TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

A Global Government, A Global Democracy

We need a global government. But how do we launch such a Leviathan

A global government to focus on issues like, Global Resource Management, Environmental Conservation, Human Rights Laws, Preserving the Human Race.

An organization like the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, except with the sovereignty to actually make decisions stick. If democracy is in the best interest of the human race, then why isn't the UN democratic? Why do 5 countries in the Security Council have the ability to veto decisions made by the General Assembly. Why can the decision of 1 or 2 countries, prevail over the consensus of 152 countries. Why can't the International Community successfully prevent the human rights abuse, war, and environmental degradation that plagues society?

A global government could potentially work. It could be a representative democracy. It could have the ability to enforce decisions made by the International Community. All countries would have to agree to the creation of this sovereign government, and then comply to enforcing its decisions with concrete actions.

This global government would need to be backed by a large enough military power, or have the ability to sanction effectively, so that no one or two countries could possibly ignore or defy it. With complete International cooperation, it is possible.

And who would rule such a Leviathan and carry out its many tasks? It would require so many people. It would be a massive organization. We'd need an online, global Voting System. Only one political party, the International Community itself as a whole. Through a global voting system, each person from any country on the planet (over 18) could have access to a vote online. This is entirely possible over the Internet.

It would have to be free of corruption and voter fraud of course, but there must be a way to make digital voting 100% secure and transparent. This can work if the whole world agrees to work together. But how do we convince every country to participate?

progress indicator
  • Apr 29 2013: Also I would like to discuss this perceived need Make the Wealthy to pay a greater amount in taxes to spread the wealth. Many, mostly those with money find this unfair as they feel they earned their money why should they pay a great percentage of their money to the government then anyone else? Others claim regardless of how they earned this money they did so under the protection of the government and it's system and by getting a greater share have a greater obligation to pay more. And maybe so and maybe both are equally true. BUT the debate over taxes really missing the point. The point really should be HOW did a small minority get control of a HUGE majority of a nations wealth to begin with?
    Hay one person alone can really only be so productive so at some point they have to use the labor of others. Also if they use or sell natural resources how did they get control and claim to those NATURAL resources? THat is another issue.
    Frankly I feel the whole debate over taxes is a side show.
    First off higher wages alone would relieve the wealthy of a huge amount of their tax burden as you do not pay tax on money paid out to your labor force only profits so pay workers more so the upper management make less and hence pay less in taxes.
    and the work another issue is government programs to help the retired the disabled and the very poor. Now what would move more people from the ranks of the working poor and off of welfare more then to pay them more for the work they do? Second WHY does someone who is retired but worked their whole life NEED to rely on a government social security check BECAUSE they have no retirement pension again corporations DO NOT pay taxes on money paid out to pension funds. so we could reduce the burden on government to pay these retired people by directly having corporations support the people that worked for them for 20-30 years IN the end it is NOT tax laws but fair labor laws that are need. and if the wealth is spread more even so to can the tax
  • Apr 29 2013: We already have organizations that have control of the world and it's resources the multinational corporations and the World banks and they are controlled by the Worlds wealthiest 1% and THEY would never give up their control to a global government controlled by the worlds 99% And since any Globally controlled government would really still be controlled by these people. And really a lot of these super wealthy people LIKE the conflicts and the global debt they make HUGE profits off IT. So in order to achieve this benevolent Global SUPER POWER controlled by the people you would first need to get the worlds Wealth and natural resources Back in the control of the majority and NOT the minority. And this is much easier to do by first starting at the local level and then expanding to national and THEN global once enough control has been reclaimed at the local and national levels THEN and ONLY then would it be possible to have even a small chance of a global control by the people for the people. and free of the control of the super wealthy minority. BUT sadly we are a LONG LONG way from that now and moving in the wrong direction. IF anything we are moving toward a global government BUT one NOT in the control of the majority.
  • Apr 27 2013: Government never solves problems.
    People do.
    However, the people in government never solve problems.
    They are always left for the citizens to solve.
    Thus, governance, to the degree it has reached or become in the world, is irrelevant to the lives of the global population.

    You say, "It would have to be free of corruption......"
    It won't be as long as humans keep the causes and reasons for corruption in whatever system they create.
    All our governing systems are corrupted, corrupt by default and the main reason is money.
    Get rid of the monetary system.
    Things don't.........."get done"..........because of money.
    Things..............."don't get done"......because of money.
    Thus money blocks humans from solving their problems.
    Without money, we would have nothing blocking our way to finally solving our problems.

    Nothing costs money. Everything costs people.
    We have devalued humans around the globe using money as the separator when in fact, every single need we have is a job that needs to be done (equal value), and every job is a need that needs to done (equal humans).

    If and when the global economy collapses, we will have the same problems, the same motivations, needs, wants, desires along with thirst, hunger, medical care, transportation and so on, and everything necessary to make them work and continue will be present, except for money. Money blocks us from solving our problems and separates us from one another.
    Either it goes, or we humans go.
    • Apr 29 2013: Yes Except that the System we have exists BECAUSE that is how PEOPLE created it over time. There has always been local scarcity and someone who wanted to take control of MORE then they need in order to control others. And the system evolved over time form I can take it because I can bash your head in and take it because I am stronger then you to I can take it because I have more wealth then you and I can ether force you to work for me for what you need or I can control you through debt. The Means has changed but the end is the same. If the world system collapsed it would only start all over again as local scarcity would lead to desire to control and over time we would be right back to where we are now all over again.

      Those that have visions of a perfect world based on a global sharing of resources apparently do not look around at how people react to local scarcity. One of the MOST basic needs is Water and 70% of the Earths surface is Covered with water 90% of it is Salt water Yet through technology we know how to turn that salt water to usable fresh water and we we have areas that have a abundance of Fresh water as well BUT yet we still have conflicts over water in areas of the global with Local scarcity of fresh water. And this is NOT limited to JUST 3rd world nations with corrupt governments or a lack of wealth NO right here in the US south west we have water conflicts while we waste water to grow grass on Golf courses in Nevada.
      We can not even agree that the most basic of needs Fresh Water on a planet 70% covered by water should belong to all. And you have hope that people will agree to share even more scarce resources? remember just because something exists in abundance in one area local scarcity is what motivates people at the local level and local conditions shape human development and human development is what shapes the systems we create.
  • thumb
    Apr 18 2013: A global government is exactly what the "funders" are pushing for themselves.

    I get what you're saying, and it looks as though you are approaching these problems from a place of compassion and love.

    The problem is the powers that be are not compassionate, nor loving. They want to control, they want to rule with an iron fist, and they want cattle - not equality.

    If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then what would a world government do? We don't even control our own here in the US anymore. What makes you think the world government would be good to "the people?"
  • Apr 18 2013: I agree to a degree, but I don't think that "government" is the right place to start. We could easily form a society or an association of global democrats. I posted a blog about it at alteractivism.blogspot.com if anyone cares to read about it or related topics.
    • Apr 24 2013: About activism and NGOs... Governments do mainly 3 things:
      1) Have police and armies to enforce laws (preferably democratic) and treaties. Laws are the same for everyone, treaties favor those with the biggest armies and the biggest economies. Global Government means no army, no unfair treaties, only democratic laws applying equally to everyone. Only a global government can do that.
      2) Take money (by force) from the rich through taxes, and redistribute to the poor through the welfare state (mostly for health and education). Without a global government, those rich can go to countries where governments don't do that. Only a global government can do that to a respectable degree.
      3) Governments set the rules for the economic system, by limiting the power of monopolies and oligopolies (eg. financial system and patent laws), by supporting small and new businesses and by funding long-term socially beneficial innovative and sustainable projects. With the WTO, the IMF and the powerful global businesses of today setting a borderless economy for themselves, much stronger than any national government, only a global government can set adequately such limits.
      So, if you don't vote for it and it doesn't have any guns, it won't solve anything! If you do vote for it and it has guns, it's called global -democratic- government.
  • Apr 18 2013: Global government is inevitable. The true question is how to accelerate it while at the same time making it more transparent and democratic. The alternative to a transparent and democratic global governance is World War III and/or global terrorism... not fun at all!
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2013: I doubt democracy would work on a global scale, because the harsh fact is, it matters very little to people what happens to populations in countries thousands of miles away. These populations are too 'virtual' and intangible for us to contemplate a true democratic system working on a global scale.

    There are people who do actually care about populations on the other side of the world, and for them, maybe global government and democracy could work. But unfortunately, I think the majority do not.

    On a local scale it would matter very much indeed what happens to people who have a tangible presence in a close community. Which is why in my opinion, it is the only size of population where democracy has any chance of working. Furthermore, it is more likely to be a self-regulating democracy, rather than one imposed by a global Leviathan.
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2013: All I say is, forming a global government would be difficult!
    The whole national interest vs global interest debate.
    I mean it reminds me of a Japanese myth, where two brothers seek peace. One views humans are by nature violent, and decides that power ( with the use of deterrents) can bring about global unity, the other brother believes an increase in empathy and love can bring about global unity. Then in the mythology this leads to an endless war between the two brothers!
    I say :
    Launch the leviathan, as one massive deterrent, to end all deterrents!
    It is wishful thinking to assume global unity will ever be achieved!
    I hope I'm not too much of a pessimist!
    • Apr 17 2013: it is wishful thinking, but honestly, what could be more fair than a global democracy, even if unity isn't achieved, i would hope the greater good would win a fair democratic voting process, then again this does depend on the education of the voters
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: Exactly. People don't know what they want! Choice isn't a guarantee of happiness.
        The best government would be a global benevolent dictator!
        Define 'fair'?
        Thanks Bernard. :)
        Or maybe a democratic dictatorship? Democracy on local level?
        • Apr 17 2013: There are already websites like AVAAZ.org that make online petitions that reach into the 100,000s. What they don't have is a venue with enough political power to take action. Sure 150+ countries in the UN General Assembly can agree to intervene on a human rights abuse, but if no one enforces it, or the Security Council veto's it, it's essentially dead in the water.

          I'm not suggesting an all-encompassing dictatorship, that would be more harmful than helpful. I'm just talking about enforcement on several key issues really, like preventable harm to people or the environment. What we need is a multinational sovereign entity with the power to enforce certain standards when it comes to basic human rights violations, or environmental protection.

          By "fair", i mean that if such a global decision making entity were to exist, every vote should be of equal value, and nobody would have the ability to VETO on a majority consensus.

          Also, the larger the sample data, the more representative the result is, so don't ask the ruling political party to represent an entire country's opinion with one vote, rather open the voting to all global citizens willing to vote. This could easily be done through a website.
  • Apr 17 2013: The only way to prevent against corruption is to have 100% transparency in all government systems. How do we prevent vote manipulation? How do we know that every vote is being counted, or is coming from a legitimate source. This is extremely difficult.

    We could have a sovereign multinational entity policing all governments and corporations, with decisions made by the international community via online ballots.

    Each government would have to provide each citizen with a voting registration key to access voting online. On top of that, all the hardware and software used in vote collection would have to be monitored or tamper-proof.

    The UN General Assembly could vote on global issues as it does, but extend the decision making power right down to each citizen, instead of the ruling political party. Don't skew the results by having one vote per country, have each individual vote count and keep a global tally. Taking the ruling party's opinion is far from a representative democratic process.

    If votes were held like this, on a global scale, and enforced by the UN, then we could begin to make progress on global issues. They aren't, because the UN General Assembly, although able to carry out certain peacekeeping tasks, does not have ultimate decision making power over the Security Council, and loses its traction whenever war interests, or private interests of the ruling parties are concerned.

    Nobody should be allowed to ignore the decisions made by the international community, it should have enough power to enforce its will on anyone. The issue that this raises is with an Orwellian Big Brother type of organization, who polices the police?
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2013: "We need a global government. But how do we launch such a Leviathan"

    why do we need a leviathan? the last thing i want is a leviathan.
    • Apr 17 2013: because right now the rules are made by the private interests,
      but there are certain things like environmental protection, food supply, water supply, human rights laws, that need to be beyond the control of the private interests, as they are vital to the success of society as a whole.

      the only way i can imagine a political force with enough power to enforce these types of decisions would be an organization backed by the entire International Community. The best way to keep it free of corruption, is to make it a truly representative global democracy
      • thumb
        Apr 17 2013: so the plan is to make the earth a terrible place to live, to avoid problems. what kind of solution is that? we could just commit suicide instead.
        • Apr 17 2013: you think enforcing human rights laws, and implementing environmental protection measure would make the earth a terrible place to live?
  • thumb
    Apr 17 2013: "It would have to be free of corruption and voter fraud of course"

    Do tell