Topic: Correct way to create world government (Read 2697 times)

The nice thing about world governments, the reason why I once liked that idea is that it is about working together.

However, I don't think something would be stable. If it was it would prevent political advancement and probably be very corrupted, people with lots of powers tend to become great idiots. Besides this it lacks a plan B. Would this require a world-revolution if something goes wrong?

Also if this fails and becomes a dictatorship it would probably lead everyone saying "working together sucks". See what happened to various -isms.

I think it would be better to do the opposite. Shrink governments (maybe ultimately to the size of individuals) and instead use modern technologies to work together in more efficient ways. See Bitcoins.

It would maybe be good to have government research in the form of seasteading to try out new stuff and well, again: Focus on communication. The Internet, probably Esperanto, etc. Make tools that allow people work together efficient, so you can more easily build great stuff, prevent wars, etc.

Maybe one could even combine old, failed ideas with modern technologies. Just like for example Apple revived the tablet. Well, generally more efficient communication would allow people to bring together stuff that together changes the world.

For the moment (a very short moment in the sense of global history) the majority believes in at most one god. So we can learn how to eliminate each other until there is at most one left.

Vote? Nice joke.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHToX01ITno

If we don't like how Interpol and other international organizations now act as departments in our world government, we can just leave Interpol, right?

The question isn't if we want world government or not. The question is why haven't we been asked to vote in it?

There is no way to put it any better!

That's why we have to make sure a majority of people agrees that the people are above government and government only gets to make laws, fight wars, or anything else they do, if we the people approve of it. This is why we need free open source peer to peer (no central authority) secure technology (like Bitcoin, plus some identity hardware) to count votes in anything we want to vote on. We tried letting governments control what we're allowed to vote on, and they constantly abuse the power.


No prophecies are needed to see whats happening globally.

While I don't know what happened those thousands of years ago, anyone waiting for Jesus to come solve their problems for them should remember that he said (not these exact words but this was the general idea) we are all in gods image and that everything he has done we will learn to do. Either way, we can solve our own problems.

3I calculate that number from the return of Jesus Christ, which will occur in 2034'-2036'.
14 years of government before the return, and that leaves 7-10 years from 2012.
David Rockefeller has been planning a single global currency since the 30's, if his father hadn't been before. You wouldn't plan a global currency without a global governance.

How does a single ruler or group of rulers from a global government put down insurrection when it occurs on a country wide scale? It will be war. A world governance sending troops to quell the rebellion.

IMO, the world government rule will likely be a socialist style dictatorship, an imperial rule, if the likes of David Rockefeller and others of his ilk are successful. They are staunchly anti-christian, in fact, much of your perspective matches their views. Christianity will most likely suffer like it did during the rain of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. 1/3 of the population of the world are christians, so a lot of room to make room.

It would result in less or no wars between countries but a certainty of a violent revolution from many of the 7 billion enslaved people. For this reason, they will pretend to be separate countries as long as possible, while still creating the same laws regardless of our votes.


If a small society wants to create big weapons and believe in a god that says all nonbelievers must die, or many other possible motivations to kill people, what must the other small societies do?


Lets think about applying that to some processes to see how it would work:

Governments have been taxing everyone for all of recorded history, so they should continue to get to choose how we are taxed instead of, what was that thing... oh yeah, democracy, government by the people.

A stalker is involved very much in the process of someone else's life. That stalker should get to make some of their choices for them.

The central bank system was involved very much in the recent near global economy crashes, so they should continue to get to make choices for the global economy.

Clearly putting in time and work isn't the way it should be measured. Instead, measure it by who improved things the most.


This gets to the root of the problem with money. It amplifies the motivations in people toward locally and short-term improvements at the cost of long-term and large scale improvements which would be more efficient overall for the Human species if people didn't keep defecting in variations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma in the many ways the world works. This doesn't mean we should or should not get rid of money, just that we should be aware of what it causes so we can better design new ways for the world to work.

Let me add to what I said quoted above so you understand that it is not an insult, but a antecedent which leads to a consequent.

Bitcoins don't serve as a model of what happens in the real world because they are simple to understand. No matter the intelligence level of Bitcoin participants, they basically get it and so the process works.

Within the context of the biosphere which supports us, there are plenty of participants who do not understand the complexities of the processes within the biosphere which produce our natural capital. Unfortunately then there are plenty of participants who don't know when to stop, or what all the ramifications are.

Conclusion: Bitcoins do not serve as an applicable model of free markets.

I am someone trying to provide you with more information than you currently possess within the context of your decision making process that drives your belief system. Given more information, you will be forced to put your political ideologies to more rigorous tests.

Where do you want to start? The wolf/rancher conflict? Global fish haul? Climate change? Biodiversity? Edge effects? Honeybees? Sumatran rhino horns? Riparian zones? Whaling?

Are you are troll?

Bitcoins are simple. There is a limit on their population. Period. Stupid people can understand that.

Production within the biosphere is not simple. Stupid people don't understand that. Period.

Oh and I'm especially not going to waste my time if you can't even see the various regulations and constraints the Bitcoin free market continually places on itself, or are you going to claim that people anonymously offering services for bitcoins somehow aren't regulated or contrained by the free market and can do what ever they like? Is SR unregulated and unconstrained? Can merchants there do what ever the hell they want?

Like I said, some of this is just plain common sense.

When you say the free market isn't unregulated and unconstrained, are you saying that free markets, by their very existence, in any and all forms are inherently regulated and constrained? Or are you saying the majority of free markets today are regulated and constrained?

Are you saying there is no such thing as an unregulated and unconstrained market?

Do you believe free markets should be regulated and constrained by overseeing authorities?

Final question - and the most important: Do you believe that a free market magically regulates and constrains itself by virtue of its existence such that natural capital will not be depleted?

As an aside, do you know what natural capital is? If you can, please explain your theories within the context of climate change, the drop in honeybee populations, edge effects, trophic cascades, the war between ranchers and wolves within the context of riparian zone destruction and clean water, biodiversity, and the limiting factors of the global fish haul in the past vs. now.

So I should consider you dense but waste my time explaining it to you anyway? Do I look like a fool to you? If you are honestly interesting in learning why you are mistaken and why your statement is wrong and why the free market isn't unregulated and unconstrained, some of which btw is just plain common sense, you'll just have to pick up one of the oh so many sources I gave you a link to, and do your own homework.

Consider me dense. Explain.

If you had quoted my whole response to your bullshit statement you'd have already received the explanation. And if you still don't understand, well then, I guess it's you who's going to have to do some learning. I suggest you start here: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=free%20market

Explain.

Bullshit. Free markets aren't unregulated and unconstrained. Try again. What they are though is unregulated and unconstrained by a central authority and monopoly of violence. Which is a big fking difference.

Unregulated and unconstrained free markets exploit the lowest hanging fruit. It's a guaranteed path to destruction of natural capital, which is ultimately the only thing we have. If you wish to disagree, then you're going to have to take some time to learn some fundamental truths about nature.

The correct way to create a world government is to not create a government anywhere at all but let the free market provide the services people want or need. No central plan is needed for that.

Um, wasn't it Ireland brought you Bitcoin?  Sorry to go off topic but on St Patrick's Day I refuse to allow anyone question Ireland's Satoshi

... and Bitcoin, and its' developers, and most of its supporting userbase.

It is ironic.  Everyone is for democracy but when it comes to the masses actually making decisions like the people in the Bible Belt or the Tea Party then democracy doesn't look like a good idea.

The great think about the way bitcoin works is that people have to participate in the process to be rewarded.  But those that are rewarded are not guaranteed a reward.  They more mining someone does then the higher the probability of that person being compensated with bitcoins.  The political process should be the same way.  The more work a person puts into the process the more likely they should be chosen to make the decisions for the process.

Mostly sounds nice, but I have a few questions.

What's wrong about Christianity? Or do you mean Catholicism and the church?

What about culture?

How would you do that?

What would you do about the massive effects on economy and jobs, as well as the whole industry when you stop government spending? How will you find a place for everyone?

What do you mean by "rampant growth into wilderness"?

Math and science? I am kinda confused. What do you define as science?

Are you working on improving the US? If yes, how? If now, why not?

Not that feature of the U.S. If I could improve the U.S., we'd have less of the Tea Party, less of the Bible Belt, less money spent on wars, less Christianity, less rampant growth into wilderness, better education for math and science...

A world government is something I wanted when I have still been naive too, but seriously, look at how society works. Usually smaller societies work far better than bigger. A world government is stupid, because  even if thinks look like they would be more efficient they are not. The opposite is true. We actually should split things.

I know that's exactly the opposite of what most of us always thought to be the truth, but simply look at sizes of countries and then tell me that bigger countries are doing better. Simply not true. Big organizations have big problems.

Also, you are making a mistake if you think that there is something like a good politician or a good government. The thing is not only that you can't measure it in first place, but also that even if there is a politician where most of us could agree on to be good or at least not too bad it really depends on time and society. The best democrat may be the worst thing for the world tomorrow or would have been a few hundred years ago, maybe would even have prevented democracy from coming to existence.

Its also a bad option in an evolutionary sense. More small, individual, independent countries mean more experiments on government technology or in a biological sense a bigger gene pool.

Also it is the extreme form of centralization and I think most of us can agree that that's bad.

Also, if you have to care about the whole world you will act way too abstract which of course is really bad in a lot of ways.

A better alternative would be the emancipation of people weakening the need for a government, so it at least has less to do. See Small Is Beautiful. Also have a look at Leopold Kohr's practical work, really effecting societies in a positive way. He too wrote a book, called The Breakdown of Nations.

Or just see negative examples, like the US, China or Russia. They are all big in different ways. Then compare them to stuff, like Luxemburg, Switzerland, Austria, etc.

Also, to solve global problems you usually need something else than an (active) politician. You need people that actually do stuff. There aren't many (active) politicians that actually changed the world to a better. Doesn't mean they are not good, but it's a fact. There are lots of other people who did and a lot of politicians do more good stuff afterwards, when they are more free. Yep, that's maybe it. People work better on making the world better, when they are not bound to anything, be it the world of politic, time, money or whatever.

No thanks a lot, anything but that! They brought us Bush 2.0 and Tea Party 2.0 ...

Not 7 to 10 years. Maybe 70 to 100 years.

It has it's disadvantages and advantages. Probably the best advantage is near complete elimination of wars. If it was like the U.S., with countries acting like states, it might work.

Umm, if we don't like this world government, we can just leave, right?

A one world government is the agenda of the mega wealthy, not individual countries or their populace. When you are mega wealthy it is costing you money to keep track of international laws to ensure your businesses continue to earn without interference or incurring more costs. A one world government would have one set of laws for all, one currency for all, and therefore improve their bottom line. A fascist dictator as a ruler they control to do as they please is their ideal, while an American style republic is anathema to their goals. It is about more control not more freedom.
It is going to occur and we will probably see it materialize within the next 7 to 10 years. The European Union and African Union were created to facilitate this plan, being corporate structures for countries, testing laws and enforcement. Meanwhile, the USA, Russia and China are jockeying to become the top dog in this marathon to world government.

Many people think a world government should be created by those with experience in politics, but that is exactly what we need to avoid. That is what got us into this mess. We need something most people can agree on.

Democracy is everyones' right. Democracy means the people together are above government, as in government by the people instead of government by a small group of people that for some reason lost in history has an unfairly large amount of control. That is a problem. Here is the solution, which is already happening in many ways as we see the world changing. To accelerate that process I'll describe it and propose a way to formalize it...

A world government has formed which includes many international organizations and laws. I didn't vote for them. Did any of you? No, it was chosen by those who have power, who were chosen by others who have power, who were chosen by existing power... and deep in there somewhere is a small influence of our votes. A majority of people on Earth now believes that these ways of organizing the world do not represent a majority of people and our repeated requests to fix that have been intentionally ignored for the purpose of those who have such power keeping it at our expense. We did not vote for that.

We-the-7-billion-people should look at what all these parts of the world are doing for us, decide which we want to keep, what else we want in a global organization, what properties (like fairness in balance of resources/numbers/money or right to enough food on certain conditions or stricter penalties for abusing the system through politics or corporations or whatever properties, for example) we want it to have, then use the Internet and new forms of wiki-like communication to debate how to best build a new system like that, and use free open source peer to peer (no central authority) secure voting tools and wikis (and combinations of many tools) to globally agree how to proceed and what we will do with the world's resources that have been unfairly distributed, to build the world into something a majority of people agree on.

The total number of people who vote in all countries combined we will globally agree is the number of global votes needed to change any global law or implement any new form of global government. In USA, for example, only a few percent of the population chooses to vote, but that is what "majority" means in a voting context.

I say global instead of international because its not related to nations. Nations are below the people of Earth. It is treason to be an Enemy Of The State, but it is more treasonous to be an Enemy Of The People, so in any conflict between those the total of all people are automatically the winner.

This is not illegal since democracy is the law and nothing is higher than democracy. We need no permission from any existing authority if we have the required number of votes because democracy is the highest authority.

In the past such authorities have unfairly hoarded their power by controlling the only practical way to count votes, but with new free open source peer to peer (no central authority) secure technologies like Bitcoin (which at its best became a 200 million dollar economy fluctuating like a stock price, just numbers on our screens in a software that people chose to use as money), we have the general ability to create many kinds of voting systems and ways to organize people.

Its not just about numbers. Wikipedia is a kind of democracy too. Many of these things will be combined as we globally decide how we think Earth would better be organized through these democratic processes that we would global majority agree on.

To global majority agree on something means for "total number of people who vote in all countries combined" number of votes to be for that thing. It is not related to any formal system or permission of any existing authority except the highest authority which is democracy. As long as the vote counting is trusted by the voters, the authority is there.

We do not need anyone's permission to vote on things. Democracy is the highest authority. Please spread the word and get started on those new voting systems and new kinds of democracy.

About the logistics of it... We need no violence or hate or secret meetings for this global change. As subtle as the change was from sovereign countries to the world government made of international organizations and laws which now have majority influence on what most countries do, that subtle will be the change from nationalism to globalism, to a world government by the people with authority and influence spread across everyone instead of centralized. We already have voting on the Internet in those +1, vote up, and vote down buttons, Wikipedia, and many other forms of democracy. The only thing missing is peer to peer (no central authority) security and the peoples' trust that actions in these new kinds of democracies are by the people we think they are. In USA, for example, passport books already contain an encrypted electronic copy of whats written in those books. Its accepted as proof of identity through computers. Bitcoin proved to many people that with no central authority we can trust numbers/money to be counted accurately and proven with digital-signatures (similar to encryption but based on secure-hashes instead, and not regulated as encryption is). When enough people get the idea that many of these existing tools can be combined to build a global democracy that needs no central authority to count votes, and that people can trust it because all tools used in the process are open-source hardware and software, the change will be so subtle most people won't know global democracy exists until they one day realize that countries and governments as we know them today have as little power as our votes today. Anyone who knows calculus understands that change can be simultaneously fast and smooth. This doesn't have to take a long time as we've learned to expect from existing governments. Even if it happens quickly, it will probably be so subtle that most people won't see it coming. They'll find themselves talking about why it won't ever happen, then somebody will say but its already here, like the world government that exists today but many people still don't see.