Welcome to Gaia! ::

Not at all.

You don't have to tell them that their country is worse (you never should, and never could), you can tell them that their country is good, and it is just the sort of influence the union could do with. "A mutually beneficial and deeply profitable agreement...and if you, Mr [Head of Government] made the decision that so benefited your people and ours, it would be a notable mark to your name in history. Very notable indeed; not that such things would be a concern to one such as yourself."

You're just a poor diplomat, you can never sell anoyone anything if it means they sacrifice their pride or, to a degree, their national identity.

It will be, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Nor any other united empire.

Novos would be the work of generations.

First off, Kagerou; love Umberto Eco, love your siggy.

Capitalism and socialism are simply opposite sides of the same continuum, and both extremes have severe sociopolitical consequences. While pure capitalism rewards those who have the least regard for the environment and their fellow man, pure socialism assaults one's work ethic and can decrease drive. While all of the countries in the world need to be more socialistic to enhance sustainability and stabilize the world economy, "pure" socialism (i.e. communism) will only do exactly what pure capitalism has done: incite terrorist organizations.

I do; I firmly believe that any and all solutions which will create an autonomous and stable (but not static) economy will work from the ground up. I think the best solution would be to take this socialist/communist, economic/political spectrum and striate it across larger regional divisions. What I mean is:

Community: The community will be responsible for taking care of its own environment, and ensuring that people have enough food, water, shelter, etc., even if they're not producing it (securing assets). Each person contributes in a fairly communistic way, save the existence of private businesses NOT dealing in necessary, public services.

County: The county acts as a self-sufficient body, producing its own food, water, energy, and is the first unit of government to participate in a democratic political system. It must also ensure the government control of necessary services, but will be the unit of government to control corporations. This will allow more economic freedom than the community level, but restrictive enough to place economic, ethical, and environmental sanctions.

Country: The counties all contribute to an overall democratic system of the country, reporting on all conditions and the general state of the Union. The country (federal) government would then be in charge of overall political and judicial jurisdiction, but very specifically on elements of national concern: trade, economics, overarching laws, etc.

Global: Each country will then hold a seat in a global system, entirely democratic, which will moderate trade and keep track of environmental resources.

So, each level becomes more democratic, but the communistic/socialistic atmosphere surrounding the primary levels ensures sustainability and prosperity.

Well, what you're asking is that we go back to a barter system. I don't understand economics, either; the exchange of pieces of paper, whose relative rates are always changing and have (nearly) no tangible basis, for actual material goods as well as time, labor...even other forms of money. But there were two problems with the barter system. First, there was no set, common basis at all, and having "exact change" meant having objects of the right size and consistency and quality, nearly impossible. Second, the barter system assumes that the growth of items is consistent; if you trade apples for objects and have an apple tree in the backyard, you can simply keep acquiring objects with no work at all. In short, the barter system can lead to exploitation and inconsistency, sometimes even moreso than capitalism.

The problems with modern capitalistic economics are with their inefficiencies, not their goals. It's not so bad that a single fuji apple weighing 2 oz. is, say, $.20; it's that the same fuji apple has a different price in different countries, states, cities, even different supermarkets. And then to try to quantify the quality of the apple...entirely different problem. The point is that we still have no set basis with which to compare all objects. Perhaps this is not even possible; after all, an apple is more rare in certain parts of the world than in others, and so should have a higher price. But the same apples are rare in Africa, where the populous needs more basic fruits not only to eat and survive, but to create sustainable agroforestry industries (which perform fairly well in a wide array of marginalized land). So which is the deciding factor, economically: where it is rarer or who needs it more?

As for states and rulers, this can be accomplished - although a bit long-handed - by appointing several (say 5 or so) leaders. Then, there is low chance of collaboration and low chance of explicitly personal involvement. And - assuming the core tenants of equal rights and democratic process - these leaders should represent the views of the entire (insert regional sector) effectively.

I don't see any way to convert people of today's society into that kind of system. They would leave Novos crawling in a ditch before anyone had even heard of us. far too many people would never consent to such a lifestyle.

I second that opinion. The people of today are far too cynical and paranoid to accept such idealistic thoughts. Also, there's far too little political agreement within the ranks to start up such a system anyway.