United Earth

When shall we ever have a society much like the one featured in Star Trek Enterprise?

When people realize that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior.

I'm assuming you mean TNG as TOS was all about cruising through the galaxy kicking alien butt.
Well, I'm happy to be the first to crush your dreams:
TNG features not only really, really crappy engineering (lol force fields everywhere) but also several magical plot devices made of phony physics that will NEVER become reality.
Rather use your time to think about what's going to happen once the word population hits the double digits.

>>3
It appears you've lost faith in technology.

>>2
4/10

>>4

It's not about technology, the physics behind many Star Trek devices simply can't work in the real world.

>>6
How does it feel to lack any faith whatsoever.

Anything is possible, we just don't have the technology to do so.

Have some fucking faith, heathen.

>>6
Like what?

Probably when the world shares similiar economic and political systems we'll see something like the EU arise on a global scale. I don't think this is likely within the next 50 years however, resource depletion and continued technological progress will prevent an equilibrium from forming, though current trends indicate the rest of the world is finally industrialising, even Africa.

It won't work in any stretch of the imagination for now.  The society of the Star Trek universe has always been strictly post-scarcity.  The only resource that they can't manufacture are (poorly named) dilithium crystals but everything else is easily available to everyone without supply problems.  We do not have material transmutation that would allow such resource triviality and the major limitations to such conversions are energy and safety.

The singularity of the Earth government is a necessity in a society like Star Trek due to the prevalence of power monolithic interplanetary powers.  A planet which is composed of many different governments just doesn't work right by definition of a Star Trek civilization, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work right by definition of a real world situation.

It could work now.  Two groups of people:  One, a voluntary, self sufficient, hierarchical, Marxist, humanitarian organization; and Two, free individuals provided with sufficient land for self sufficiency, connectivity, and the opportunity to freely interact, trade, and organize with others.
This is pretty much what we would have if people weren't such hypocrites.

hitler tried to do it and look at how well it worked

This is her facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=1010984155

Add her and ruin her life.

Yid dyke bitch.

Show her what her cunt is for.

>>10
Nothing unites like uniting against.
>>11
Why would that even be desirable? What the fuck am I going to do with land I'm not a farmer.
>>13
Not your personal army.

>>14
That's the deal.  Do as you like, or do as you're told.  Be free and responsible for yourself, or enjoy what shared liberty we can manage, subject to the goals of the organization. 
Attempts to create a system that reconciles the two are always doomed to fail.

>>15
What about a system that refuses to allow reconciliation between the two, yet is not intrinsically designed to deny either of them?

>>16
What'cha got?

>>17
A regular liberal democracy with some limited powers so the police, military and courts can act effectively and the president or constitutional monarch can intervene in times of trouble? One major factor you miss is the fact that a system needs to influence it's environment to function to any degree of efficiency, in the real world simply declaring "this that and the other is evil" and trying to stamp it out at every opportunity will result in absolutes and absolutes never work. Instead of arguing for absolutely no authority figures whatsoever you should be arguing for less in general, or preferably arguing for a viable alternative where people believe authority is needed.

I mean come on, your utopian ideals are not going to be 100% right from the onset, you're not omnipotent, you don't have to "compromise" anything either just accept this fact and improve on your original plan.

>>18
One major factor you miss...

Your comments show some confusion about the points I was trying to make. 
"A regular liberal democracy with some limited powers so the police, military and courts can act effectively and the president or constitutional monarch can intervene in times of trouble" is what we have now, and it has failed us.  Or perhaps it is we who have failed it.  Either way, like it or not, change is coming, and what you have described is just a conservative "small government" model.  It would be a change.  It would be heading backwards.  
I'm not gonna get into good and evil any more than to say that to expand the frontiers of human knowledge, and to protect all who ask is generally a good direction.  Cicero said something along the lines of "an organization/government/nation must have some noble purpose to survive.  If it exists only in order to maintain itself, it will surely descend into ignominious oblivion"  We make mistakes and we learn.  We progress. WWII did a number on us.  We're supposed to have been left with a deep mistrust of leaders and movements, and rightly so, but still we yearn for them, for it is from great leaders and righteous movements that progress springs.   Now the lessons of the second world war have been learned, but the memory of the pain abates with every generation.  Instead the pain of discontent grows.  Freedom is dead, we're stagnating politically and economically, and we've discovered that this great machine that we have built has no steering wheel, and is smashing into the earth and what's left of our dignity.

Instead of arguing for absolutely no authority figures whatsoever you should be arguing for less in general, or preferably arguing for a viable alternative where people believe authority is needed.

Yeah, so I said..."free individuals provided with sufficient land for self sufficiency, connectivity, and the opportunity to freely interact, trade, and organize with others.

In, or out.  Purpose regained.  Freedom restored.  Integrity called to task.

>>19
>We make mistakes and we learn.
"We" includes you, you know. Why aren't you thanking me for informing you a system needs to survive in order to achieve a noble purpose?

If liberal democracy has failed then your fantasy utopia will fail even harder because it is unrealistic and whatever plan you had in mind will just degrade into a tyranny, which is far far worse than even the most bourgeois capitalist pig dog capitalist democracy. Neither is it noble or "expanding the frontiers of human knowledge" just because in theory your fantasy will achieve 100% of people's desires, you are just unwilling to admit your mistake of dismissing practical considerations in the belief that somehow this is noble.

>>3

It's science FICTION, douchbag.

>>3

It's science FICTION, douchbag.

>>22
It's douchebag, douchebag.

>>20
You seem to be the one here wrapped up in Utopian Idealism.  I just want to try a system that addresses peoples stated desires better than the current system.
If liberal democracy has failed then your fantasy utopia will fail even harder because it is unrealistic and whatever plan you had in mind will just degrade into a tyranny, which is far far worse than even the most bourgeois capitalist pig dog capitalist democracy.
I guess you don't think that we've already begun a descent into tyranny.  Look, all you've done is claim that the idea I've presented is doomed to fail because it's "impractical", without actually stating how it's impractical, and exhibited an almost pathological resistance to authority.  What should be growing clearer to everyone everyday is the practical fact that these liberal democracies we've been working on for over two centuries are now are hopelessly corrupted by capitalism(or corporatism) and becoming totalitarian. 
And my simple idea of reintroducing freedom to those who claim to want it is impractical?  Particularly now, when anyone with an internet connection can have immediate access to all the information on sustainable living they need? 
Just a few lines.  I haven't even addressed how to constitute/establish this system, yet you believe there is something here that you can argue with.  I suppose there is, but you sure haven't found it yet.

http://www.iwantapal.com/

>>24
If you aren't claiming your system is absolute perfection then isn't it a failure by the standards you are holding liberal democracy to? If liberal democracy is hurtling towards tyranny, everyone is miserable and the sky is falling because it isn't perfect then the same applies to whatever system you have devised since it will also inevitably be imperfect.

The only rational way to judge a system is to judge the efficiency in which it achieves various objectives rather than the dogmatic black and white thinking you have shown in your rather skewed perspective of liberal democracy, and you need to be rational if you want to really change the world for the better with your political system, which you are not being. You are being a cynical demagogue, now I don't deny this might be a virtue in certain situations but it is not a virtue during the planning stage of a political campaign since this requires your mind to be full of objective logical thoughts rather than flaming rhetoric, unless you whip out some awesome elegant master plan on how to make the world a better place which covers everything I can think of to criticise it before I even think it I'm pretty sure whatever system you devise will not have much effect even if enough people take it seriously.

>>3, >>6
If it's more realistic science fiction you want, there's always http://www.orionsarm.com/