Economics.
World Leaders.

Both of these terms have something in common to one another,
THEIR COMPLETLY CORRUPT AND DEFICIT!
Economics is first of all based aroud a useless metal: GOLD. Gold was first valued because it was shiny, not because of its strength or durability, but because a long time ago some ancient man decided it would be an eccelent bargaining tool to get that pig he wanted! And whats more now that we've discovered all possible uses for metal, we found out that it can't be used for wiring!! But do we relise our mistake and cast it aside in exchange for the most versetile of metals: IRON? NO, we keep the stuff to further shout out our stupidity and madness. Secondly, Economics was only usefull back when very little people had trades at all, now however the entire planet is populated and there is plenty of food and goods to go around. Yet we still cling to the idea that more money is the only way to keep up the rest of the world. How hard would it really be to to simply get everyone on earth to admit that the dollar is just a peice of paper? The only thing standing in the way is tradition, Which western society abandoned long ago. A US dollar is worth its weight in gold btw.

World Leaders = An upper class that would'nt even still exist if it wer'nt for the previous main point. I guess I'll start with Facists. The typical facist leader has power only because he took it with fear. Because of this he actually would'nt have much power at all if it wer'nt for his milatary, which also happens to fear him. I'm sorry (not really) but how is it so hard for a people to revolt if even the mans army does'nt like him? He may be "all-powerful" but that does'nt make him immune to bullets. Next The Republic. Now at least this type of leader has the will of the people. Or does he? First the people vote, then instead of majority rules, a diffrent set of also upper-class men and women vote on what they "beleive" the people of a district want. I cannot possibly tell anyone reading this how easy it is to cheat an election. Communists. Communism seems to end most of a nations problems at first, what with the "every man and woman is equal" slogan. A bit like an ant-hill. But the fact is humans are too greedy to not let the power go to our heads. Monarchy. These rulers won their athority by the grace of God (or gods). Simply put they were born into power, no test whatsoever. As a result it is possible to get a good leader (Elizibith I) or a horrible one(Louis IV) it's all chance. Finnaly and just as Insane and Stupid: The Democracy. In this the peoples wishes are at highest importance, fortunatly they are normally able to impeach him if they dont like the job hes doing. Unfortunatly this also means that he has no power. So the system is more or less pointless.
All in All: World Leaders are only present because we are apparently unable to decide anthing ourselves. Pretty pathetic from a third-person veiw.

If you have anything to add, or disagree/agree: please post with a logical answer as to why.

It's bad or worse. The things that exist - they're there because they are better than the alternative: chaos.

Better doesn't mean good.

Quote from bleak

Economics.
World Leaders.

Both of these terms have something in common to one another,
THEIR COMPLETLY CORRUPT AND DEFICIT!
Economics is first of all based aroud a useless metal: GOLD. Gold was first valued because it was shiny, not because of its strength or durability, but because a long time ago some ancient man decided it would be an eccelent bargaining tool to get that pig he wanted! And whats more now that we've discovered all possible uses for metal, we found out that it can't be used for wiring!! But do we relise our mistake and cast it aside in exchange for the most versetile of metals: IRON? NO, we keep the stuff to further shout out our stupidity and madness. Secondly, Economics was only usefull back when very little people had trades at all, now however the entire planet is populated and there is plenty of food and goods to go around. Yet we still cling to the idea that more money is the only way to keep up the rest of the world. How hard would it really be to to simply get everyone on earth to admit that the dollar is just a peice of paper? The only thing standing in the way is tradition, Which western society abandoned long ago. A US dollar is worth its weight in gold btw.

World Leaders = An upper class that would'nt even still exist if it wer'nt for the previous main point. I guess I'll start with Facists. The typical facist leader has power only because he took it with fear. Because of this he actually would'nt have much power at all if it wer'nt for his milatary, which also happens to fear him. I'm sorry (not really) but how is it so hard for a people to revolt if even the mans army does'nt like him? He may be "all-powerful" but that does'nt make him immune to bullets. Next The Republic. Now at least this type of leader has the will of the people. Or does he? First the people vote, then instead of majority rules, a diffrent set of also upper-class men and women vote on what they "beleive" the people of a district want. I cannot possibly tell anyone reading this how easy it is to cheat an election. Communists. Communism seems to end most of a nations problems at first, what with the "every man and woman is equal" slogan. A bit like an ant-hill. But the fact is humans are too greedy to not let the power go to our heads. Monarchy. These rulers won their athority by the grace of God (or gods). Simply put they were born into power, no test whatsoever. As a result it is possible to get a good leader (Elizibith I) or a horrible one(Louis IV) it's all chance. Finnaly and just as Insane and Stupid: The Democracy. In this the peoples wishes are at highest importance, fortunatly they are normally able to impeach him if they dont like the job hes doing. Unfortunatly this also means that he has no power. So the system is more or less pointless.
All in All: World Leaders are only present because we are apparently unable to decide anthing ourselves. Pretty pathetic from a third-person veiw.

If you have anything to add, or disagree/agree: please post with a logical answer as to why.

Take it elsewhere Icke.
And it's Elizabeth.

you guys aer doing a bad job at it so far

Outcome: You win!
[Delicious Caek]

well its true but the world wouldnt be able to operate without them. face it, when people go on about all this power and how its bad and everyone should be equal, people dont think about what it would be like if everyone was equal and there were no leaders. it would be total chaos and eventually some dumbshit would declare himself world leader and things would be back to square one.

You just now found out the bullshit?

so you're saying we should do anarchy again? because it didn't work so well last time (eg. millions dying from hunger, being eaten by bears and whatnot, and dramatically decreased life span and quality of life)

im saying the world is fine the way it is. people need leaders, but in the case in our days, a better one than George Bush or Gordon Brown.

I'm going to admit that #s 7 and 8 had logical explanations, like I politly asked for. But I still think Government is a bad choice alltogether, Why not simply come up with a simple set of rules that civilisation cannot funtion without. Yes, I relise that noone of what I'm saying can actually be accomplished. After all not only are we greedy, we're also stuborn. But the only reason I can find for a leader is that apparently noone trusts their own judgement.

Quote from bleak

I'm going to admit that #s 7 and 8 had logical explanations, like I politely asked for. But I still think Government is a bad choice altogether. Why not simply come up with a simple set of rules that civilization cannot function without?
a universal government has been tried, it does not work. the UN is the closest we've gotten to that, and they work fine.
Yes, I realize that no one of what I'm saying can actually be accomplished. After all not only are we greedy, we're also stubborn.
Economics aren't about greed, it's about everyone working together to provide different services to each other. You get food from your grocery store, who got that food from farmers, who got their tractors from auto companies, who got their metal from mining companies. Economics gives us all that we have come to take for granted.
But the only reason I can find for a leader is that apparently no one trusts their own judgment.
yeah that sounds about right.

Answers in bold

It' because just about everyone is on Chaotic Neutal Allignment.

AD&D :D

"a universal government has been tried, it does not work. the UN is the closest we've gotten to that, and they work fine."

I dont recall the whole planet under one government.

Also, by a "simple set of rules" i was implying that a police force would be present at all times.

And yes economics is closly linked to greed. imagine the world was about to explode, there is a planet nearby, it is habitable. we have the time and technology to get everyone off,even the animals in comfort even. one company has the resources we need to evacuate. Do you honostly think they would just give them out for free?

It's because just about everyone is of Chaotic Neutal Allignment.