True, our population isn't exactly in the best form for the Collective to rule.
Perhaps then, we would have one person per state (or, in a perfect collective society, a council of people per country) and they would have to each be elected as they normally would by the state they live in. Any major decisions would require the Collective's permission, and if the people asked it, actions may be made by the council towards the peoples wishes (providing they are feasible). Elections could be called any time of the year by a vote, and a member of the council would have a one month term unless the people choose to re-elect them. Censorship would be non-existent. The United Nations, in my opinion, should also be more powerful.

Well, there's my little slice of a Collectivist government. Not nearly enough, to be sure, but it's a start.

That wouldn't work in practical terms. Representation is, in effect, broken, since there is no way to hold the people to account.

The best idea is to just give people the freedom to get on with their lives, while people come together only for things that are bigger than small groups (e.g. space).

I like that idea Human No More. I think that the whole population should only get together for debates and votes for the bigger issues that effect the wider society. Otherwise things should be sorted out by the groups of people affected.

I like the idea of local communities, like for different states, as well. Only problem is that it might limit communication between countries and continents. There is also, of course, the constant threat of civil war.

Sounds reasonable, kinda what Catalonia did during the Spanish civil war, sort of broke off and became it's own sovereign territory for a time. I could envision something similar for a possible libertarian-socialist society.

What kinds of issues do you guys think would be handled on the local level? Regional? National? International? I personally think all social issues can be handled on the local level, because those issues pretty much only effect those who choose to take part in whatever activities are classified as social issues. But there would probably need to be much more cooperation on economic issues, and I personally believe environmental standards should be a set standard for all (because, well, the environment effects everyone).

I was thinking local level as well, but perhaps there could be spokespeople for each region when we need to communicate together on international, national issues. Only thing is, we would have to be able to ensure that they speak on behalf of their whole community and only say what the people have said. I'm a bit reluctant to give a select few more power over others.

Local organizations and communities with a global focus, I like it.

^ Thanks, you summed it up nicely. ;)

Can't think of too much now, but I say the UN should be given more power, and all countries should be involved.

Total Individualism leads to isolation. Total collectivisum leads to assimulation(ex: The borg of Star Trek the next generation). I would want to have one thing in the middle. A form of collectivity while at the same time maintaning indivuality. Examples would be the Protoss of Starcraft 2 with their conection to the Khala (A mental link all protoss, except dark templar, share among eachother to feel eachothers thoughts and emotions). And another is the Na'vi and their connection to Ewya.

That's a great way to put it :)

Though I must add that a reason so many have the opportunity to enjoy a high degree of individualism is the result of collective efforts. You are here because individuals in the past were willing to make sacrifices so that you could have a better life. Individualism is nice but I become somewhat disturbed when for some people, it supersedes willingness to make reasonable sacrifices. That is not to say that we should stay blindly patriotic or nationalistic but rather we should be willing to make the Earth a better place for those who come after us.

It seems that as a society progresses, this notion of self sacrifice slowly fades to increasing individualism and everything seems to erode. The cost of freedom itself is eternal vigilance. If we want freedom, we ultimately have to work together to keep it and that can require making sacrifices.