to have a knowledge of all things and would have to choose by his free agency to be bound by virtue in all things. Only God fits here and so the leader of a perfect government would have to be either God or a man or woman of the true and living God (I am not talking about priestcrafts where a man or woman sets themselves to be a light to the world but the real thing.)

Okay, I can agree with what I believe to be your initial assertion...that this man or woman would have to be a true steward of mankind. What I disagree with is your assertions that the secular man cannot achieve that kind of compassion. I will reveal something of my own thoughts here: I dont believe Jesus's sacrifice was that profound, in and of itself. Not to say I dont appreciate it, but I dont think it was all that monumental. Hear me out....who among us, if we KNEW that all of mankind (or even just our closest loved ones) were on a rail to eternal suffering, would not step up and sacrifice himself to avoid it, if we KNEW, that by doing so, we could save those most dear to us. Further strengthen that resolve with the knowledge that by doing so, we would not truly perish ourselves, but rather would be set up as the right hand of the governing authority who imposed that original damnation...not to mention the exaltation from the ones we saved....meaning the entire human race? Actions of virtue can be born of motivations of selfishness...what matter if the actions are born of selfish motivation if they achieve the same, selfless end?

Without this, then it is impossible to have a perfect government(becuse mortal human beings do not possess a perfect perspective because their are limits to human knowledge.)

I also agree that there are boundaries to human knowledge. I just dont agree that there are boundaries to human potential.

So without a TRUE theocracy then you can only try and get the best government possible (non perfect) which would have to have a structure in place that has a realistic understanding of human nature or else the kind of government you are giving will more likely end in despotism imo.

Despotic governments can still be benevolent, despite the selfish motivations of despots themselves. Look at Elizabeth who held her country together by an iron fist of political control...she achieved greatness for her people and is still revered to this day. I think the most important trait this Global Chancellor must have is mental stability and a genuine care for the direction of the planet.

*The power that this global chancellor has cannot have come from any kind of coersion or force but rather by people using their unfettered free agency to choose to follow this leader. Those who choose not to would have to have the freedom to create their own ideas of the perfect government.

I disagree in total to this statement. Even now, as a democracy, we spread our ideals that the people should choose...and we spread them by force. Think about how prevalent the term "peace keeping troops" is on our vocabulary today. Consider Iraq, which we are dragging kicking and screaming into a democratic way of governance. No, I say that Global Chancellor need only have the interest of the people at heart and those who dissent might just have to be ground beneath the wheels of progress.

*the charity or pure love of others without any selfish ulterior motives would have to be in the hearts of the people for a true "utopia" to exist. This spiritual attribute cannot by developed by force and coersion (such as government legislation that forces virtue.)

True; you cannot immediately enforce virtuous ideals upon the masses. However, with social/psychological manipulation backed by force, within a few generations you can develop a mindset of altruism in a society. Its that whole "fake it until you make it" concept that AMWAY and other business ventures use to arouse the passions of their constituency. Apply it globally with all the power of a global authority and just try to comprehend the progressive changes that can be made to the collective psyche.

Here are some cool verses from LDS(Mormon) scriptures that hint at how God has recieved His power and perfect kingdom(at least it seems to me):

"The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."(D&C)


So, admit the sins of man and approach it from that angle. Admission of guilt is the first step toward correction the offense, correct? Let not the Utopian Administration be self righteous, but rather, let it admit the short comings of man and commit to changing the behaviors that make it fall short...through whatever means necessary. And let the proactive plan for making those corrections come by direct decree of the one Global Chancellor in charge with the spiritual credibility of the one Universal Church.

“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.....No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile ...... and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever." (D&C 121:34-46)

And the key comes with "almost all men". Envision a Global Chancellor with centralized authority and the autonomy to decide the course of our moral evolution...but I see the unpredictable variable...would he be a true steward or would he be a self gratifying monster. I just dont think it is inherent in man to attempt the latter, though I do see it being difficult for the average man to achieve success at the former. Surely the Global Chancellor would have to be an extraordinary individual...I am not denying that.
 
Last edited:

laska

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
402
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Okay, I can agree with what I believe to be your initial assertion...that this man or woman would have to be a true steward of mankind. What I disagree with is your assertions that the secular man cannot achieve that kind of compassion. I will reveal something of my own thoughts here: I dont believe Jesus's sacrifice was that profound, in and of itself. Not to say I dont appreciate it, but I dont think it was all that monumental. Hear me out....who among us, if we KNEW that all of mankind (or even just our closest loved ones) were on a rail to eternal suffering, would not step up and sacrifice himself to avoid it, if we KNEW, that by doing so, we could save those most dear to us. Further strengthen that resolve with the knowledge that by doing so, we would not truly perish ourselves, but rather would be set up as the right hand of the governing authority who imposed that original damnation...not to mention the exaltation from the ones we saved....meaning the entire human race?

In LDS thought this is exactly the argument Lucipher made in the premortal grand council when God asked who He should send to perform the Atonement. The premortal Jesus stated:

"Here am I, send me" (Abr. 3:27) "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever" (Moses 4:2). Lucipher stated: "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor." Lucipher wanted to rob mankind's free agency and force every individual to accept the gift of the Atonement and obedience to Celestial laws and thus he thought would save all people, and his motive was self interest in gaining power. Jesus did not seek for power but only wanted to glorify His Father and allow free agency.

Actions of virtue can be born of motivations of selfishness...what matter if the actions are born of selfish motivation if they achieve the same, selfless end?

I guess I see it as depending on what ends you want to achieve. If it is efficiency of resources and equality, absolute force may work for a time. Again the problem I see is that coersion and manipulation will never bring real spiritual growth and a fullness of joy for humanity(the purpose of utopia.) The Book of Mormon teaches that free agency is a crucial element for spiritual growth. If the purpose of man is joy, and true joy is the result of virtue, how can a soul really be virtuous if they are forced to be? And if it is not true virtue then how could they attain meaningful joy? Then for virtue to exist and thus joy and happiness, there must be evil and misery out there to be in opposition to it. Here are some verses in the Book of Mormon:
"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy" (2 Nephi...)

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so . . . righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. . . .. . . It must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. (2 Nephi 2:11, 15-16)
"Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." (2 Nephi 2:27)


I also agree that there are boundaries to human knowledge. I just dont agree that there are boundaries to human potential.

I agree with this except that from my perspective humanity is very weak in this temporal sphere and is limited for the time being. The LDS believe that the human species are gods and goddesses, the offspring of divine parents. This temporal sphere is just a crucial step in our journey to becoming like our divine parents(if we choose to become like them, which requires faith in following them.)

Anyway this just my personal perspective here.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Real McCoy said:
Not sure what reality you subscribe to but here on Earth, we humans are incapble of constructing such a utopian ideal.

I'm curious, what would your ideal (national and/or international) government be?

bahh.. greed can easily be avoided. My perfect government would be a democratic socialism. One that allows people to be free while also giving everyone the basic nessacities of life that are needed in order build from the bottom up.

As a matter of fact, since I've come to this forum I've become less radical. I realize to an extent that a certain very restricted capitalism is needed to keep a growing economy, but also that if capitalism is run rampant it forgets about a great number of people who were less fortunate. In short, France is the closest government that I agree with, however France is still farther right than I am.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom