Forum
Community Forum
Today's Posts
FAQ & Rules
Members List

Writing
Writing Forum
Recent Posts
Critique Guidelines

Groups
YWO Social Groups
Facebook
Myspace

Chat
 
YWA

Register

Store
Support YWO
YWO Merchandise
The Book Despository
Amazon.com (US)
Amazon.co.uk (UK)
Amazon.ca (Canada)

SBS Mag


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-05-2014, 08:03 AM View Post #1 (Link) Monocracy or Balance?
Georgy (Offline)
Scholarly Apprentice
 
Georgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 231
Points: 2.68
Times Thanked: 88
Guys, I often think about the advantages and disadvantages of global monocracy.
I mean, what is better, the existence of a single global center that will regulate the development paradigm of all mankind that will deliver humanity from necessity the arms race; or better the presence of two (three) of world powers who will seek to balance themselves through the arms race?

Have any ideas on the matter?
__________________
"And the internet has everything on it. It's a blessing and a curse."
InfinityMan
"The point of poetic prose, in my opinion, is to illuminate a truth, make us see something that's there, but hidden."
Dabs
"I believe we stand together to address the real issues facing this country, not allow them to divide us by race or where we come from. Let's create an America that works for all of us, not the handful on top." Senator B.Sanders
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2014, 01:27 PM View Post #2 (Link)
MonaLon (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
MonaLon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 250
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 34
Firstly, I don't think a monocracy is a good form of government in any situation. But giving all the power in the world to one single individual? That would be even worse. For one, I don't think one person can really handle all of the issues that come along with being ultimate ruler of the world.

So if it has to be specifically a monocracy, then two or three world powers would probably be better. (By the way, it sounds like you've been reading 1984! Three world powers fighting each other perpetually sounds pretty similar.)
__________________
Hey guys! I do novel/short story critiques.

Big project: The Queen of Gosnter

Smaller project: Callback

"Stuff happened." --Something someone said at some point
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2014, 05:45 PM View Post #3 (Link)
Dabs (Offline)
Freelance Writer
 
Dabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,885
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 151
I'm going to move this to the debate thread since... well, I don't see how it could be anything but a debate.

Originally Posted by Georgy View Post
a single global center that will regulate the development paradigm of all mankind that will deliver humanity from necessity the arms race
I don't really see how a global monocracy would eliminate an arms race. Look at the history of civil wars; living under one banner does not a happy country make. The same could and probably would be applied to the world at large.

Originally Posted by Georgy
or better the presence of two (three) of world powers who will seek to balance themselves through the arms race?

Have any ideas on the matter?
I suppose it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to criticize this system seeing as I'm a citizen of one of the most powerful countries on Earth and reap the benefits of that on a daily basis.

However, I can say that the U.S. government as it is right now is hardly adequate for governing the diverse population of the country. Everything is held to a very simplistic standard (which is pretty much "give white , straight, cisgendered, protestants whatever they want"), partially because our politicians are corrupt, old, and behind the times; much of our culture is bigoted; our population is quite large, and we are geographically large.

I don't think you have to imagine what it's like for such a government to expand its interests into the international world. We already have. We continually fuck up and bring little to no improvement. We have very little grasp on other cultures and what it takes to help said cultures develop.

So, really, neither system is viable or good. As I said before, the U.S. government, even operating from within its own borders, is hardly viable, if it's viable at all. Which is pretty amazing and sad considering our government is structured so that everyone from every part of the country has some kind of representation. But again, politicians have no real concept of what the common man is, so in the end the representation doesn't even matter.

I'm speaking in generalities, by the way. I'm well aware that there are plenty of exceptions to everything I've said, but this is how I see a majority of the issue.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2014, 06:17 PM View Post #4 (Link)
MonaLon (Offline)
Global Moderator
 
MonaLon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 250
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 34
Dabs, do you think for a way for a huge country like America to work? I think that diversity doesn't mean the country is doomed.
__________________
Hey guys! I do novel/short story critiques.

Big project: The Queen of Gosnter

Smaller project: Callback

"Stuff happened." --Something someone said at some point
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2014, 07:48 PM View Post #5 (Link)
Dabs (Offline)
Freelance Writer
 
Dabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,885
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 151
Diversity doesn't doom a country, the other reasons I listed do. We have archaic standards that don't match the current, actual make-up of the nation.

I don't really know if there is a solution. I don't personally believe there is. The problem I have with governments is that they attempt to put restrictive standards on others based on who they decide is entitled to the status quo. Which is not to imply that the determination of such standards is arbitrary, but it is ultimately decided in either a conscious or unconscious way.

You can't really apply restrictive standards to people, though, because people are too diverse and complex to conform to them. Standards are fine, but when straight, white, cisgendered men receive entitlements based on how they were born, and the government isn't doing anything about it because, hey, they mostly reap those benefits too, we're looking at a restrictive society.

Pride, I think, is the main source of this restrictiveness, and it's kind of inevitable. No matter where you go or what you do people are going to be proud of where they live and their way of life. They're not going to want to change their way of life; in fact, they'll probably try preserving it in some capacity, often through the establishment of rules or, in a government's case, laws. And if you do try to change something, that pride gets wounded, these emotions that are deeply embedded in their daily routing get riled up, and suddenly you have some form of resistance on your hands. On the largest scale this is embodied as war.

The people who try to humble themselves tend to be passive, and so they're not going to go out and try to convert people to their way of life. In fact, doing so would probably be counter-intuitive to that way of life.

I guess in some ways I'd advocate for a kind of faux-Buddhist outlook on things. I like objects, and I'm fine with the material world, but people get so caught up in their own emotions that they refuse to let things go. Hence pride. Hence restrictiveness. Hence the inability to govern a diverse country. Hence the inability to peacefully interact with a portion of the international community.

Not that I'm any better. Pride is inevitable, like I said, and like everyone else I get pissed when my way of life is threatened or dismissed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2014, 03:12 AM View Post #6 (Link)
Georgy (Offline)
Scholarly Apprentice
 
Georgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 231
Points: 2.68
Times Thanked: 88
The whole morning I was wondering what's the "cisgendered men"? Non traditional or what?
__________________
"And the internet has everything on it. It's a blessing and a curse."
InfinityMan
"The point of poetic prose, in my opinion, is to illuminate a truth, make us see something that's there, but hidden."
Dabs
"I believe we stand together to address the real issues facing this country, not allow them to divide us by race or where we come from. Let's create an America that works for all of us, not the handful on top." Senator B.Sanders
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2014, 03:39 AM View Post #7 (Link)
Dabs (Offline)
Freelance Writer
 
Dabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Long Island, New York
Posts: 1,885
Points: 30
Times Thanked: 151
Originally Posted by Georgy View Post
The whole morning I was wondering what's the "cisgendered men"? Non traditional or what?
A cisgendered person is someone who identifies with their assigned gender, meaning someone who is female at birth identifies as female. A transgendered person is someone who identifies as the opposite of their assigned gender, typically--someone who is female at birth identifying as male.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2014, 04:32 AM View Post #8 (Link)
Georgy (Offline)
Scholarly Apprentice
 
Georgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 231
Points: 2.68
Times Thanked: 88
So, Dabs, transgendered persons seem to be like this? http://t.co/Rjz76f3Hh4
__________________
"And the internet has everything on it. It's a blessing and a curse."
InfinityMan
"The point of poetic prose, in my opinion, is to illuminate a truth, make us see something that's there, but hidden."
Dabs
"I believe we stand together to address the real issues facing this country, not allow them to divide us by race or where we come from. Let's create an America that works for all of us, not the handful on top." Senator B.Sanders
  
						Last edited by Georgy; 04-06-2014 at 07:50 AM.
					
					Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 08:43 AM View Post #9 (Link)
Agent Pointless (Offline)
Literary Newbie
 
Agent Pointless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 8
Points: 7
Times Thanked: 1
It's a big question. The problem as I see it is that humans are completely unfit to govern themselves on a large scale. However, we know this, and try to work around it.

Honestly, off the top of my head (sort of), I'd say it came down to efficiency over equality. For example, a system with one supreme leader is much more efficient, but may not care for the will of the individual. This is why the military have ranks and Commanding Officers instead of Managerial Committees (speaking generally). Quite simply, if someone starts shooting at you, you don't vote on what to do - you do as you're told and hope to whatever you pray to that your commander knows what he's doing. Commander's are prepared so they do.

However, this doesn't always work, as it (a) might not be popular enough to sustain faith, and (b) relies on the leader being right all the time. If the leader makes one mistake, the masses lose faith, and it may cost the population. And, of course, who decides the leader? If you put a nutter in charge, don't expect success.

Balance is much better at this, as it gives a more level, fair (balanced?) point of view. On a global scale, we go from one brain running the world to seven billion brains running the world, to a certain degree. Now, on a Two-Brains-Are-Better-Than-One level, this is obviously better. The problem here being that it's not time efficient, and relies on everyone working together, which for some reason humans can't do on a massive scale for any length of time.

So, I suppose it depends on your definition of 'better'. If we could find the single perfect leader for all humanity, then a monocracy would be far better. The simple problem is, we can't.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools

 


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 - Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All writing Copyright © its author(s). All other material Copyright © 2007-2012 Young Writers Online unless otherwise specified.
Managed by Andrew Kukwa (Andy) and Shaun Duke (Shaun) from The World in the Satin Bag. Design by HTWoRKS.