Seriously, how would a global democracy work?
-
Very much depends. The biggest driver of liberal social stances is economic prosperity. The biggest driver of economic prosperity is giving people the opportunities and resources they need in order to seek a more prosperous future for themselves. A world democratic government would presumably result in some sort of wealth redistribution from currently prosperous areas to currently poor areas. But the question is, how would that money be spent? If it were spent well, I would expect more liberal world views to emerge in currently poor areas in a generation or two. During that time, currently prosperous areas would see either stagnation or regression in their views. If spent poorly (say, if it were snapped up by local warlords or unscrupulous bureaucrats)....
But the question is, how would that money be spent?
We're so far away from anything that could happen any time soon it's almost a weird question, haha. Which was more my own answer to OP.
I'd argue that to be a global direct internet democracy it'd have to effectively prevent corruption. And square any number of other circles.
It really does seem like social progress follows some kind of wealth and stability. That's good in that it means a virtuous cycle can be created, at least in theory, but I don't understand why it's so. Can't you scrounge and reflect at the same time? And what of the working class progressives of the 20th and 19th centuries? A very different logic seems to have existed then, and I just can't read it.
-
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.
The EU consists of a bunch of European countries that are similar culturally, economically, and politically. It makes sense for them to form a union that aims to achieve their common interests. A lot of similar unions exist like ASEAN, Arab League, African Union, etc. These are still different than having a single government for the entire world. There are way too many differences for that to work, different cultures, unequal economies, different religions, different politics, etc. This global government would end up trying to appease everyone to maintain the unity, but this would ultimately lead to have no teeth. In other words it'll be reduced to what the UN is now.
-
I think we probably agree that OP is being overly ambitious and idealistic, but...
Maybe it’s better for us to respect the concept of sovereignty that has persisted throughout history
How do you read history and go "ah yes, everyone always respected borders", or even "everyone respected borders the subset of the time they agreed to do so".
I don't just mean the famous historical war examples, either, but like, recent history and diplomacy.
That's not what I meant, I meant that the concept of sovereignty has persisted over time. Different groups of people have sought out their independence and they go to great lengths to protect it. I obviously didn't mean that sovereignty was protected throughout history because that's clearly not true. The world is filled with empires and invasions. However, I think most people today agree that this was bad. I think a lot of people today would see a modern global government in a similar negative light as it would greatly favor regions in the world that are already rich, heavily populated, and strong. In other words, countries like the US and China would still end up dominating and poor regions would still be screwed over.
-
We've never really had direct democracy at scale becauseit was physically impossible.
But now we have the technology to implement it.
It's not a matter of technology, the concept is just inherently flawed. Even if every person could vote instantaneously and have their votes counted immediately, it still wouldn't work because direct democracy requires everybody to vote on every issue. There's just way too many things going on in the world for this to be feasible. Direct democracy is only works on small scales, and it's just not a good form of government beyond that. This is why you rarely see direct democracy in history, the evolution of history has favored representative democracy as the superior form of democratic governance because it's more practical, efficient, and flexible.
-
It's not a matter of technology, the concept is just inherently flawed. Even if every person could vote instantaneously and have their votes counted immediately, it still wouldn't work because direct democracy requires everybody to vote on every issue. There's just way too many things going on in the world for this to be feasible. Direct democracy is only works on small scales, and it's just not a good form of government beyond that. This is why you rarely see direct democracy in history, the evolution of history has favored representative democracy as the superior form of democratic governance because it's more practical, efficient, and flexible.
Democracy doesn't require every person vote on every issue.
Also there has never been a direct democracy in human history because it has never been technologically possible, no Greece was not a direct democracy.
You're kind of just grasping at straws here.
If it feels like a bad system to you then that's a you problem.
-
That's not what I meant, I meant that the concept of sovereignty has persisted over time. Different groups of people have sought out their independence and they go to great lengths to protect it. I obviously didn't mean that sovereignty was protected throughout history because that's clearly not true. The world is filled with empires and invasions. However, I think most people today agree that this was bad. I think a lot of people today would see a modern global government in a similar negative light as it would greatly favor regions in the world that are already rich, heavily populated, and strong. In other words, countries like the US and China would still end up dominating and poor regions would still be screwed over.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You're probably right about that, although the reasons people want their own country to be independent are usually going to be less well-though-out or noble. Neither the US nor China are in favour of more global democracy. China prefers the ability to bully smaller states with no recourse built in, and the zeitgeist in the US is towards total isolationism.
But anyway, that's a bit beside the point. I did think you meant there was some kind of traditional idea of who gets sovereignty, because it's advanced that way sometimes. The real situation is more of a clusterfuck. Civilising the savages, liberating the workers and expansionism because god said so (or because good is dumb, for secular fascists) are just as often trotted out, and usually people don't give their internal separatist movements the time of day even when they're all about avoiding union with their culturally distinct neighbors.
-
The EU consists of a bunch of European countries that are similar culturally, economically, and politically. It makes sense for them to form a union that aims to achieve their common interests. A lot of similar unions exist like ASEAN, Arab League, African Union, etc. These are still different than having a single government for the entire world. There are way too many differences for that to work, different cultures, unequal economies, different religions, different politics, etc. This global government would end up trying to appease everyone to maintain the unity, but this would ultimately lead to have no teeth. In other words it'll be reduced to what the UN is now.
Oh, I definitely meant far future. While the differences are far too big today, I can see gradually increasing cooperation between e.g. the EU and African Union at some point culminating in the construction of a governmental body that has some regulatory power over them both.
Once such a body exists, I can imagine that it over time accumulates power, bringing the two unions even closer together. The EU started out as a relatively small organ, and has grown gradually to what it is today over many decades. My point was that if some "global government" ever forms, I think that kind of gradual process is how it will happen. Starting out with trade agreements, and then gradually regulating more aspects of 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?
Random selection from a pool of candidates might work ... this way a random nobody, without too much funding can be elected. Also look in different other voting methods, like quadratic voting.
-
Democracy doesn't require every person vote on every issue.
Also there has never been a direct democracy in human history because it has never been technologically possible, no Greece was not a direct democracy.
You're kind of just grasping at straws here.
If it feels like a bad system to you then that's a you problem.
This is the dumbest thing I've read all day lmao.
Idk how historically illiterate you are, but direct democracy HAS been used plenty of times throughout history. Native American tribes like Muscogee, Swiss Cantons, and even early colonial New England towns all used direct democracy. There are plenty of examples of it being used, however, it's only ever been implemented successfully on small scales. Technology isn't a limiting factor and never was, it's only a limiting factor when it's implemented on really large scales due to the logistics, however, the issues of logistics go BEYOND just technological limitations. You would think that this is just common knowledge, but apparently not.
But if you're genuinely incapable of comprehending any of the points that I made then you're not qualified for this conversation.
-
You're probably right about that, although the reasons people want their own country to be independent are usually going to be less well-though-out or noble. Neither the US nor China are in favour of more global democracy. China prefers the ability to bully smaller states with no recourse built in, and the zeitgeist in the US is towards total isolationism.
But anyway, that's a bit beside the point. I did think you meant there was some kind of traditional idea of who gets sovereignty, because it's advanced that way sometimes. The real situation is more of a clusterfuck. Civilising the savages, liberating the workers and expansionism because god said so (or because good is dumb, for secular fascists) are just as often trotted out, and usually people don't give their internal separatist movements the time of day even when they're all about avoiding union with their culturally distinct neighbors.
A global government at it's core is a form of imperialism. The idea is going to pushed by specific regions who stand to gain the most and it'll opposed by region who stand to gain the least. No matter what shape the global government takes on, it will always be dominated by a select number of regions. Where the seats of government are going to be, who enforces its laws, who makes up the government, what ideals it would embody, how the voting system is set up, what degree of autonomy can be granted and who grants it, and so on these are things that have to be forced upon people by an authority that seeks to monopolize violence. Imperialism as a concept of where a nation spreads expanding it's influence and power isn't inherently bad, but based on human history this is an idea that can get bad pretty quick. I don't think a global government can be implemented without a great deal of push back, resistance, and force to squash it all.
-
Oh, I definitely meant far future. While the differences are far too big today, I can see gradually increasing cooperation between e.g. the EU and African Union at some point culminating in the construction of a governmental body that has some regulatory power over them both.
Once such a body exists, I can imagine that it over time accumulates power, bringing the two unions even closer together. The EU started out as a relatively small organ, and has grown gradually to what it is today over many decades. My point was that if some "global government" ever forms, I think that kind of gradual process is how it will happen. Starting out with trade agreements, and then gradually regulating more aspects of government.
I mean that's a completely fair point of view. If we make the assumption that humanity will continue to progress with time, even if there are periods of regression, then I could see where you're coming from. Humanity did evolve from being nomadic tribes to creating settlements of tribes to creating nations from settlements to creating empires from nations to today where we're forming unions of empires and nations. It's logical to think that with time we'll have these unions merge and create a higher authority, and if we follow this trajectory it should eventually lead to a global government. I just hope we don't go extinct before that happens.
-
A global government at it's core is a form of imperialism. The idea is going to pushed by specific regions who stand to gain the most and it'll opposed by region who stand to gain the least. No matter what shape the global government takes on, it will always be dominated by a select number of regions. Where the seats of government are going to be, who enforces its laws, who makes up the government, what ideals it would embody, how the voting system is set up, what degree of autonomy can be granted and who grants it, and so on these are things that have to be forced upon people by an authority that seeks to monopolize violence. Imperialism as a concept of where a nation spreads expanding it's influence and power isn't inherently bad, but based on human history this is an idea that can get bad pretty quick. I don't think a global government can be implemented without a great deal of push back, resistance, and force to squash it all.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Imperialism is pretty much used as a snarl word on Lemmy, a lot of the time. When it does have a definition, it's often more centered around the extractive aspect of the empires of the past. Examples of redistribution outwards from the cultural center, instead of inwards, have also existed, like the EU, USSR, or to a degree Canada. So, I don't think it's inevitable things work out that way.
Even now, international laws and agreements cover more and more all the time, because there fundamentally are just shared resources and concerns. If it continues, we won't necessarily have OP's thing, but you're talking about something like a government, and there will be some use of force, like you see in international hotspots now. I wouldn't compare it to, like, the British Empire, though.
-
This is the dumbest thing I've read all day lmao.
Idk how historically illiterate you are, but direct democracy HAS been used plenty of times throughout history. Native American tribes like Muscogee, Swiss Cantons, and even early colonial New England towns all used direct democracy. There are plenty of examples of it being used, however, it's only ever been implemented successfully on small scales. Technology isn't a limiting factor and never was, it's only a limiting factor when it's implemented on really large scales due to the logistics, however, the issues of logistics go BEYOND just technological limitations. You would think that this is just common knowledge, but apparently not.
But if you're genuinely incapable of comprehending any of the points that I made then you're not qualified for this conversation.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Wow you are an annoying little pedant aren't you?
I'm talking about a government ran by direct democracy, not tribal villages.
You're clearly indoctrinated to want a master, so i don't think this is a productive comment chain with ypu unblocked.
-
Wow you are an annoying little pedant aren't you?
I'm talking about a government ran by direct democracy, not tribal villages.
You're clearly indoctrinated to want a master, so i don't think this is a productive comment chain with ypu unblocked.
You're literally brain dead lmao
