Union of Earth Republics

[annrice234]

This is just an idea I am working on. It is long-term (i.e. beyond our lifetimes). I would appreciate any feedback.

The Union of Earth Republics

The Constitution of the new Union of Earth Republics (UER) is the foundational document for the merger of all Earth nations into a single nation. It has many of the features of the United States of America (USA) Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and such. It includes three main branches of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary branches. It is not exclusively Democratic since the Chinese republic remains Communist. The UER is a union of republics, somewhat like the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was.

The UER Constitution includes features not available in the USA Constitution. These features include an Equal Rights Amendment, term limits for the UER Legislature, line-item veto for the Executive and balanced budget provisions. It also plans for a resolution of economic debt between the republics. Sustainability clauses and a family size limit provision is phased-in.

The UER starts out with just the landmasses of the USA and Russia. For the sake of clarity, the alternative name for the new nation will be the Union of Russian and American Republics. The merger of Russia and the USA is phased-in. It does not initially include free travel between the two republics, a merger of the two economies or a merger of the two militaries. China joins the UER at a later date. China's suffrage int he Legislature is phased-in because of the its larger population size. The goal is one-person, one vote in at least one house of the bicameral Legislature.

A primary goal of the UER is to cease the targeting of the population centers of the UER by the strategic nuclear arsenals of the UER. This change is phased-in. The UER is a pathway to a more peaceful nuclear weapons stance than that of the late 20th Century.

 

[Gunny2009]

Thank you for posting one of the stupidest things I have read in a while!

 

[Lightbringer]

This is just an idea I am working on. It is long-term (i.e. beyond our lifetimes). I would appreciate any feedback.

The Union of Earth Republics

The Constitution of the new Union of Earth Republics (UER) is the foundational document for the merger of all Earth nations into a single nation. It has many of the features of the United States of America (USA) Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and such. It includes three main branches of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary branches. It is not exclusively Democratic since the Chinese republic remains Communist. The UER is a union of republics, somewhat like the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was.

The UER Constitution includes features not available in the USA Constitution. These features include an Equal Rights Amendment, term limits for the UER Legislature, line-item veto for the Executive and balanced budget provisions. It also plans for a resolution of economic debt between the republics. Sustainability clauses and a family size limit provision is phased-in.

The UER starts out with just the landmasses of the USA and Russia. For the sake of clarity, the alternative name for the new nation will be the Union of Russian and American Republics. The merger of Russia and the USA is phased-in. It does not initially include free travel between the two republics, a merger of the two economies or a merger of the two militaries. China joins the UER at a later date. China's suffrage int he Legislature is phased-in because of the its larger population size. The goal is one-person, one vote in at least one house of the bicameral Legislature.

A primary goal of the UER is to cease the targeting of the population centers of the UER by the strategic nuclear arsenals of the UER. This change is phased-in. The UER is a pathway to a more peaceful nuclear weapons stance than that of the late 20th Century.

Why do you think nations need to merge?

 

[annrice234]

Why do you think nations need to merge?

I think that nations need to merge because of the threat of nuclear war. An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the USA would be a disaster for all people of Earth. It is an existential threat to the two countries involved. The sequence I see to address this threat is to improve the diplomatic relationship, then get the citizens to interest themselves in the other country, then form a weak union and then steadily strengthen that union until the military and nuclear arsenals are under a single command.

 

[Lightbringer]

I think that nations need to merge because of the threat of nuclear war. An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the USA would be a disaster for all people of Earth. It is an existential threat to the two countries involved. The sequence I see to address this threat is to improve the diplomatic relationship, then get the citizens to interest themselves in the other country, then form a weak union and then steadily strengthen that union until the military and nuclear arsenals are under a single command.

I think merging is a bad thing. Why should America go to the stars polluted with Chinese thinking?

 

[annrice234]

I think merging is a bad thing. Why should America go to the stars polluted with Chinese thinking?

I think that what the people of Earth need is a structure that is peaceful rather than the current situation, which is war-like. The current USA policy for peace is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which assumes that nuclear war would destroy the governments of both Russia and the USA. Certainly, there must exist a better solution than that.

 

[Lightbringer]

I think that what the people of Earth need is a structure that is peaceful rather than the current situation, which is war-like. The current USA policy for peace is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which assumes that nuclear war would destroy the governments of both Russia and the USA. Certainly, there must exist a better solution than that.

Alright, what do you think is better? And realistic?

 

[evince]

its likely another incarnation of annatta



if you try to make a state that only allows one point of view to populate it then you are a fool



there will much more likely be a united states of the world.



once we end the conservatives bent to cheat in democracy to try and gain all the power illegally conservatism as the OP views it will die off



sorry annie


your idea is just as the other posters say

is a completely geared to fail idea

 

[Ross Dolan]

I think that what the people of Earth need is a structure that is peaceful rather than the current situation, which is war-like. The current USA policy for peace is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which assumes that nuclear war would destroy the governments of both Russia and the USA. Certainly, there must exist a better solution than that.

Have you given any thought to the possibility that humans (the senior life form on planet Earth) is a potential existential threat to (truly) intelligent life in out galaxy.

Is it not possible that truly intelligent life forms would be hoping we humans exterminate ourselves before moving out away from our planet...and by extension...out into the galaxy. We may be one of those life forms that just CANNOT get it. Our evolution may have doomed us...because somehow we took a wrong fork in the road...by chance. A stray meteor or asteroid fucked us.

Maybe Mutually Assured Destruction is the best thing from the perspective of other creatures.

So that they do not have to do the job themselves.

Just maybe.

 

[Lightbringer]

its likely another incarnation of annatta



if you try to make a state that only allows one point of view to populate it then you are a fool



there will much more likely be a united states of the world.



once we end the conservatives bent to cheat in democracy to try and gain all the power illegally conservatism as the OP views it will die off



sorry annie


your idea is just as the other posters say

is a completely geared to fail idea

FailHeap.

 

[annrice234]

its likely another incarnation of annatta



if you try to make a state that only allows one point of view to populate it then you are a fool



there will much more likely be a united states of the world.



once we end the conservatives bent to cheat in democracy to try and gain all the power illegally conservatism as the OP views it will die off



sorry annie


your idea is just as the other posters say

is a completely geared to fail idea

A united states of the world sounds like something very similar to what I intended, so long as it is achieved in a peaceful way.

 

[Lightbringer]

A united states of the world sounds like something very similar to what I intended, so long as it is achieved in a peaceful way.

Yeah, except, read her post again. She's not talking about a world union, she's advocating ignoring people who disagree with her, is that the world you want?

 

[annrice234]

Have you given any thought to the possibility that humans (the senior life form on planet Earth) is a potential existential threat to (truly) intelligent life in out galaxy.

Is it not possible that truly intelligent life forms would be hoping we humans exterminate ourselves before moving out away from our planet...and by extension...out into the galaxy. We may be one of those life forms that just CANNOT get it. Our evolution may have doomed us...because somehow we took a wrong fork in the road...by chance. A stray meteor or asteroid fucked us.

Maybe Mutually Assured Destruction is the best thing from the perspective of other creatures.

So that they do not have to do the job themselves.

Just maybe.

"Moving out into the galaxy" seems like it is going to take a very long time since the nearest star is light-years away. I am concerned about the ever-present current threat of nuclear war and other aspects of sustainability.

 

[Ross Dolan]

"Moving out into the galaxy" seems like it is going to take a very long time since the nearest star is light-years away. I am concerned about the ever-present current threat of nuclear war and other aspects of sustainability.

And I am essentially asking if you have ever considered that the best thing humans can do for EXISTENCE...is to destroy themselves.

Let me ask it again...and pay attention to the wording:

Have you given any thought to the possibility that humans (the senior life form on planet Earth) are a potential existential threat to (truly) intelligent life in our galaxy...that maybe the best thing that could happen for intelligent life, is for us to be destroyed BEFORE we gain the ability to export our savagery to other worlds?

Kinda like asking if the world might have been better off if Adolf Hitler had died of pneumonia in the 1920's...but don't let that thought influence your answer.

 

[Jack]

Will this be like the United Nations? Where all Nations are represented?

 

[annrice234]

And I am essentially asking if you have ever considered that the best thing humans can do for EXISTENCE...is to destroy themselves.

Let me ask it again...and pay attention to the wording:

Have you given any thought to the possibility that humans (the senior life form on planet Earth) are a potential existential threat to (truly) intelligent life in our galaxy...that maybe the best thing that could happen for intelligent life, is for us to be destroyed BEFORE we gain the ability to export our savagery to other worlds?

Kinda like asking if the world might have been better off if Adolf Hitler had died of pneumonia in the 1920's...but don't let that thought influence your answer.

All I want to see is a practical plan to fix the nukes for the sake of humanity. Whether humanity should exist at all is a philosophical question of rather much larger scope.

 

[annrice234]

Will this be like the United Nations? Where all Nations are represented?

The United Nations is better than nothing, but it does not seem to be strong enough to fix the nukes. I envision that all nations will eventually be included in the Union of Earth Republics, but it seems that starting with just Russia and the USA and creating a union from those two is a simpler way to get started.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello evince,

if you try to make a state that only allows one point of view to populate it then you are a fool

Isn't that exactly what you are trying to do when you say you are killing lies?

Or should I ask if there are any right oriented posters that you are able to conduct civil discourse with at all?

Don't you pretty much sling all you've got at anyone who isn't liberal?

How is that not trying to populate our own nation with one view - yours?

Anybody tries to say anything else and you crank up the flame thrower.

Me, personally, I think freedom of speech must be maintained, whether or not we agree. If some views are not to be said, who is to say what is to be said? If I disagree with something I only need to explain why. There is no point in casting dispersion over the individual who voiced another view. It is the view we object to, not the holder.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello and welcome annrice234,

This is just an idea I am working on. It is long-term (i.e. beyond our lifetimes). I would appreciate any feedback.

The Union of Earth Republics

The Constitution of the new Union of Earth Republics (UER) is the foundational document for the merger of all Earth nations into a single nation. It has many of the features of the United States of America (USA) Constitution with its separation of powers, checks and balances and such. It includes three main branches of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary branches. It is not exclusively Democratic since the Chinese republic remains Communist. The UER is a union of republics, somewhat like the way the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was.

The UER Constitution includes features not available in the USA Constitution. These features include an Equal Rights Amendment, term limits for the UER Legislature, line-item veto for the Executive and balanced budget provisions. It also plans for a resolution of economic debt between the republics. Sustainability clauses and a family size limit provision is phased-in.

The UER starts out with just the landmasses of the USA and Russia. For the sake of clarity, the alternative name for the new nation will be the Union of Russian and American Republics. The merger of Russia and the USA is phased-in. It does not initially include free travel between the two republics, a merger of the two economies or a merger of the two militaries. China joins the UER at a later date. China's suffrage int he Legislature is phased-in because of the its larger population size. The goal is one-person, one vote in at least one house of the bicameral Legislature.

A primary goal of the UER is to cease the targeting of the population centers of the UER by the strategic nuclear arsenals of the UER. This change is phased-in. The UER is a pathway to a more peaceful nuclear weapons stance than that of the late 20th Century.

OK, now there's a wild idea. I have been trying to imagine how a stronger world government could be achieved for years. I like the thought of it, but I can't for the life of me visualize how it could be pulled off. I don't think this is it. I give it high marks for creativity, though.

I once wondered if the USA could simply begin accepting other nations as new States, and keep expanding until the rest of the world was included. Of course, we know that won't happen. The countries where they have it better than the USA would not want to join, and all the ones that really need help would. There would be no way to extend our standard of living to all the citizens. Something would have to be worked out. Making them territories would not work, either. No nation would want to be Puerto Rico and get exploited with no voting representation. Puerto Rico is what the rest of the USA would look like without government spending. They don't get any.

And it's all a pipedream anyway. The good old boys in the rural districts would never go for it. They would be whipped up against it by propaganda paid for by capitalism, which exploits the big differences in national economies to make the rich richer. And what could be done about immigration? Any plan that allowed a lot of poor people who are willing to work really hard for next to nothing to come here would be very unpopular. Although that situation will change when nobody can get a job anyway due to AI.

So if the great Constitution of the USA is not a good guiding document for the world government, then what? You couldn't have freedom of movement between the states of the world if the states don't have uniform laws about gun ownership and carry. Or freedom of speech. And if you don't have freedom of movement or speech then there is no way you are ever going to get common military. And what would the common military be for? If the world is united then war is eliminated. The only defense force needed in that case would be defense of the world from space invaders. So all the states would keep their own military, and also keep the right to attack each other. And that is not a world government.

Also, States with nuclear weapons are not the complete nuclear threat. What if the government of a nuclear nation experienced a breakdown or a coup? Or simply a sophisticated cloak and dagger operation by religious terrorists bent on destroying the world? Simply take over control of a nuclear nation, start firing missiles, and wait for MAD.

No. The whole thing is a pipedream. Picturing a world government without the threat of nuclear war is like picturing world peace. Sounds nice to say in a beauty pageant but pulling it off is another story.

But I think your head is in the right place.

 

[Ross Dolan]

A world government of some kind would be wonderful. I almost used the word "cute" there...which gives an idea of how I truly feel about the notion.

I'll mention here what I have mentioned elsewhere...to no reception whatever.

World government is not what is needed for what ails humanity right now.

I'll tell you what I think does.

I think adoption of the notion that the Protestant Work Ethic should be shit-canned...and that every nation should be doing its best to limit the number of people (humans) who are allowed to work.

The fewer human workers...the better for human kind and for (for want of a better term) the human predicament.

The only humans who should be allowed to work...are VERY productive humans. If there is a machine that exists (or can be easily devised) that can be more productive than a human at a particular job...the machine should be used.

I suspect we could turn this world into a Utopia of sorts if we headed in this direction. But I recognize and acknowledge that we all seem to be aiming in exactly the opposite direction.

As Chester A. Riley would say, "What a revolting development this is."