A new blue print for a world political system

The basic blue print for a world political system that works will be based on a simple foundation of three points:


1. Companies do not be allowed to have legal right of individual
2. A world law that every country is recognised and respected as a sovereign entity as on condition that they adhere having no wars or police state.
3. The use of direct democracy into the United Nations. Therefore people of each sovereign nation are able to vote online on issues, and it goes to the UN where it is debated (fully visible) in front of world public view.


What do you think?

Hello,

Athlon my friend, with your simple yet well worded post you echo the thoughts of the many....

Your third point is the one that caught my attention the most, for there's a theory out called " cyberization " : this theory basically outlines the following:

A) The world's resources would be surveyed in great detail, this process taking at least 2-3 years....

B) Once we have a good idea for the amount of " finite " resources left on earth, said resources would be allocated, through a process of scientific deduction based on the " real needs " needs of a specific region.

C) This process would not be done by Humans, but by advanced AI, hence removing any chances of human error in the perfect allocation of materials world wide.

D) Here's were your point really got me thinking, all peoples on earth would be able to vote " online " in real time on any issue they so desire, topics would be scientifically moderated by AI for the best allocation of priorities and time spent on the most pressing of Humanities needs / said issues...

Food for thought, heh?

source



Jacque speaks about Cyberization, 1974 with Larry King.

Thanks for the thread athlon.

SS

reply to post by Spike Spiegle

C) This process would not be done by Humans, but by advanced AI, hence removing any chances of human error in the perfect allocation of materials world wide.

D) Here's were your point really got me thinking, all peoples on earth would be able to vote " online " in real time on any issue they so desire, topics would be scientifically moderated by AI for the best allocation of priorities and time spent on said issues...

I agree on points A) and B). The points C) and D) i have concerns about because i dont trust machines to take over important decisions of human beings. Look at for example the chaos that has been caused by Bankers on Waller street using AI real time stock trading systems. Such AI systems can easily wreak havoc as easily as they can do good.

What's the purpose? Peacekeeping....what else?

I'm very interested in a world government concept, it just has to be very limited in scope. I don't think it can do things like dictate corporate identity law to another country. I really don't think it should do much at all, making the vote somewhat irrelevant.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


The problem (as i see it) is one of 'the many' disenfranchising individuals.

Most people today believe that their voice is inaudible and the government can make decisions not in their favor and they just have to accede to the (probably unfair) rules of power and authority.

This gets to the point that people also don't ever voice an opinion because it is a pointless exercise (to them) and so the prevalence of their views never even get to those in power.

But this is NOT the actual truth of the matter!

I can say this because I was one of a small group of people who created a political party which is now in (coalition) government in New Zealand. This party was specifically to give voice to a disenfranchised group. Now, that party is referred of by the press as the "kingmakers" in our close New Zealand political system. The party directly selects who will be in power by its alliances and has done so for the last two elections.

If you are dedicated to the task, your voice counts in big ways!

New Zealand operates under the Westminster system and uses a Mixed Member Proportional representation system which in itself is not as "democratic" as we now have the technology to achieve.

I propose that future governments should be structured as small groups of responsibility, replicated over and over again in a distributed tree structure so power is never concentrated in any one group, but arises from the mass of individual wills.

That is democracy.

I don't think that it would be a good idea to have 'everyone' vote on all issues.

I think people should only be allowed to vote on issues they are educated about. I may wish to vote on issues I believe I understand but then again I hear a lot of people making very passionate and ignorant arguments much of the time.

For instance, if I were given a vote which language the world should 'speak' to reduce miscommunication due to things being 'lost in translation' I would choose my own. I think most people would but how can we know which language has the most versatility, would that even be beneficial.

Hmm, interesting OP,

Originally posted by Threegirls
I don't think that it would be a good idea to have 'everyone' vote on all issues.

I think people should only be allowed to vote on issues they are educated about.

For instance, if I were given a vote which language the world should 'speak' to reduce miscommunication due to things being 'lost in translation' I would choose my own. I think most people would but how can we know which language has the most versatility, would that even be beneficial.

Hmm, interesting OP,

Everyone should vote and everyone should be educated about the issues they vote on.

Easy!

#3 is an AWESOME idea.

reply to post by chr0naut


I agree with you.

I think a lot of people would vote to not be educated about the issues, people can make their minds up about stuff pretty quick these days.

I think proper debate should be a part of mainstream tv like corrie, stealth education.

I don't count 'The Wright Stuff' or Jeremy Kyle' or 'Jerry Springer' type stuff, 'Oprah' was ...interesting but real debate should be more about considering ideas less about pulling at heartstrings with an agenda.

reply to post by chr0naut


Chrononaut three things of interest i draw out from your post.

The first was having a form of democratic goverment, which doesnt allow for concentrating power in any one group. To do this you propose using a distributed tree structure. I consider a tree structure a good idea because of the clear proof that Nature uses a tree system to structure physical geometry of Life and Eco system. I am refering here to a Fractals system which Nature used to create, replicate and align a consistent structure of matter and energy, from a micro up to the macro level. If this prinicpal of organisation works for Nature then it should work for humans.

The second point being use of technology to augment the traditional Westminster system of democratic process in use. The people who created the Westminster system would of never forseen the use of the internet to open up new possibilities of communication. The Political system will need to be revised to bring it up to date with technology.

Thirdly, if the alliances are corporations then wont the selected candidate be obligated to make decisions which suit their interests and not the general populus?

The party directly selects who will be in power by its alliances and has done so for the last two elections

These would make good additions or changes to the law, but the politicians, businessmen, and lobbyists who run this country would simply not change their morals when the law changed for the better. They would likely just move on to other shady practices. But, you are on the right track to a certain extent. There would have to be many more laws introduced that would regulate large businesses if there is going to be a dent made in the current corruption we experience.

I do not think that any one political system would ever work for every single country on earth, simply because political systems, to some degree, represent the values held by the majority of that country's populace. I honestly feel that the best political system that could realistically succeed is a mixture of communism, socialism, democracy, and capitalism. Obviously they are not all political, but rather economic systems, but they tie in together nicely. The vast majority of people have no clue what communism or socialism is, and they fail to realize that countries like the former USSR and China were/are neither socialist or communist, and the way those countries were run is not how these systems work.

They truly are good systems, however people are so afraid of them because they are ignorant, and apparently have never went and read the writings of the founders of these systems. So anyway, that is what I think.

Democracy is subject to demagoguery taking advantage of the masses and persuading them to vote collectively to abuse the rights of minority (not just racial) groups. Online voting is subject to fraud and manipulation. My biggest concern tho is the rights of the minority versus the will of the majority.

Democracy is the road to socialism.--Karl Marx

Originally posted by Spike Spiegle


A) The world's resources would be surveyed in great detail, this process taking at least 2-3 years....

B) Once we have a good idea for the amount of " finite " resources left on earth, said resources would be allocated, through a process of scientific deduction based on the " real needs " needs of a specific region.

C) This process would not be done by Humans, but by advanced AI, hence removing any chances of human error in the perfect allocation of materials world wide.

D) Here's were your point really got me thinking, all peoples on earth would be able to vote " online " in real time on any issue they so desire, topics would be scientifically moderated by AI for the best allocation of priorities and time spent on the most pressing of Humanities needs / said issues...

I love this. Undoubtedly the US will create the software to run the AI. So, my first "vote" is that we weight the AI's preference towards real "need" to favor the US, Australia, Canada, England. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Never happen.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


All that has to be done is the repeal of this portion of the 17th amendment to the Constitution:

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the federal government contained representatives of the states, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to "take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress".[1] However, over time various perceived issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform.

The Constitution was written in a way that they tried to prevent what is happening today by disallowing popular vote for senators, making them accountable to the state legislatures. This was changed because these people in government realized that if they had to be selected by a legislature that may be difficult and they couldn't pander as much because the legislature representatives might actually have a clue.

So, they changed it and enough idiotic states ratified it.

So, now they are "accountable" to the people. Funny.

source

Its a very noble idea which has absolutely no chance of happening.
This whole idea of a "One World" with a single economy, single political structure ( in effect) with every living persons voice being heard is just not going to happen, is it.
How would you get that to work in Countries like North Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Zimbabwe and a whole host of other nations that, are not even being run, at this time, as even slightly "democratic?"
Would you leave them out of the equation? Certainly sanctions to force them into line wouldnt work, some of those countries have been sanctioned the life out of and, still, they carry on regardless.
For the first time in living memory Britain has a coalition government and it isnt working!!!
Compromise is fine, its also a fudge where you give and take and nobody is truly satisfied and thats what you would get with this new blue print. As sure as eggs are eggs, nations would claim that they were not getting a fair deal, christ, Britain has a majority of citizens who feel that they need to come out of a European union because it is not benefitting us. Does anybody truly think a world political system would solve any of the real issues?
Im sure that just about every form of political structure has been tried just about every where and, its fair to say, that none have given the people the social utopia they have craved.
Communism doesnt work, Capitalism doesnt work, Coalitions dont work, Dictatorships dont work, bugger all actually works really.
The thing is a mixture of all of them works better than each in isolation. Its far from perfect but its the best of a bad lot.
Political systems wont stop wars or famines, generally, people start wars and famines can be alleviated if aid is given swiftly and corrupt "governments" are circumvented. You only have to look at Zimbabwe for the prime example, once called the "bread basket" of Africa, it is now a basket case with rampant inflation and abject poverty and starvation.
A new politcal system wouldnt stop that, unless of course, you would advocate a UN invasion to remove its leadership?
Could you then be certain that any reinstalled democracy would remain so?
I think the whole idea is based on good intention and logic, unfortunately, thats not how the World works and it never will, sad to say.
One more thing that strikes me. BILLIONS of pounds has been pumped into famine hit regions of Africa over the last 40 years, maybe even trillions. Despite all that money and all that money being handled by "expert" charity organisations, not one has had the brains to pull all other organizations together, pool their money and build pipe lines from the coasts into Africa itself to feed water desalination plants. Why?
They have had 40 years to have done something more permanent than continually hold out the beggin bowl for donations which has only ever stuck a plaster over the wound that is famine. If Charity organisations cannot get it right, what chance is there of a global political system having any hope whatsoever of getting things even a little bit right?
Just my tuppence worth.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Chrononaut three things of interest i draw out from your post.

The first was having a form of democratic goverment, which doesnt allow for concentrating power in any one group. To do this you propose using a distributed tree structure. I consider a tree structure a good idea because of the clear proof that Nature uses a tree system to structure physical geometry of Life and Eco system. I am refering here to a Fractals system which Nature used to create, replicate and align a consistent structure of matter and energy, from a micro up to the macro level. If this prinicpal of organisation works for Nature then it should work for humans.

The second point being use of technology to augment the traditional Westminster system of democratic process in use. The people who created the Westminster system would of never forseen the use of the internet to open up new possibilities of communication. The Political system will need to be revised to bring it up to date with technology.

Thirdly, if the alliances are corporations then wont the selected candidate be obligated to make decisions which suit their interests and not the general populus?

The party directly selects who will be in power by its alliances and has done so for the last two elections

edit on 13-12-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

My ideas are a little "off the wall" and I'm not sure how one would move to implement them.

The first idea is the "rule of fives". Humans, when shown five objects can immediately identify that there are five objects without counting. Six or more objects and you have to count to verify the number. This factors in with our finite capacity to deal automatically with stuff around us. Too much and our ability is overloaded. No current political theory accommodates such a basic acceptance of human limitation. The idea is simply to introduce limits to prevent "information overload". So, we limit the number of opinions that any one person has to "manage" to five. One person heads up a group of five (including themselves). With such a small group, deceptiveness, corruption and just plain bungling are not viable and so this is a very easy "governance unit".

Each 'leader' of their governance unit is themselves a contributor to another governance unit as a normal member (not a leader). In this way, each unit is accountable to others and to all its constituents. Also, the complexity of the structure means that it is pointless worrying where your particular group is in the tree. This is because your unit is no more powerful or connected than any other.

That's the basis of the idea. Knowledge and education are also of high priority to the structure but are easily mediated via modern technology and the tasks of education could conceivably be programmed as part of entertainment (as was proposed earlier by Threegirls in their post ).

reply to post by AthlonSavage


Having machines dictate decisions in your life has already happened. When a machine emits a red signal at an intersection you stop dont you? Rather primitive vs a system of resource allocation but it should set some form of precedent as to where its not all that crazy. Btw a key component is that the source code remains open sourced and everybody has the ability to view the programming. Without that we risk a dictatorship by machines or by the interests of those that wrote the software.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Chrononaut three things of interest i draw out from your post.

The first was having a form of democratic goverment, which doesnt allow for concentrating power in any one group. To do this you propose using a distributed tree structure. I consider a tree structure a good idea because of the clear proof that Nature uses a tree system to structure physical geometry of Life and Eco system. I am refering here to a Fractals system which Nature used to create, replicate and align a consistent structure of matter and energy, from a micro up to the macro level. If this prinicpal of organisation works for Nature then it should work for humans.

The second point being use of technology to augment the traditional Westminster system of democratic process in use. The people who created the Westminster system would of never forseen the use of the internet to open up new possibilities of communication. The Political system will need to be revised to bring it up to date with technology.

Thirdly, if the alliances are corporations then wont the selected candidate be obligated to make decisions which suit their interests and not the general populus?

The party directly selects who will be in power by its alliances and has done so for the last two elections

edit on 13-12-2012 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

My ideas are a little "off the wall" and I'm not sure how one would move to implement them.

The first idea is the "rule of fives". Humans, when shown five objects can immediately identify that there are five objects without counting. Six or more objects and you have to count to verify the number. This factors in with our finite capacity to deal automatically with stuff around us. Too much and our ability is overloaded. No current political theory accommodates such a basic acceptance of human limitation. The idea is simply to introduce limits to prevent "information overload". So, we limit the number of opinions that any one person has to "manage" to five. One person heads up a group of five (including themselves). With such a small group, deceptiveness, corruption and just plain bungling are not viable and so this is a very easy "governance unit".

Each 'leader' of their governance unit is themselves a contributor to another governance unit as a normal member (not a leader). In this way, each unit is accountable to others and to all its constituents. Also, the complexity of the structure means that it is pointless worrying where your particular group is in the tree. This is because your unit is no more powerful or connected than any other.

That's the basis of the idea. Knowledge and education are also of high priority to the structure but are easily mediated via modern technology and the tasks of education could conceivably be programmed as part of entertainment (as was proposed earlier by Threegirls in their post

).

That isnt STRICTLY true is it.
In most Western democracies ( I will refer to the UK) you have a leader who forms a Government by allocating specific departments to specific Politicians. They in turn have whole departments manned by umpteen civil servants, people who are employees without Political affiliation. In turn that branches out to County councils and onto local councils, probably, ending up with parish councils. To wit, layer upon layer of bureaucracy because one man, the Prime Minister, cannot run the whole show all by themself.
What you refer to isnt a world away from what we already have.

reply to post by LFN69


Quite true... however I believe your perspective is off... a tree doesnt start as a full grown oak tree (to continue the analogy). It starts off as a seed... or a cell (individual) and then grows with respect to them. The problem currently is the top down approach... left over from the hundreds of years of monarchies and dictatorships that has somehow been engrained into our DNA. The US from the ideals of the founders was supposed to be the new experiment to counter that... Where society began with the individual and the protection of rights of that individual. For some reason thats been lost and it seems a little sad that such a simple thing like a shift of perspective over time can completely warp a once great nation into the acceptable police state that its become.