D.U.C.E

Tell me what you think:

Democratic United Countries of Earth

I believe one of the biggest problems our world faces today are the imaginary borders we have created for ourselves. Since the beginning of time, wars have been fought over territory and the battles rage on even more so today due to overpopulation. Civilization works so well because so many different outlooks and viewpoints from so many different people are tackling any one idea. It is the reason America has become so successful. My vision is to implement another level of government, which would govern the world. Each country would have a representative in this global congress and every human being would now be a citizen of Earth, free to go anywhere they please, as opposed to being limited to their birth country. This would also eliminate the need for every country to have their own military. There would only be the D.U.C.E military, which would be a combination of soldiers from every country, which has taken part in the D.U.C.E unity. The military would be rarely utilized, perhaps only to deal with a rogue nation now and then. This would also eliminate the need for 50% of the world’s scientist to be employed by some form of military. Instead of half of the brightest people thinking of new weapons and ways to destroy us, we can focus our energy on improving humanity, curing diseases, and aiding our environment.

acronyms are evil. look what they did to this kid.

What the deuce?!

The have-nots would love it.

government = force
Your vision conflicts with my vision. I think Bruce mentioned to duck duck (?) on another thread, that different peoples have different ideas about how much government interference is good for them. Americans tend to have a pretty low threshold for being told what to do and an unfortunate blindspot when it comes to telling others what to do. World gov would actually increase conflict and is thankfully unworkable.

i truly believe the path we are currently on is one which will end catastrophicaly. beside we can start small, say a merger between the U.S. and Canada...

Yes, sure, start small with a war between the Canucks and the Americans... and the Quebecois against everyone else.

It could never work. The current nation system doesnt work too well, but it's better than the alternative at the moment.

Rexmons;342026 wrote:

i truly believe the path we are currently on is one which will end catastrophicaly. beside we can start small, say a merger between the U.S. and Canada...

Which is your paranoid fantasy? (I lay out my position on page 2)

Rexmons;341703 wrote:

Civilization works so well because so many different outlooks and viewpoints from so many different people are tackling any one idea.

Isn't this a good argument against one slave owner rather than many?

If we get one world government with one army, we've created a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force. I believe we'd have to collide with a 1+ mile asteroid to kill more people.

Griff;342157 wrote:

Isn't this a good argument against one slave owner rather than many?

If we get one world government with one army, we've created a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force. I believe we'd have to collide with a 1+ mile asteroid to kill more people.

i think the elected congress would help make sure no one person would have too much power.

I have much lower confidence in mob rule. I'm more concerned with groups of people being mislead, rather than the misguided individual.

Just as its better that we have fifty States trying different solutions to problems, fifty nations are better than one. If one supergov implements a foolish policy we're suddenly talking about screwing up humanity not just Grenadans or Cubans.

In older to do that it would have to be a slow process. You first have to get all the nations onto the same side and then slowly integrate them into on nation.

I don't think it will ever happen though.

I'd point out that it'd be that way with merging Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank together.

One goal is to make it so anyone can live anywhere, and travel the world freely. By doing this, it pretty much makes it useless for a group of people to claim a piece of land as "theirs". Imagine being able to live anywhere in the world with the same freedom and luxuries as you have grown accustomed to as having here, anywhere. Another benefit would be poor nations would now get a huge boost in economy because they would essentially be joining the union and therefore receive all the benefits which come with it. Imagine the poorest, war-ridden country in say for instance Africa. After joining duce, the nation would immediately thrive and probably become a tropical tourist destination. The countries with the most power over the rest of the world would be hesitant to initially give up this spot at the top of the pecking order they have achieved; this is only issue i can foresee.

- God Bless :f207:

Rexmons;342518 wrote:

One goal is to make it so anyone can live anywhere, and travel the world freely. By doing this, it pretty much makes it useless for a group of people to claim a piece of land as "theirs".

No more private property?

Imagine being able to live anywhere in the world with the same freedom and luxuries as you have grown accustomed to as having here, anywhere.

You have no idea how many countries don't have flush toilets

Another benefit would be poor nations would now get a huge boost in economy because they would essentially be joining the union and therefore receive all the benefits which come with it.

Who is funding all these benefits the billions are suddenly getting?

Imagine the poorest, war-ridden country in say for instance Africa. After joining duce, the nation would immediately thrive and probably become a tropical tourist destination.

Somehow being hacked with machetes would probably be off putting

The countries with the most power over the rest of the world would be hesitant to initially give up this spot at the top of the pecking order they have achieved; this is only issue i can foresee.

Wait and see if you feel the same way when you get into third grade.

xoxoxoBruce;342575 wrote:

No more private property?

private property is fine, but a group getting together, buying an entire region and not allowing certain people in is not.

xoxoxoBruce;342575 wrote:

You have no idea how many countries don't have flush toilets

I'm sure at one time or another there were states that didnt have flush toilets either but once the american economy began working it's magic, everyone caught up

xoxoxoBruce;342575 wrote:

Who is funding all these benefits the billions are suddenly getting?

you know how most our tax dollars right now are going towards "defense", well imagine if we cut 95% of that.

xoxoxoBruce;342575 wrote:

Somehow being hacked with machetes would probably be off putting

Once again, the country will now have the benefit of the global army at there disposal, to help ensure citizen safety

xoxoxoBruce;342575 wrote:

Wait and see if you feel the same way when you get into third grade.

I think you'll change your mind once you hit puberty.

Rexmons;342585 wrote:

private property is fine, but a group getting together, buying an entire region and not allowing certain people in is not.

That's one of the most anti-American statements ever made. Private property for some but not for others. Sure, that'll bring peace and tranquility.

I'm sure at one time or another there were states that didnt have flush toilets either but once the american economy began working it's magic, everyone caught up

So you don't know history, no wonder you can't plan a rational future, "with the same freedom and luxuries as you have grown accustomed to as having here."

you know how most our tax dollars right now are going towards "defense", well imagine if we cut 95% of that.

Are you really that ignorant? Military spending is 21% of what the feds will spend this year. 60% is spent on the things like, "all the benefits which come with it." Who's going to pay for those benefits for the rest of the world?

Once again, the country will now have the benefit of the global army at there disposal, to help ensure citizen safety

Hey, what a great idea. No police, the "Global Army" will protect us from everything. Somebody else will have to call them though, after you've been hacked to pieces.

I think you'll change your mind once you hit puberty.

I don't want to reach a puberty where you are waiting to fuck me with your idiotic schemes.
It's crystal clear you don't understand how the economy works, how the military works, how government works and most dangerous, how people/society works.

xoxoxoBruce;342575 wrote:

No more private property?

He is talking about a stateless society much like real Communism (not USSR communism) or true anarchy. This type of thinking is usually any extreme left-economic style.

Who is funding all these benefits the billions are suddenly getting?

Not you. It would be the people that are multi-millionaires and billionaires.


The only way to get a world like Rexmons is proposing is make a very far-left economic society. If you did use captialism, it would never end up like that.

Rexmons;342585 wrote:

I'm sure at one time or another there were states that didnt have flush toilets either but once the american economy began working it's magic, everyone caught up

American economy? The only way to get other countries up to the level as America is for them to work. If get into their politics it will only end up in pieces.

you know how most our tax dollars right now are going towards "defense", well imagine if we cut 95% of that.

You can not cut most of the funds. A lot of it goes to scholarships and other things that can not be cut.

Once again, the country will now have the benefit of the global army at there disposal, to help ensure citizen safety

Please explain.

piercehawkeye45;342619 wrote:

He is talking about a stateless society much like real Communism (not USSR communism) or true anarchy. This type of thinking is usually any extreme left-economic style.

He's saying super-state not stateless. I don't see how a government that removed from the people would be accountable. We've got a big enough bubble of unreality in DC, can you imagine when Pakistan hosts the world congress?

Anarchy (An-Cap flavored) I could live with, excepting that little problem where violent people keep trying to make governments to rule others.

piercehawkeye45;342619 wrote:

He is talking about a stateless society much like real Communism (not USSR communism) or true anarchy. This type of thinking is usually any extreme left-economic style.

He/she said private property was fine for some, that's communism where some (pigs) are more equal that others.

Not you. It would be the people that are multi-millionaires and billionaires.

If you took all the millionaire's and all the billionaire's, money, you wouldn't even come close to that tab.

The only way to get a world like Rexmons is proposing is make a very far-left economic society. If you did use captialism, it would never end up like that.

No, there is no way... at all, ever. It's a poorly thought out pipe dream.... John Lennon/Yoko Ono territory.

xoxoxoBruce;342633 wrote:

He/she said private property was fine for some, that's communism where some (pigs) are more equal that others.

Your right, my bad.

If you took all the millionaire's and all the billionaire's, money, you wouldn't even come close to that tab.

That is the only way you could try, all it would be is a jumpstart and then the countries would have to start pulling their own weight.

No, there is no way... at all, ever. It's a poorly thought out pipe dream.... John Lennon/Yoko Ono territory.

I agree with you, it can never happen but a far left economy would get closer than a far right when it comes to one big country.

The money from the million and billionaires wouldn't jumpstart anything, that's for giving everyone else, "the same freedom and luxuries as you have grown accustomed to as having here."

Come to think of it, that's a great job for our politicians, they're good at pissing away money.

xoxoxoBruce;342610 wrote:

That's one of the most anti-American statements ever made. Private property for some but not for others. Sure, that'll bring peace and tranquility.

I'm not saying whites can own land and blacks cant, I'm saying 10,000 whites cant get together, buy an entire states and say no blacks allowed, if that’s anti-American then so be it.

xoxoxoBruce;342610 wrote:

So you don't know history, no wonder you can't plan a rational future, "with the same freedom and luxuries as you have grown accustomed to as having here."

I am not quite sure where you're going with this, but I think it is safe to assume America as a whole did not develop simultaneously or evenly.

xoxoxoBruce;342610 wrote:

Are you really that ignorant? Military spending is 21% of what the feds will spend this year. 60% is spent on the things like, "all the benefits which come with it." Who's going to pay for those benefits for the rest of the world?

I am not saying cut 95% of taxes, I'm saying cut 95% of military spending.

xoxoxoBruce;342610 wrote:

Hey, what a great idea. No police, the "Global Army" will protect us from everything. Somebody else will have to call them though, after you've been hacked to pieces.

Once again, I'm not saying not to have a police force. What I am saying, is that if a hostile military presence is in a county which joins the union, then the D.U.C.E military would be employed. The regular police would still be there to do there job.

xoxoxoBruce;342610 wrote:

I don't want to reach a puberty where you are waiting to fuck me with your idiotic schemes.
It's crystal clear you don't understand how the economy works, how the military works, how government works and most dangerous, how people/society works.

I don't mind debating ideas, but arguing just for the sake of arguing, I'm not willing to do. If you have serious questions I'm more than happy to discuss / debate them with you, but if you just want to have a drag-out fight then I'm not going to humor you.

Rexmons;343112 wrote:

I'm not saying whites can own land and blacks cant, I'm saying 10,000 whites cant get together, buy an entire states and say no blacks allowed, if that’s anti-American then so be it.

Would it be Anti-American to blow that land up since I hate white supremecy?

I am not saying cut 95% of taxes, I'm saying cut 95% of military spending.

Before making a blunt statement like that research what military funding is being spent on. I'm sure you will be suprised.

hawk basically im saying we'll have to pay 95% less because all the other countries are going to share the bill, not that im saying lets get rid of the military. also yea i think the whole "blowing up" thing might get you in trouble.

Rexmons;343112 wrote:

I'm not saying whites can own land and blacks cant, I'm saying 10,000 whites cant get together, buy an entire states and say no blacks allowed, if that’s anti-American then so be it.

The basic principle of private property is that if you own it you can keep anybody and everybody off it. It doesn't matter how big it is, if you don't want blacks or whites or asians on your property that's your right. Where you run afoul of the law is by refusing to sell to someone because of race, color, creed, when you put it on the market. If you want to change that, you're knocking out one of the foremost underpinnings of the United States.

I am not quite sure where you're going with this, but I think it is safe to assume America as a whole did not develop simultaneously or evenly.

That's true, and because of that , "Imagine being able to live anywhere in the world with the same freedom and luxuries as you have grown accustomed to as having here, anywhere.", is a preposterous statement.

I am not saying cut 95% of taxes, I'm saying cut 95% of military spending.

Bullshit, what you said was;

you know how [COLOR="Red"]most[/COLOR] our tax dollars right now are going towards "defense", well imagine if we cut 95% of that.

That's not true.

Once again, I'm not saying not to have a police force. What I am saying, is that if a hostile military presence is in a county which joins the union, then the D.U.C.E military would be employed. The regular police would still be there to do there job.

Yeah, just like the UN troops have prevented genocide in Africa. What about the places there are no police or they are effectively an arm of the military. I suppose I have to pay to create one. It would have to be one hell of a force too, in the many parts of the world that has no rule of law, people feel might makes right, and the machete rules. Usually the police there feel the same way.

I don't mind debating ideas, but arguing just for the sake of arguing, I'm not willing to do. If you have serious questions I'm more than happy to discuss / debate them with you, but if you just want to have a drag-out fight then I'm not going to humor you.

I will always argue against stupid ideas that propose fucking up the United States, for a hare brained scheme to impose our standards of society on the whole world. On people that don't understand, and if they do, don't agree with, how we live or what we believe in.
The worse flaw in the scheme is assuming that if all the nations of the world were equally prosporous, every one would think alike and get along because there would be no hate without envy. That is not true. was never true, will never be true.
The only thing this idea would accomplish is to make the United States a second or even third world nation.

Rexmons;343294 wrote:

hawk basically im saying we'll have to pay 95% less because all the other countries are going to share the bill, not that im saying lets get rid of the military. also yea i think the whole "blowing up" thing might get you in trouble.

Those countries will need a miltary too so they will worrying about their own bill.