TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Thoughts on a global government.

First I think I should describe briefly the type of governing system I would propose, then I will point out one instance for it's relevancy.

This global government should not take the place of any existing government but act as an extended branch of all national governments. It should be democratic and every person everywhere should be involved. This branch would govern laws of global importance only (i.e. nuclear, climate, overpopulation), and only issues that effect all of earth's population.
(This government should have more power than the U.N.)

I would like to point to one hypothetical and simultaneously real argument for such a measure. Suppose we all came to agree that climate change was man-made, inevitable and destructive. Suppose 2 countries, country A and country B were responsible for 60% of man-made greenhouse gas emission. And lastly say those 2 countries' governments were refusing to take action, and even building towards a more detrimental scenario. What if every other country engaged beneficial policy regarding climate change, but without the support of country A and B it would not be enough.
Is it fair that the policy of two countries decide our fate if the overwhelming majority of the earth's population disagree?

I would encourage your thoughts on this particular scenario, but also would like to hear everyone's ideas on a global government, how it would work, or why it it wouldn't. As well whether you agree this would be a beneficial course of action or otherwise.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 3 2011: A global governance system needs to be transparent, driven by the people. It needs edemocracy at a national level. At an international level, we need a representative community of global citizens (not global government) to determine prioritise and implement the pursuit of quality of life in accordance with values determined by the global community, rather than the opaque channels of government.

    National EDemocracy: The TED talk by David Cameron highlighted the possibility that governments will have less power and money in the future and the people will have more. This would be enabled by technology. He asked "How do we make things better without spending more money?" He highlighted a desire that a political system should have transparency, choice and people power. The problem is that we don't (today) have technology to deliver on this vision. It is, however, readily available in a Web 3.0 network focused on eDemocracy. Have a look at http://www.marcuscake.com/economic-development/edemocracy. The traditional model of democracy determines outcomes based on ideology – left or right. The eDemocracy model allows all participants to see through the community to determine outcomes based on issues.

    A Common Vision for International governance? UNITED 3.0 is a Web 3.0 network to design and implement Equity Market 3.0 and Economic Development 4.0. Entrepreneurs, philanthropists and statesmen need to provide the inspiration to create Economic Development 4.0 and inspire consumer adoption of its underlying networks.

    A critical mass of National Democracy 3.0 networks and an international vision provided by UNITED 3.0 would provide an opportunity to transcend the problems highlighted in this thread. In both cases, success relies on transparent people networks, rather than Web 1.0 global government with opaque channels. I recommend the presentation at http://www.marcuscake.com/economic-development for further information .

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.