What would we use as a system of basic rights? As an economic system? Leaders or a representative government? How would we handle the old hierarchical systems of those with power destroying the system to their own ends?

I pose an ongoing discussion to the forums and those in them, to create a layout for a basic society by which a single unified world could live under, be they under any circumstance. By worldwide uprising, catastrophe... what have you.

The only measures to be taken into consideration are that It must be realistic, non-tolitarian and make the optimal amount of the population happy.

I really think that all of those are at least semi-dependent on what enviroment this taking place in...

Current, modern-day

And why is this in Arts & Entertainment? :P

And we're talking worldwide? Not just a region, correct?

If we are talking worldwide, I think a Federation of the old nations would be best, headed by some world president or prime minister, have a world supreme court, and obviously, have a world congress.

More or less the USA-style government but enlarged to fit the whole world with states being replaced by nations. And nationstates themselves could have any type of government based on their needs, as long as it didn't contradict the central global government...

That seems highly representational and what keeps it working? League of Nations and the UN don't seem to be doing, or have done, very well in the same respect. Comparing it to the US system as you are, what prevents the economy from taking over? Bribes from big business to push corporate objectives versus the obvious well being of the general populace....

Why I mentioned Economic changes as well, I'm thinking an entirely new system, not just that of politics.

This is the difference between the United States and the Confederate States of America....

THis is much different than the League of Nations and the UN. Both of these are more like confederations rather than federations. The UN president can't tell one memberstate would to do; the UN and its predecessor really don't have authority or power to do anything without the backing of the nations. His authority is subject to that of the nation states. An example of this would be the CSA.

This is the other way around. The Central global government have power over the local governments. In the Civil War reference, this would be the Union...

I truly think that economics(business) and government are very intertwined; neither can really function well without the other for the betterment of the people. If you have no government, but a very strong economy, then what you're saying about the corporate objectives being pushed is true. But if you have no large businesses (say from really strigent anti-trust laws, etc), but a government, then there are more economic problems, and thus the quality of life for the average person materialistically is very low.

Think Pre-Soviet (or perhaps Czarist) Russia, I doubt the serfs and peasants really had a good life materialistically. There weren't any real large employers, and there were less options around, but I bet there were a lot of smaller businesses and there was a reasonably strong government in place.

This becomes more true as the region and populace gets larger; a tribal society might not need big businesses, but I'd like to see how modern day United States would survive without big businesses. There are many tasks which you can't simply do with small businesses; such as having a transcontinental railroad or building complicated machinery (for use in the military or medical fields, for example). Sure, smaller businesses can and have arranged themselves into a larger collective force to accomplish some of these things, but what you really have then is a big business focused on a single venture for a limited amount of time then...

This again assumes smaller governments under a larger one, which really isn't the goal of the topic. Were looking at the formation of a world government, unless your talking about regimenting continents into organized segments under a UN type governing body.

Your referencing an economy which is materialistic itself, gold standard as it were. What of a gift economy or ecoeconomics? There are a great many alternatives to the current system which would not lead to hoarding and greed that this one does. No need to base a new one off of the old one.

I've been assuming that this would be a semi-feasible world government that we'd be transitioning to from modern times...but in any case...

Gift economies work fine in small, rural areas or even in a chain of islands. But that gets rather unwieldly at a large scale...

What ideas do you have, Heir?

unwieldly in what sense? I would like to think of an economic situation in which the person is more rewarded for putting more back into the system than recieving or keeping. In any economic situation which allows for hoarding large amounts of something everyone needs then a select few can always gain power over others rather than maintaining for the common good.