Seriously, how would a global democracy work?
-
There's no good reason not to have a global direct democracy
It's just old sacks of shit that don't want to give up power
Despite not everyone having internet, more people would still end up participating in the process than our current systems.
Direct democracy sounds good on the surface, but it's an impractical system when you actually into it. For example, direct democracy can overwhelm voters with complex issues they may not fully understand, leading to uninformed or emotionally driven decisions. Participation tends to be inconsistent, with only a small, active minority shaping outcomes. The process itself is often slow and expensive, requiring frequent referendums that delay urgent action. There's the risk of majority tyranny, where the will of the majority can override minority rights, and it’s vulnerable to manipulation by well funded interest groups. Complex policies are also often reduced to oversimplified yes/no choices, bypassing the expertise and deliberation that's required.
We don't have direct democracy because it's only practical in small scales. Once you get outside of your immediate communities like neighborhoods, schools, families, the system just doesn't work. There's a reason why the evolution of political system led us to where we are. History has shown that the best form of governments are liberal representative democracies with strong checks and balances. We should strive for that.
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
Take a moment and think about what the global conditions were like 300 years ago, and think about how things improved every 50 years since then.
Around 1725, most of the world was rural, poor, and ruled by monarchies, with low life expectancy and little technology. By 1775, Enlightenment ideas and early industrialization began shifting societies. In 1825, machines and railroads transformed economies. By 1875, electricity and vaccines improved life. In 1925, cars, radios, and modern medicine spread. By 1975, civil rights, global trade, and computers reshaped the world. And today? Well, you can probably tell how our modern lives are better today than they were in the 1970s.
To put things in perspective, in the 1800s, only around the 10% of the world was literate, but today only around 10% are illiterate. Similarly, in the 1800s, more than 90% people were living in extreme poverty, but today that's around 10%. The same goes for many other stats. What does this tell us? It tells us that things do get better with time. Even though we went through plagues, wars, famines, droughts, and genocides we did come out the other side better than we did before.
So maybe, just maybe, we don't need a global government. Maybe vastly different people separated by culture, land, and history shouldn't be forced into a system with people they don't understand very well. Maybe it's better for us to respect the concept of sovereignty that has persisted throughout history, and focus on strengthening the trends that have brought us tremendous progress over time.... like improving the access and quality of education globally, developing and sharing new advancements in medicine, innovating new technologies to make our lives easier, pushing for and protecting civil rights and individual liberties, and generating wealth and prosperity through market economies.
The point is that maybe it's better that we focus on improving what we know works from historical trends instead trying to create a global government, which will certainly create a whole new set of issues. Perhaps what we need is more dialogue and cooperation through forums like the UN instead of consolidation through a world government.
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
It would be like EU, but worldwide.
As for internet voting, nah, you can't preserve anonymity while ensuring election integrity
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
This sounds horrible, sorry.
We need borders because people are different with different and incompatible values. Good fences make good neighbours isn’t just a pithy saying, it’s a strong statement about the need for people to respect each other’s boundaries.
Look at the state of the US right now. It’s a horrific clash of incompatible ideologies. It would be much better for everyone involved if the US split up and people on both sides of that divide went their separate ways.
I’m at a point right now where I’m beginning to think the internet was a mistake that has undone so much progress in peace and civility. The internet accelerates divisions and allows extreme ideologies to grow and fester. It’s awful.
-
It would be like EU, but worldwide.
As for internet voting, nah, you can't preserve anonymity while ensuring election integrity
I think internet voting for the less important things tonbe voted on. Like in addition, not to replace current big elections.
-
For something to work like this, there would have to be a constitution that follows the Scriptures (and no, not a Catholic-infested Scriptures like an ESV, NIV, ISR2009, etc.), not the Talmud or Qur'an (for I hypothesize that those texts were written by Roman monks and/or nuns). There would be 83 laws (because there are 83 commandments that apply to us today as followers of Messiah [not Christians]), and sublaws thereof would end up being under these laws as clarifications (what us Khazars call guardrails). These laws are human-readable, period.
The governmental structure would end up, ultimately, being a meritocratic and somewhat theocratic monarchy, and the Scriptures I mentioned would be used as said law, with sublaws thereof only clarifying what defines these 83 main laws. There would be groups of leaders over millions, thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, as the Scriptures describe. On top of that, there would be no voting (because elections are selections; for they're fake, scripted, and completely unconstitutional), as we've seen in selections past.
That's all I could think of as of right now.
What. The. Fuck.
-
Direct democracy sounds good on the surface, but it's an impractical system when you actually into it. For example, direct democracy can overwhelm voters with complex issues they may not fully understand, leading to uninformed or emotionally driven decisions. Participation tends to be inconsistent, with only a small, active minority shaping outcomes. The process itself is often slow and expensive, requiring frequent referendums that delay urgent action. There's the risk of majority tyranny, where the will of the majority can override minority rights, and it’s vulnerable to manipulation by well funded interest groups. Complex policies are also often reduced to oversimplified yes/no choices, bypassing the expertise and deliberation that's required.
We don't have direct democracy because it's only practical in small scales. Once you get outside of your immediate communities like neighborhoods, schools, families, the system just doesn't work. There's a reason why the evolution of political system led us to where we are. History has shown that the best form of governments are liberal representative democracies with strong checks and balances. We should strive for that.
We've never really had direct democracy at scale becauseit was physically impossible.
But now we have the technology to implement it.
-
I think there would have to be a constitution with an enumeration of basic rights, and unfettered access to the global internet would have to be one of them. I'm leery of biometrics, for one, not everyone has eyes or fingers, and two, biometric signatures can be spoofed and if someone can spoof your biometric signatures, it's hard to prove your identity. I think there would have to be some kind of managed citizen ID, something that can be replaced by your local government if it gets compromised.
I think direct funding would probably have to be a big component at the start, especially before the government is able to levy taxes. But capital power tends to favor itself and lead to increased inequality. The fundamental assumption of one person = one vote would have to be able to ultimately overrule the wealthy for it to be a real democracy.
Maybe a blockchain type signature that encodes your DNA. Would also serve as a patent on it so orgs couldn't use your genetic information without compensating you.
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
wrote last edited by [email protected]You seem to have a funny definition of democracy....
In real definitions, police, taxes, anonymity, internet etc. have no place. Democracy means (in simple words) that the people vote for their government. The other aspects can differ.
Look at real existing countries outside of your own. Their systems have huge differences while many of them are democracies.
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
wrote last edited by [email protected]From an objective materialist standpoint, democracies are a tool of the ruling capitalist class to legitimize its own rule and keep their position of class domination while providing an illusion to the working class that they have some sort of power in the matter (they don't, all candidates are pre-selected so all you can choose is essentially the "flavor", who ultimately gets selected usually is determined via campaign money spending and media, once they're in power they gotta preserve the state machinery and capital in place etc).
Nationalism is also a very powerful tool of capital to unite people under single unified volk, deliberately obfuscating the class that might divide said volk and it's constantly used by opportunists and conservative elements.
Given these two statements, I don't think a world government like that can even exist, or if it did it'd implode via separatism from opportunists who want to be the next "great man". US for the longest time was and still is closest to this kind of position though, but they sure as shit are never going to let foreigners vote.
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
Exactly like any other functioning imperfect example of some fundamentally coherent beings of intelligent life.
That said, no one claimed these beings as intelligent or overburdened with an extensive education at hand.
Anyhow’s, yada yada yada.
Charlie Kirk is dead & I am so ok with it. Hell, people die every day all over the planet & classrooms in our country.
I was not close with Charlie & for that I am grateful.
His message was terrible and actually targeted very specific demographics.
Buuuuuut, hey it’s your right no matter how stunted & inbred in concept it may be.
You could probably jerk off during Sunday church service if’s you were clever enough.
It doesn’t imply that one should attempt such a stunt.
Although, fuck it, I’m down to just watch. -
What. The. Fuck.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This isn’t current policy.
So um, just go on grab yourself some decent winky wink. Tomorrow we’ll see what & where we are.
I will heed this same message also.
My intake of information for the day has been too much to mentally unpack & digest as well. -
It would be like EU, but worldwide.
As for internet voting, nah, you can't preserve anonymity while ensuring election integrity
Yeah, this is simply the correct answer. Everything else I've read here ranges from overcomplicated to completely insane.
Why are people so obsessed with digital/internet voting?
Just use normal ballots, with pen and paper, and have a little patience while it gets collected, mailed and counted!
-
This sounds horrible, sorry.
We need borders because people are different with different and incompatible values. Good fences make good neighbours isn’t just a pithy saying, it’s a strong statement about the need for people to respect each other’s boundaries.
Look at the state of the US right now. It’s a horrific clash of incompatible ideologies. It would be much better for everyone involved if the US split up and people on both sides of that divide went their separate ways.
I’m at a point right now where I’m beginning to think the internet was a mistake that has undone so much progress in peace and civility. The internet accelerates divisions and allows extreme ideologies to grow and fester. It’s awful.
I’m at a point right now where I’m beginning to think the internet was a mistake that has undone so much progress in peace and civility.
Technology is not inherently evil, its how its being used.
For Example: Technology allows my parents to talk to our relatives across the world, where as letters would've taken months to get across the ocean. Its not even just words, if you have a good camera, you can even see each other in HD.
Internet allowed the spread of the video that documented George Floyd's Murder. The internet has solved cold cases of crimes. The internet brought down Nepal's corrupt government. The internet provided safe spaces for LGBT+ people. The internet provided discussion forums for many TV shows, especially niche ones where you have no one geographically close to you to discuss, and niche video games too. There are a lot of entertaining and educational youtube channels.
Talking to people across borders allow you to develop a more global perspective, instead of viewing the world solely from your small city/town.
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
You need social proximity for democracy to work, because that's how you have conversations about issues. We would need a shared global culture and factors that mean people at every level of society have friends distributed around the world. The specific rules and bureaucratic procedure are less important, the main thing is people in different places need to become more connected to each other.
-
This is something I've been thinking about for a while, and it's a huge problem, but I don't really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That's amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It's hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it's hard to verify elections haven't been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don't think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don't know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
A single government to preside over the whole world? It just can’t work, ever. How is a president in India supposed to govern Iraq?
-
We've never really had direct democracy at scale becauseit was physically impossible.
But now we have the technology to implement it.
We have the technology to implement it. It's extremely questionable as to whether we have the society to practice it.
-
From an objective materialist standpoint, democracies are a tool of the ruling capitalist class to legitimize its own rule and keep their position of class domination while providing an illusion to the working class that they have some sort of power in the matter (they don't, all candidates are pre-selected so all you can choose is essentially the "flavor", who ultimately gets selected usually is determined via campaign money spending and media, once they're in power they gotta preserve the state machinery and capital in place etc).
Nationalism is also a very powerful tool of capital to unite people under single unified volk, deliberately obfuscating the class that might divide said volk and it's constantly used by opportunists and conservative elements.
Given these two statements, I don't think a world government like that can even exist, or if it did it'd implode via separatism from opportunists who want to be the next "great man". US for the longest time was and still is closest to this kind of position though, but they sure as shit are never going to let foreigners vote.
Democracy just means people get to choose who leads them. You may be talking about specific societies where there's the illusion of democracy, but that's not a problem with democracy, it's a problem with capitalism.
-
This sounds horrible, sorry.
We need borders because people are different with different and incompatible values. Good fences make good neighbours isn’t just a pithy saying, it’s a strong statement about the need for people to respect each other’s boundaries.
Look at the state of the US right now. It’s a horrific clash of incompatible ideologies. It would be much better for everyone involved if the US split up and people on both sides of that divide went their separate ways.
I’m at a point right now where I’m beginning to think the internet was a mistake that has undone so much progress in peace and civility. The internet accelerates divisions and allows extreme ideologies to grow and fester. It’s awful.
So we should just let people from harmful cultures abuse children or women?
-
Democracy just means people get to choose who leads them. You may be talking about specific societies where there's the illusion of democracy, but that's not a problem with democracy, it's a problem with capitalism.
True, but the post isn't really talking about democracies in general but liberal democracies (the specific societies kind you mention), stretched to a worldwide scale. Probably should have clarified that.
