# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## The Political Future of the World

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

25 posts • Page 1 of 1

Cielingcat
  Duke
  Posts: 1453
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Cielingcat » Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:57 am

I have to do a presentation on an incredibly broad topic, the same as the title of this thread. So, I've come here to ask for some help on researching and planning it. The most important topics are:

- What does the future have in store for the UN?
- What will happen to nation-states with the rise of nationalism?
- How will globalization and multinational corporations affect the world?
- What will happen to the spread of democracy?
- Will the United States remain the world's sole superpower, or will it have competition? Or will the world cease to have superpowers altogether?

CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO COCAINE, SILKY HEN

> Josh_Kablack wrote:You are not a unique and precious snowflake, you are just one more fucking asshole on the internet who presumes themselves to be better than the unwashed masses.

Top

Hey_I_Can_Chan
  Master
  Posts: 250
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Garden Grove, CA

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Hey_I_Can_Chan » Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:56 am

If you don't mind saying, for what class and level? High school, college, post-graduate? How much research are you expected to do? How long is the presentation to be? What AV resources does the presentation space command?
The short version: Go totally extreme. Commit to something utterly and then push it until it can't go any further. Choose a technological breakthrough and declare that as dictating the political future of the world.
I'd go with something like cold fusion, FTL travel, nanotechnology, human cloning and braintaping, panimmunity/longevity treatments, or jetpacks (or flight rings, if you prefer). Then I'd speculate as to how one'd fundamentally alter the world's geopolitical landscape.
Without that crux on which to hang your presentation, you're just bullshitting with your buddies over beers. Find a big idea, be it technology, religion, art, or whatever, and base your presentation around that.
Top

User3
  Prince
  Posts: 3974
  Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by User3 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:39 am

How long is the presentation expected to be? And what are the political leanings of the instructor? Generally, your best bet is to make something that comes in exactly on time, or a little under time, and doesn't ruffle too many feathers.
For example, a presentation on the Fall of the American Empire would not go over well with a Republican teacher, but you knew that already.
You could go a lot of interesting ways with this. I'd echo the previous response of finding a good idea and building your presentation around it. Make sure it's something you're passionate about.
Some ideas:
Massive global nuclear terrorism
Global warming run completely amok
The rise of China as a superpower
The final gasp of fundamentalism, and the move towards religious unity
The end of nations, as national boundaries and distinctions become less and less important
The eradication of extreme poverty worldwide
the list goes on and on, just pick a cause and run with it.
Good luck!
Top

MrWaeseL
  Duke
  Posts: 1249
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by MrWaeseL » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:34 am

Is it just the world or can you assume colonizaton of other planets? Because I think those will take up the place countries have right now in our political climate.
edit: I base this on nothing
Top

CalibronXXX
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 698
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by CalibronXXX » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:57 am

Possibly take a look at what life might be like if the current Islamic fascists manage to more or less succeed in their goals. After all France will be an Islamic nation in two generations by birth-rates alone, any of the western nations that would oppose their efforts are too divided politically and ethically divided to stand as a united front, and the other Islamic sect that is fighting them, the Suunis(sp?), actually had the dangerous, what we would consider dangerous anyway, ideals and goals first; so it's actually a substantial possibility that is relevant to the current geopolitical situation.
Just something to ponder.
Top

PhoneLobster
  King
  Posts: 6403
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by PhoneLobster » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:16 am

If your class mates responses look anything like most of the current posts currently look like I'd suggest just chilling out and arguing something that has some grounding in well...
Reality.
In the end you're speculating anyway but maybe you should speculate something that LOOKS very believable and is based on stuff which actually really IS happening already, rather than zany singularity theory and fundi christian wet dreams about muslim borg.
And its not like the near future doesn't have interesting times written all over it anyway.
You got China rising again.
You got Russia, well, doing SOMETHING.
You got the EU building itself into a super power already strong enough to be economically a bigger, and smarter, fish than the USA.
You got the USA up to its eyeballs in debt and on the brink of economic collapse.
You got a funky socialist Bolivarian revolution in South America seeing a very real chance of an economic and political golden age for the continent and MAYBE even for third world nations across the world as they shake off not just the USA and CIA, but also the IMF, World Bank, and maybe if they can't end up running it even the UN. These guys are beginning to forge their OWN alliances separate to the exploitative and damaging influences of many first world nations and they're LIKING IT.
You got the UN being actively sabotaged by the USA while nations accross the world are beginning to demand serious reform of the whole security council stupidity.
And you even really DO have religious issues, primarily of loony minorities of a certain three or four faiths dragging others into a pointless and bloody holy war at every opportunity. But also of the rising political influence of the christian brands of such groups in western nations as they exploit loopholes in their democracies that allow them to dictate a greater degree of policy than their numbers would normally imply.
Which also touches on the increasing appeals towards facism, nationalism, racism and relgious fear and hatred by right wing politians in the west as they make some seriously scary totalitarian power grabs.
AND then you have Peak Oil.
Thats not even half the REAL stuff you could make plausible sounding ruminations over.
It beats jet pack powered flying androids fighting genetic engineered muslim hordes with cold fusion death rays somewhere over the eiffel tower.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Phonelobster's Latest RPG Rule Set
The world's most definitive Star Wars Saga Edition Review
That Time I reviewed D20Modern Classes
Stories from Phonelobster's ridiculous life about local gaming stores, board game clubs and brothels
Australia is a horror setting thread
Phonelobster's totally legit history of the island of Malta
The utterly infamous Our Favourite Edition Is 2nd Edition thread
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by tzor » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:13 pm

That’s a pretty large subject to cover at any level. I’ve not really written down my thoughts on this in a long time and being at work, this will be brief and somewhat vague.
The United Nations will still be important because of its impotence. This “impotence” is designed into the very UN itself. As long as there are powers with veto powers that do not see eye to eye, the UN will be unable to significantly get into trouble.
The second level of the UN is the bureaucracy, the many organizations under its umbrella. These organizations will have increased importance as time progresses. Topics like world health and global warming will use and be used by UN organizations to advance their position and prestige in the world community.
I think the world is far too complex to consider the notion of the nation-state. With transportation of people and ideas so easy, the future borders will be divided along ideological lines more than geographical. Islamic fundamentalism, for example, knows no one nation state. (Witness the recent attempted attack on the US from South Americans; the attempt on fuel lines to JFK airport.)
Globalization and Multinational corporations will play a role in the world stage, but make no mistake they are not and will never be super powers. In fact I have the feeling we may see the decline of multinational corporations by the end of this century. The standard multinational model is rather imperialistic, and maintaining a strict world wide company from a single corporate headquarters is going to prove marginally unprofitable in the long term; especially with the rise of Regionalism as in the case of the EU.
Democracy has never been easy to spread. (We really need a spread able democracy, or better yet a liquid democracy that can be used in spray bottle.) Democracy is currently dying in a number of countries, especially Russia. The Middle East will never accept democracy. To be fair, there was a time when the Southern United States didn’t exactly accept “democracy” either and there was certain terrorist organization known as the KKK who killed any of the people they thought inferior who wanted democratic rights.
The question of future super powers is a soap opera. Russia is trying to become the OPEC of natural gas. Odds are they will succeed, although this could throw us into a very hot cold war. China has the ability of being an almost was super power. (This is because they are close to a market collapse caused by a bursting bubble.) India will almost collapse until they realize that all of their jobs won’t actually go to China after all.
In the mess of this, the laws of probability demand that someone, somewhere, will realize that just being damn efficient will make you a superpower. This won’t happen until the end of the century.
Top

CalibronXXX
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 698
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by CalibronXXX » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:52 pm

Oh I don't know, China might get some reforms going that introduce efficiency into their economic distribution and general governing policies sometime prior to 2100. Maybe.
Top

Catharz
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 893
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Catharz » Tue Jun 05, 2007 3:23 pm

The Singularity will make it all irrelevant.
[Edit]Yes I am a Roborevelator.[/Edit]
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:18 am

If Iraq has shown us anything it is that nations cannot hold territory without killing everyone. If Sudan and Yugoslavia have shown us anything, it's that you can't even kill everyone. Those lands will leave the union anyway.
So here's a pessimistic thesis for you: Balkanization without end. Invasion is impractically expensive and ultimately futile. Even holding lands is a sucker's bet. Any region that wants to be free can make itself so given enough time and a sufficient pile of bodies.
The amount of resources that the United States is pouring into Israel to keep a lid on Gaza is impractically large and cannot be sustained. The future involves every region gaining autonomy over itself. Not in 10 years, not in 50. But 300 years ago the idea of the "Nation State" was a new one, in 300 more years it will be seen as a perplexing fad whose time came and went.
The assumptions which created the UN are thus false. There aren't any Nations in the "real world" - it's just a label that people have been throwing around for the last few generations. And in a few more they'll stop, and that'll be the end of that.
---
On a side note, I wish people wouldn't talk about "Islamic Fascists". Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism are completely different.
So to put things in perspective, Saddam was a Fascist. While Osama is a Fundamentalist.
Fascism is inherently tied to the State and national identity and coporate interests that it espouses and strengthens. Islamic Fundamentalism is a stateless religious movement which attempts to limit and destroy the powers of secular organizations - like nations. The two philosophies are inherently contradictory.
You can be a Fascist who happens to be Islamic (just as good old Benito was a Fascist who happened to be Catholic), but Fundamentalism is inherently anti-fascist because it is anti-state and anti-secular.
That doesn't mean it's good, just that it happens to be anti fascist.
-Username17
Top

CalibronXXX
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 698
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by CalibronXXX » Wed Jun 06, 2007 12:13 pm

I'll put out the effort to use the right terms from now on, but if the group(s) that are maintaining the Hezbalah(sp?), Alcaida(sp?) and such aren't Islamic Fascists, what are they? They aren't simply Fundamentalists since they do things like break the rules of Jihad laid out in the Taliban and other distinctly non-fundamentalist or not-necessarily-fundamentalist things; and don't say terrorists, nobody labeled the Nazis "The Blitzkriegists" or the Vietcong "The Guerrillas".
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by tzor » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:11 pm

A couple of points.
I'm really not sure what Iraq teaches us. I have my own ideas and its probably going to be a lot different from yours. There was and is a tendency of the Bush administration not to talk to people. Some people you can't talk to and some people you must talk to. Half of our problems in Iraq was our refusal to demand to talk man to man with Muqtada al-Sadr on day one. Now it's too late, as he is no longer in charge of what he had created. His cancer is not only in the various militias, but in the very government itself which is stopping the Iraqi army from doing its job.
At least the Sunni tribal leaders figured it out before they lost control of their own people to al-Quadea.
I think "Islamic Fascists" is an overblown term, often used with "Islamic Fundamentalism" is needed. There is an Islamic Fascist movement, a desire for a greater Islamic state which would spread over the middle east and beyond. Since they are looking to establish a super state they are better described as fascist. They might use fundamentalists, but only as a means to controll the people.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:42 pm

There is indeed an actual fascist movement in the Middle East that is Islamic when it happens to have any religion at all. That's the Pan-Arab Baath Party - but they are relatively forward thinking and pay only lip servie to the Koran (in much the same way as the Italian Fascismo paid only lip service to Catholicism). They have movements in Lebannon and Yemen, they put Saddam into power, and they are still in control of Syria.
Of course, the Pan-Arab Baath Party is not a unified whole, each national unit is also a nationalist unit definitionally so they don't get along super well. The Syrian branch justifies itself by strengthening the Arab people of Syria, and the same for Yeman and so on.
There is also a movement to make a super state out of all of Suni Arabia - an Arabian Caliphate. This is a Monarchist movement grounded in Religion. They want to enforce religious laws and install a rule of kings. Not particularly fascist, though I'm certainly against it.
Something to keep note of is not to fall into This Trap. Seriously, while you can se "fascist" as a slur, and a lot of people do - it's a real political movement with real doctrines and real adherrants.
A Fascist argument for something might be:

> Our country must remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives to protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime.

And a Fundamentalist argument might be:

> Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

Note how it presumes that whatever they happen to be doing is the will of God, and that it is presupposed that God wants everyone else to do that too. So imposing whatever you're doing on anyone else is the will of God and so on and so forth.
Now of course, both Fascism and Fundamentalism are potential ethical stands one might take. But if someone is switching between those arguments, chances are that they are neither a fundamentalist nor a fascist, but merely a kleptocrat. God and Country both have strong resonance with some people, and you can get people to do things that are against their own self interest by doing that.
But if you harp on both as justification for putting money into a santa-sack or invading othr countries and taking their stuff - chances are that you don't have any ethical stance at all.
-Username17
Top

User3
  Prince
  Posts: 3974
  Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by User3 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:17 pm

Heh, great last paragraph, Frank; but could you explain a little further what the hell is a Pan-Arab organization composed of nationalist branches? It really isn't looking like making any sense for me. Also, it seems that what crumbled Islam after the Middle Ages was their damn coordination problems - another example here, I guess.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:14 pm

> but could you explain a little further what the hell is a Pan-Arab organization composed of nationalist branches?

Several times in the 20th century the folks rebelling against Imperialism in various regions of the world have decided on a purely strategic level to divide their battle up to fight on completely separate fronts in a cell-structure. This seems to have especially happened to France, as you'll recall that the Indochinese liberation movement decided to fight for Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam separately rather than together.
There are lots of advantages and disadvantages to doing it that way, but perhaps the most obvious feature is that at the end of the day the different cells have only been in cursory and indirect communication with each other for years by the time any of them actually takes over a country. An entire generation has come of age with loyalty to the specific independence movement rather than the general one.
So while Ba'ath: Syria and Ba'ath: Iraq started on the same page, after they went through years of struggle and almost a complete turn over of personel they had almost nothing in common at all. You can see the same effect even more strikingly in Indochina, where the Vietnamese Communists instituted a relatively with-it and modern state for the region and the Cambodian "Communists" ran around taking slaves and shooting people with glasses or books - the Vietnamese Communists eventually invaded Cambodia to kick the nominally Communist regime out of power!
So basically, each of the Ba'ath groups has as a long-term goal the creation of a strong and virile state for all Arabs, and an immediate goal of creating a strong and virile fascist state for Arabs where they happen to be. Of course, once they complete the immediate goal they then come into conflict with the other branches who have achieved that goal because "There should be only one!"

> Also, it seems that what crumbled Islam after the Middle Ages was their damn coordination problems - another example here, I guess.

In the 15th century, the Muslim world in the Middle East and Europe was headed up by Qara-Koyunlu, the Mamluk Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. Qara and the Mamluks were bullshit tribal federations who could be considered "nations" only on a map. But the Ottomans were hard core. They invented the musket drill, they conquered all of the Balkans, they pushed all the way up to making some very credible sieges of Wien (the capitol of Austria) as late as 1683.
Recall, that's where we get Croissants - a celebration of breaking the siege of the Ottoman Turks at Wien. Had things gone slightly differently, we would have Mosque bells in Austria and we'd have fluffy pastries made in the shape of an X.
But while the Ottoman Empire was mighty and impressive, it eventually fell by the wayside. Seriously huge in its day, it got into a whole conservative cycle where it held to the ideas of the old and not the ideas of the new. Finally torn down in 1922, it was a shadow of its former self - the Sultan a joke from a bygone day (The Russian Czar was looked at much the same way in 1917).
But really what we see in the Middle East is that they came up with only one really impressive and lasting empire. The Timurids came and eventually went on the Assyrian model (be crazy murderous bastards who frighten the hell out of everyone and raze whole cities in the ground until you eventually offend enough people that your empire is torn apart and cast by the wayside of history). The Mamluks and the Persians went down like punks, and so on and so forth.
And when the Ottomans went down, they didn't make a Uninion of Socialist Republics or anything crazy and ultra-modernifying like that - they created the nation of Turkey. Meh, it's alright.
But Europe had already started conquering them up big time. Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and Persia were all possessions of European powers. It wasn't that they weren't part of great empires, it's that the capitols of such empires were Paris and London.
---
The incompetence and backwardness of the Middle East is majorly overstated. In 1920 it was a pretty hip and happening area. But between severe resource theft by Imperial powers, the implantation of exploitive and incompetent synthetic monarchies by those imperial powers, and the rise of fanatical fundamentalist Islam the area has not really developed in a forward direction since then.
But in World War I, the Muslim world was a very credible part of the Central Powers, adding as much to the war effort as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and certainly more than Bulgaria (not as much as the Empire of Germany, but what are you going to do?)
-Username17
Top

User3
  Prince
  Posts: 3974
  Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by User3 » Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:24 pm

Thank you very much. It seems I underestimated the Ottomans: knew most of it, but didn't ever think they were equals to the Austro-Hungarians until that late. And losing only to Germany is actually no small thing ...
Top

CalibronXXX
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 698
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by CalibronXXX » Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:45 am

Thank you, that was most informative.
Top

rapanui
  Knight
  Posts: 318
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by rapanui » Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:33 pm

Balkanization? I doubt it.
Control of territory via military deployment is indeed a fool's game, but there are other ways to ensure group cohesion. I like China's way of doing it: squish any dissent out with very highly excessive force. But the US also has an interesting approach: dope the proles with TV until they don't care strongly enough about anything. Hey, Paris Hilton got out of jail, anbody see that?
If anything, I'm seeing signs that there will be greater cohesion in several world regions, notably east asia (China WILL get Taiwan sooner or later, mark my words... and maybe eventually get control over one or two Koreas) and Latin America (that's a bit more of a stretch).
From a standpoint of economic competitiveness it also seems counter-productive to Balkanize, so there will also be corporate pressure to maintain global cohesion and stability.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by tzor » Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:45 pm

> rapanui at [unixtime wrote:1181244788[/unixtime]]But the US also has an interesting approach: dope the proles with TV until they don't care strongly enough about anything. Hey, Paris Hilton got out of jail, anbody see that?

No, I was busy working. Just googled it. "With extensive consultation with medical personnel it was decided this reassignment should be done." What the stinking fuck is this? Medical reasons? Give me a fucking break! They beter cover this on NPR this evening or I'm going to start emailing them asking them why not!
Here is something from Reuters:

> The syndicated TV show "Entertainment Tonight," citing sources close to Hilton's family, reported on its Web site that Hilton had developed a rash on her body, while celebrity Web site TMZ.com reported Hilton's medical condition was psychological.
> TMZ cited unidentified law enforcement sources as saying a psychiatrist who visited her in jail found she was in danger of a nervous breakdown.

A fucking rash?
Currently Exceptionally Angry at the moment
Top

User3
  Prince
  Posts: 3974
  Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by User3 » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:48 am

I'd go read the end of history and someone who advocates the clash of cultures argument.
Both are fairly prelevant theories about the political future of the world. I'm a big fan of the 'end of history' argument which states that democratic societies are the pinnacle of possible human societies without a massive change in underlying circumstances (like nuclear warfare, or some way of disassociating manufacturing from human effort completely). Thus it is argued that all other societies have to become democratic societies, or social and economic pressure from democratic societies will cause their collapse (especially in the light of rising globalism)
I happen to agree, and the biggest problem with this theory is that neocons agree with it too
Top

PhoneLobster
  King
  Posts: 6403
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by PhoneLobster » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:52 pm

I vote for both the end of history and the clash of cultures "theories" as being obviously false on even the most cursory examination.
Its not exactly the first time political movements have made the same claims as end of history, we know that from history. Also fairly observable from history are the actions of democracies spreading LACK of democracy around the rest of the world. Heck end of history pretty much declared the whole Iraq happy time adventure story to be their big proof of concept and look at THAT mess...
As for clash of cultures, well look at just how much the fanatical fringes of the supposed clashing cultures have in common. There is almost nothing the far right fundi christian wants for American society that isn't exactly mirrored by what the Taliban wants for Afganistan. And periodically these guys set aside their differences and ally together in their attempts to further their goals by acting in unison to pressure the international community into accepting shit like putting some more of the hate on the women of the world or helping to spread horrible deadly plagues among poor people.
Those guys are totally in step with each other, they're even pretty unified in their desire to horribly kill each other, but they put even THAT aside in their shared goals of hating women, sex, science and unbelievers.
Throw in the unified cultures of the left half of the two "clashing cultures", and a strong dash of the historical realization that our culture is infact inherited from their culture, which was inherited from "our" culture, which was inherited from theirs etc... and well...
Those are two kinda spurious theories really.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Phonelobster's Latest RPG Rule Set
The world's most definitive Star Wars Saga Edition Review
That Time I reviewed D20Modern Classes
Stories from Phonelobster's ridiculous life about local gaming stores, board game clubs and brothels
Australia is a horror setting thread
Phonelobster's totally legit history of the island of Malta
The utterly infamous Our Favourite Edition Is 2nd Edition thread
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by tzor » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:24 pm

You know I don’t want to sound like a nit picker, but generally speaking we don’t have democracies in the Greek sense of the term; instead we have democratic republics. The difference, though subtle is important. We may yet see the evolution of true democracy through modern technology, or we may not.
The reason I insist on the notion of democratic republics is that the people hide a lot of the process of democracy through hierarchy. While the hierarchy is democratically elected, the actual decisions of the hierarchy are done by the hierarchy, with very little direct say by the people except through odd processes like referenda. While the people have the power of the vote, their actual influence in actual legislation becomes no more, and no less, as powerful as any other lobbyist.
This also results in the separation of responsibility from the people at large. The average person doesn’t need to be aware of all the complex issues that face the nation. Unfortunately, this apathy isn’t good for a democratic republic either and the long term result is oligarchy. New York State is probably the best example of oligarchy at work, with three people, the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Assembly, and the Governor the ones who basically decide on all legislation that passes in the State.
But with the internet there is a whole new way for people to once again become involved. The ability to reach out and interact with the people is a level higher than the traditional “poll the populace” method of the previous century. Not only can politicians motivate large groups for support, the people can also motivate large groups for support. What the future of the interactive blogging society is not clear at the moment, although it might be a force for a greater direct democracy movement. (Especially if enough people start complaining that they elected people to do “X” and those people never did it.)
No, I’m convinced the future of politics will always be most unpredictable and definitely fascinating to read bout afterwards.
On Iraq: The more I think of it the more I’m convinced this is a classic case of party based democracy. In this case the parties are divided along ethnic lines, but it is no less than the republican/democratic divide in the United States. Think of what this country would be in if we had, for example, pro life terrorists, or for that matter turn back the clock with the civil rights movement and the power of the KKK.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:24 pm

To say that "democracy" is the end point, or even an end point is absurd. In truth, questions of citizen input into government, economics, and personal freedom are quite dynamic. Even to the extent that they can be arranged as a series of sliders between extremes, the number of questions is numerous and the extremes involved are not readily identifiable as "good" and "bad".
Democracy, for example, provides very little in the way of economic benefit. In fact, Democracy doesn't provide a benefit that is visible at all in most circumstances. The effect is that the more input the average citizen has into government and the economy, the more frequently and successfully unpopular actions can be punished. The benefit is that gross incompetence and corruption are usually unpopular and democratic institutions act as a check of sorts on that sort of behavior.
But democracy ends sometimes. Democratic institutions guaranty the ascendancy of popular options, not necessarily good options. While it is usually harder to fool 51% of the people than it is to bribe one dictator, there are still instances where religion or fear will drive the people to vote away their own input. In Turkey, people would vote to drop the constitution and be ruled by Mullahs tomorrow if the army didn't explicitly forbid that sort of thing on pain of being shot in the face. In Iraq Saddam Hussein polled an easy victory for the Presidency just before he was extra-legally hung to death by a rope. And yes, in the United States the Republican debates currently feature serious discussion about whether citizens who speak Spanish should be allowed to vote. What's popular today has no guaranty of even allowing you to register your opinions tomorrow.
Things change. They change unrecognizably over time, and it is hubris of the most pathetic order to think that we won't continue to develop new ways of doing things in the future. We definitely will. Capitalism will end. Modern republicanism will end. The things that replace them in some places will be an improvement. In other places, they will be replaced with catastrophe.
The inherent contradictions of having Capitalism and a government, heck of having Capitalism and itself are all too obvious. No system based on he consolidation of wealth can ever stand to be in a state of competition forever. Eventually, the wealth will consolidate to the point where meaningful competition is impossible. Marx was a Utopianist and genuinely believed that the end point was the democratization of the economy, with the corporate structure pulled into direct control by the citizenry. But you know an equally feasible (if frightening) answer to the same contradictions is for the powerful corporations to simply purchase the government and then merge into powerful autocratic monopolies that control the economy and the state.
There is no perfect amount of freedom. To exist within society one must limit their behaviors to one extent or another. To what extent one's behavior must be limited is a dynamic question. There's no particular reason that I can't walk around the city with my cock out, but I can't. People are allowed to smoke in public places, what's up with that? And so on and so forth.
When FOX News talks about "freedom" they almost always mean "the freedom of people with money to invest it in whatever they want" – but even then relatively few of them seriously think that you should be free to invest in meth labs or hostage taking schemes. The reason that the Neocon plan is so incredibly stupid is because when they talk about spreading democracy they are literally talking about making people free to make the choices that they would make with regards to economics and social organization. The thing is, noone would make the same choices as them as regards social organization and economics. In fact, noone would make the same choices as anyone else, because there are an infinite number of possibilities and many of them have merits worthy of discussion.
The Neocons have found that if you give people a choice, they won't make the choice you want them to make. I could have told them that. In fact: I did.

> Tzor wrote:Think of what this country would be in if we had, for example, pro life terrorists

That's not very hard, because we do. Eric Rudolph. James Kopp. I can go on. It's really not hard, we totally have pro life terrorists in the United States. They snipe people and make improvised explosives.
-Username17
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:39 pm

I might point out, every time I mention terrorism, that the single group responsible for the most number of bombings in the US (during the last twenty years) is...
...Anti-abortion terrorists.
And no, they're not even listed in the top ten terrorism threats that the FBI is supposed to be stopping.
-Crissa
Top

Draco_Argentum
  Duke
  Posts: 2434
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: The Political Future of the World

- Quote

Post by Draco_Argentum » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:03 am

> PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1181307175[/unixtime]]Those guys are totally in step with each other, they're even pretty unified in their desire to horribly kill each other, but they put even THAT aside in their shared goals of hating women, sex, science and unbelievers.

Even their desire to kill each other is mutually beneficial. It gives both sides a bogeyman to point to to justify themselves and smokescreen the crap they do to their own people.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

25 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS