Seriously, how would a global democracy work?
-
We have the technology to implement it. It's extremely questionable as to whether we have the society to practice it.
No it isn't.
Nepal just proved it.
These baseless arguments against the most fair possible system only benefit rouge representatives that seek to abuse their power.
-
Federal republic or swiz model (which is a federation). Just yk bigger.
Decentralised. Good example of how that would be is germany. There would be the top level: global parliamentthen regional/continental determined by cultural / geographic similaritys so example a european council, indian, north american (excluding mexico), latin american, central african, arabic, west african and so on
Below that basicly like country borders today down to sub regional administration and then munincipalities/citys
Its not one person as the "head" but always a council.
The problems you listed arent problems.
One can either vote in paper or online. Lots of examples there that it works, doesnt get tampered with and the annonymity is also perserved.Crimes are on the country/munincipalities levels and should be handled there
Tax is global as are the armed forces
Belgium (theoretically) has 7 governments.
1 Federal
3 Regional (geographically)
3 communities (by language)So you have a representation by subsidiarity.
If a matter is more related to 'hard' matters, the regions have jurisdiction.
If dealing with soft matters like education or culture, the communities wil be able to make legislation.
The federal government oversees matters they can't be delegated to the regions or communities like taxes, defense, foreign policy,...In this system a geographical representation and a cultural representation is present but my goodness, it doesn't make things easier.
It seems that cultural matters aren't always aligning with geography. -
Friend. Oh boy quite the dusy you wrote there.....democracy isnt an illusion. Maybe where you are it is persumibly usa but what do i know
Seeing you are on what is typicly described as "left political spectrum" then you should know that every true "for the people" idea is base set on democracy. Socialism, anarchism, syndiclism aso.
The problem democracy has isnt democracy, which is litterly just people choosing who governce them, it is that democracy and capitalism inherently arent compatible with each other. For democracy to be 100% to its ideals everyone should be equal in all things. But that isnt possible in capitalism because threw wealth you can buy yourself influence, and a stage. So it is easier for wealthy to get a crowd. But that doesnt mean only wealthy people get elected. The many left partys in europe for example are quite the good example to disprove this.
Another problem is also the lack of education in many people which results in ignorance which results in fear and that into hate.
And in case you are in the US: big suprise the US' Freedom always came with astrixes and the "democracy" was rigged from the start. If that shocked you...you should reeally look outside and read in depth about your nations history and compare its "democratic" system to others in history, florence, venice, ditmarschen, hanseatic citys, modern democracys. Yes even the merchant democrasies and ancient democracys were more democratic than the US ever lol
To quote Kennedy "Democracy may not be the best system, but we have never needed to build walls to keep our people from leaving"
I'm neither from US, neither do I consider myself as being a leftist.
When I critique democracy here, I don't critique the concept of it in general (for the records I'm 100% fine with it) but liberal democracies that dominate the world and is the status quo. It's what OP most likely means when they mention democracy in terms of world governments given the present state of things.
But that isnt possible in capitalism because threw wealth you can buy yourself influence, and a stage. So it is easier for wealthy to get a crowd. But that doesnt mean only wealthy people get elected. The many left partys in europe for example are quite the good example to disprove this.
Yeah, it doesn't - thats why media presence is as crucial as having a high campaign budget.
-
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?
Personally i think it would have to work as a series of institutions that each person is part of. Maybe a geographic organization that acts on municiple levels and coordinates with other municiple level orgs with a higher level org that coordinates agendas and the like.
But there some things that would make sense being technically bound by skill set. So more anarcho sydicalist structures for technocratic orgnizations as well.
Its honestly why i try to join democratic orgs where i can. My insurace is a mutual fund, my bank a credit union, grocery coop, electric coop, etc
A lot of my software is devoloped in KDEs system whish is pretty democratic as well.Im saving up with the intention to create a dual community land trust and housing coop in my area as well. Just taking back ownership out of autocrats hands where i can.
-
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?
Same way it works in a country but globally.
-
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?
- Scandinavian-style education everywhere.
- Virtue > everything else in life > profits.
- Only people like Marcus Aurelius in charge.
-
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?
India manages with a population of over 1.4 billion people. It's a mere six-fold increase from there to the planet, so probably whatever India is doing.
-
Make it hierarchical. Every 50-100 people in their little community elect a leader. Then, all those leaders get together into groups of 50-100 and elect a leader of that group. And then, all the leaders of those groups, et cetera you get the idea.
Do away with this concept where people are voting for random dickheads in faraway lands who will never interact with them, they have no daily concept of and no familiarity with, and there is this weird middleman involved of a distant organization that is deciding who out of hundreds of millions of potential candidates are the 2-3 that are permitted to be on the ballot of us to vote for. Do away with the team sports aspect where people are coalesced into artificial groupings with colors assigned to them and then the default is for them to vote for whoever's got the right color attached to them.
Obviously it doesn't mean that whoever's at the very top of the pile gets unquestioned power. You could have it as a sort of parliamentary system, where the top person carries executive power and then ones below them (or maybe 2 levels down) are the parliament or legislative branch. And then the courts are just separate from that, similar to today.
Maybe make it so that anyone who can gather 50 votes can be in the L1 grouping. So you can choose to organize yourselves into little communities without needing to be in the same location or having districts drawn by some suspect person. All the people who work at one company, all the people who like Linux, all the people who care about one racial or cultural grouping's issues can always put their person in L1 if there are enough of them. And then, any number of the L1 people can put in an L2 person. And so on.
Maybe there are flaws, but I feel like the lack of information and day-to-day familiarity with the people you're voting for, and the barriers to entry for ordinary people, are some of the biggest problems with all of this right now. It would be dope as hell if everyone who frequents one particular game store or college or housing project could get a couple of their people up into the very lowest levels of government just by all deciding. But, the person they're going to pick is based on actually knowing and respecting (at least vaguely) that person, not on TV commercials. And then the L1 people can do likewise, they obviously will start to know each other and they can develop some consensus about who should go up to the city council on their behalf or whatever.
This is just my random pipe dream but I think it is a good idea
Hah. This is how communism worked in the first few years after the Russian Revolution - what is now referred to as anarcho-communism. The Bolsheviks corrupted the whole thing, of course.
It's slightly amusing to see people rediscover communist power distribution from first principles. You've added the wrinkle of digital communes instead of labor communes, but it's roughly the same.
-
Personally i think it would have to work as a series of institutions that each person is part of. Maybe a geographic organization that acts on municiple levels and coordinates with other municiple level orgs with a higher level org that coordinates agendas and the like.
But there some things that would make sense being technically bound by skill set. So more anarcho sydicalist structures for technocratic orgnizations as well.
Its honestly why i try to join democratic orgs where i can. My insurace is a mutual fund, my bank a credit union, grocery coop, electric coop, etc
A lot of my software is devoloped in KDEs system whish is pretty democratic as well.Im saving up with the intention to create a dual community land trust and housing coop in my area as well. Just taking back ownership out of autocrats hands where i can.
I've been kicking around the same idea of a "community land trust and housing coop" for the better part of a decade now. It's on my short list of things I want to accomplish with my life that might be beneficial for society. Mixed housing community (large plots, multifamily dwellings, apartments, townhouses), support for cooperative company creation within the community, local store that sells the goods produced by the community (and online), plus actual facilities a community needs to thrive (community education auto/tech/farming/maintenance, help with transportation, etc).
I strongly feel like Cooperative based communities is the only way to gently guide us into a better future. It can compete within the commercialized world while still maintaining growth and development because the profits are being directly funded into the community as a whole. I think one imperative action that needs taken within the coop is the establishment and expansion into other communities so you create a network of these villages that can help sustain each other in harder times. Could even get already established coop's like land-o-lakes or create other mass industry leaders so you're not stuck with small ma and pa stores that can't compete in this style of market we find ourselves in.
-
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]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.
So, I used to have similar thoughts. Then I got into politics and figured out why it's naive.
I had a whole lecture about it written out, but you don't know me or why you should believe me, so I'll skip it. What I will say is that you can't really start from scratch here. People's lives and livelihoods hang in the balance, they're not going to shake everything up just because you have a proposal. When a law changes people listen to it because there's an implied threat of force of some kind, and the implied threat of force itself comes from an existing power structure.
Real societies can be stable because there's a cold, self-reinforcing logic to how that power is gained. It's not anything spooky, just kind of dumb and depressing.
So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be?
Just convincing people that the lives of foreigners are worth something is hard right now, unfortunately.
World government seems inevitable in one form or another, because there are shared resources, but it seems like it's at least a century out, and one of the paths to it is just a gradual deepening of the international legal system that actually exists.
-
What. The. Fuck.
I think it's some sort of sovcit nonsense.
-
Make it hierarchical. Every 50-100 people in their little community elect a leader. Then, all those leaders get together into groups of 50-100 and elect a leader of that group. And then, all the leaders of those groups, et cetera you get the idea.
Do away with this concept where people are voting for random dickheads in faraway lands who will never interact with them, they have no daily concept of and no familiarity with, and there is this weird middleman involved of a distant organization that is deciding who out of hundreds of millions of potential candidates are the 2-3 that are permitted to be on the ballot of us to vote for. Do away with the team sports aspect where people are coalesced into artificial groupings with colors assigned to them and then the default is for them to vote for whoever's got the right color attached to them.
Obviously it doesn't mean that whoever's at the very top of the pile gets unquestioned power. You could have it as a sort of parliamentary system, where the top person carries executive power and then ones below them (or maybe 2 levels down) are the parliament or legislative branch. And then the courts are just separate from that, similar to today.
Maybe make it so that anyone who can gather 50 votes can be in the L1 grouping. So you can choose to organize yourselves into little communities without needing to be in the same location or having districts drawn by some suspect person. All the people who work at one company, all the people who like Linux, all the people who care about one racial or cultural grouping's issues can always put their person in L1 if there are enough of them. And then, any number of the L1 people can put in an L2 person. And so on.
Maybe there are flaws, but I feel like the lack of information and day-to-day familiarity with the people you're voting for, and the barriers to entry for ordinary people, are some of the biggest problems with all of this right now. It would be dope as hell if everyone who frequents one particular game store or college or housing project could get a couple of their people up into the very lowest levels of government just by all deciding. But, the person they're going to pick is based on actually knowing and respecting (at least vaguely) that person, not on TV commercials. And then the L1 people can do likewise, they obviously will start to know each other and they can develop some consensus about who should go up to the city council on their behalf or whatever.
This is just my random pipe dream but I think it is a good idea
Make it hierarchical. Every 50-100 people in their little community elect a leader. Then, all those leaders get together into groups of 50-100 and elect a leader of that group. And then, all the leaders of those groups, et cetera you get the idea.
That's the best system in my opinion. I've been trying to write-up an outline over on PLT that's not overly complicated, but I've been busy(i.e. lazy). 50 works out really well for a scaling factor:
50 people to a Block
50 Blocks to a Township (2,500 people)
50 Townships to a County (125,000 people)
50 Counties to a State (6M people)
50 States to a Nation (312M people)
50 Nations in the World (15B people)
Every level has a Council, every Council elects a Representative for the next council up. Every Representative has a direct constituency small enough to know everyone personally. Every citizen has a direct line of 5 Reps to the President.
Entwined Jurisdictions can caucus together (multiple Townships might compose a town, for example, and several Counties might compose a metropolis). Jurisdictions at every level should be redrawn with the census to keep population roughly equal, which should be determined democratically.
Honestly the basic structure of the US is pretty close to this, except the Township level, which is arguably the most important. Most people have no representation between the individual and municipal level(besides HOAs, but that barely counts). Also the House Reapportionment Act was a mistake.
This might actually be something we can effect from grassroots. If we can build our local community, start group chats with our neighbors, host Block meetings, etc., we can spontaneously choose representatives to go to our city council meetings and voice our concerns.
-
I think it's some sort of sovcit nonsense.
That user's comment history is a fucking trip.
-
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 might be interested in the idea of World Federalism
-
Federal republic or swiz model (which is a federation). Just yk bigger.
Decentralised. Good example of how that would be is germany. There would be the top level: global parliamentthen regional/continental determined by cultural / geographic similaritys so example a european council, indian, north american (excluding mexico), latin american, central african, arabic, west african and so on
Below that basicly like country borders today down to sub regional administration and then munincipalities/citys
Its not one person as the "head" but always a council.
The problems you listed arent problems.
One can either vote in paper or online. Lots of examples there that it works, doesnt get tampered with and the annonymity is also perserved.Crimes are on the country/munincipalities levels and should be handled there
Tax is global as are the armed forces
I think something like this is the most reasonable, and we're already closer to it than at any previous point in history. We have the EU, the African Union (AU), and I think there's a South American union as well (?) there's also the US, which is a bit between a union and a single state (US states have more autonomy than regional municipalities most other places, but far less than any full-fledged county).
I think that if a "global government" ever develops, it will be due to these unions forming an overarching union. The major hurdle is that we're a very far way off anybody wanting to concede any governing power to an organisation above the "continental union" level. Even holding the EU together is non-trivial, because a lot of people feel that too much power is concentrated far away in Brussels.
Regarding judicial systems and military forces, the UN has showed that it's possible to have a kind of global system for this, but it's still a far stretch from anything that could be called a "global judicial system with enforcement powers".
-
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.
These don't need to be mutually exclusive though. A lot of the progress in Europe the past 80 years is a result of the improved cooperation brought by the EU.
The EU isn't like the UN, where everyone is equally represented (sans veto powers), but is a democratically elected super-national body with opposing super-national political factions. I can see a concept like that working on a global scale some time in the (relatively far) future.
-
Make it hierarchical. Every 50-100 people in their little community elect a leader. Then, all those leaders get together into groups of 50-100 and elect a leader of that group. And then, all the leaders of those groups, et cetera you get the idea.
That's the best system in my opinion. I've been trying to write-up an outline over on PLT that's not overly complicated, but I've been busy(i.e. lazy). 50 works out really well for a scaling factor:
50 people to a Block
50 Blocks to a Township (2,500 people)
50 Townships to a County (125,000 people)
50 Counties to a State (6M people)
50 States to a Nation (312M people)
50 Nations in the World (15B people)
Every level has a Council, every Council elects a Representative for the next council up. Every Representative has a direct constituency small enough to know everyone personally. Every citizen has a direct line of 5 Reps to the President.
Entwined Jurisdictions can caucus together (multiple Townships might compose a town, for example, and several Counties might compose a metropolis). Jurisdictions at every level should be redrawn with the census to keep population roughly equal, which should be determined democratically.
Honestly the basic structure of the US is pretty close to this, except the Township level, which is arguably the most important. Most people have no representation between the individual and municipal level(besides HOAs, but that barely counts). Also the House Reapportionment Act was a mistake.
This might actually be something we can effect from grassroots. If we can build our local community, start group chats with our neighbors, host Block meetings, etc., we can spontaneously choose representatives to go to our city council meetings and voice our concerns.
My city has neighborhood associations with elected leaders. They are totally voluntary and have basically no authority or budget, but they can pretty easily get the ear of coucil members
-
Given that a decent chunk of the world holds political views I find repulsive, most notably around women's rights, this sounds like a terrible idea.
Yeah, lol. This person clearly hasn't thought through the consequences of letting india, the muslim world, and latin america vote on things that will impact their own nation.
-
Yeah, lol. This person clearly hasn't thought through the consequences of letting india, the muslim world, and latin america vote on things that will impact their own nation.
Same sex relationships are another one, I'd wager less than half the global population are in favour of gay marriage.
-
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?
Honestly we would need to create a new way of making it work.
We have yet to see a new type of governance that was developed with our current tech capability taken into account.
There is no reason we can't have medicament increased representation, and major decisions could easily get public opinion on, but we are trying to build on methods that are hundreds of years old.
I'm sure there has been many students that have written papers about a novel form of governance, would be interesting if she country actually tried it. Communism didn't work so good in reality inspite of how it looks on paper... And neither did democracy apparently
