Seriously, how would a global democracy work?
-
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.
-
So we should just let people from harmful cultures abuse children or women?
Because it worked out so fantastically well when the US invaded Afghanistan, right?
-
Because it worked out so fantastically well when the US invaded Afghanistan, right?
So we shouldn't even try?
-
So we shouldn't even try?
To play world police? Hell no.
Afghanistan was a peaceful country until Soviet influence led to a communist coup that overthrew the government in 1978. Ever since then Afghanistan has had near-endless conflict as different factions (internal and external) have wrestled for control. The Taliban itself, first known as the Mujahideen, was armed and supported by Ronald Reagan’s government.
It’s a textbook example of outsiders ruining a country’s natural course of history and development. You can find the same story in Iran, much of Central and South America, and Africa. Foreign influence creates more conflict and suffering than it prevents.
-
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?
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
-
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!
Or an EVM
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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"
-
It would be like EU, but worldwide.
As for internet voting, nah, you can't preserve anonymity while ensuring election integrity
Or atleast what VOLT and the EUROPEAN FEDERALISTS want the EU to reform into
-
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.Um, what?
-
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.
