Lindsay Newland Bowker


This conversation is closed.

Foundation For A Global Alliance:What Do We Consider as Universal Rights? What Global Concerns Transcend Soverignty?

So many of the wonderful conversations here at TED on governance and democracy are beginning to point to the reality of a global community and possibly to a global government..or global coalition of governments..

We are de facto a global community. In his speech before the British Parliament President Obama recognized that no nation can control it's own destiny any more. He recognized and enumerated a few Universal Human Rights and asserted that each of us should think of ourselves as Global Citizens sharing our belief in and commitment to these universal human rights.

Without attempting to design a global democracy or even consider what that might look like or how that might work, I invite you here to share with us what you consider to be universal human rights.. what you consider to be global issues of such importance that they transcend Soverignty.

Here is trhe U.N.charter which seems very incomplete for global issues not to do with war & peace
Here is the link to only and NATO..all military of course and the U.S. Consitution.
Here is a link to an internatoinal group and their "Charter for a Global Democracy" which sought to ammend the UN charter to deal globally with humainitarian and envionmental issues. .

And we have one working model, the EU , an alliance of nations primarily for economic reasons but which which has also evolved international consensus on both human rights and sustainability.

For purposes of this conversation we are not considering the mechanics;only the underpinnings.The Sullivan Principles were very effective world wide in battling aparthied through a buyer's boycott of gold and diamonds. Perhaps what we might draft here could work like that.

  • thumb
    Jun 5 2011: Even though many religious people find the idea of a one world government an anathma, my children and I really enjoyed playing with ideas of how it might happen. (I hope this is on topic- If not- I will delete it at your request.)

    Lindsay, My kids and I used to play a game we made up when they were young. We called it the "united States of the World". The premise was that slowly countries joined together voluntarily as a larger whole called the United States of the World. (That shows how politically naively I raised my children, I guess.) We started with the idea that Canada and the US formed one country. Then other countries could join. Countries would apply to join and the established members of the USW then chose one new country to admit one at a time. No new country could be added until the last to join had reached the stable standard of living of the whole. My kids and i would consider the resources of each country, what grew best there and what laws would have to be in place that all agreed upon following. Each addition would require adjustment in the whole. For example if a Caribean island joined the USW, and brought in lots of banana growing potential the USW would have to find a way to make ensuer that the Hawaian economy did not suffer. That could include scientists determing what new crop could be added to either island that the USW needed to replace the income from bananas while improving the whole USW.
    My kids and I enjoyed the game and perhaps it is not surprising that my eldest chose diplomacy as a career.

    I hope what I have shared above is a very simple and if perhaps impractical example of applying the ideas that you have presented above. At least my kids learned to be global citizens in their hearts and realize that all people deserve to be valued and heard.
    • thumb
      Jun 5 2011: Hi Debra..I love your version of the wolrd game and please leave it in place.

      The idea here thoiugh is ti stayy strictly away from the hows and why of gworld governance and 100% an d ONLY on the exploration of two ideas:

      (1) Are there universal human rights we can all agree on?

      (2) what mayyers on our globe are o such funademental global importance..such importance to humanity now..for future humanity..for the future globe..for the future creatures of the earth that they supercede soverignty.

      I think the entire conversation will be of much greater value and allow entry by others in a more inviting way than if wander off into all the isde issues.

      I hope I can count on yiu to help shepherd that?? It takes all of us in nay conversation staying on topic and nurturing the converstaion along on the intended topics.

      But again thnaks for your wolrd game.. Ler's save it and post it again for part III which will be..aftert we have a better idea of where the Ted community is on what exceeds soverignty and what are universal human expxloration of whteher any of the current global insitutions can possibley serve to as foundations.
  • thumb
    Jun 5 2011: In The Garden & Nicholas.. I am very glad to see this conversation revived.

    It is a good moment in our world and in our community life here at Ted Conversations to be thinking about ourselves as global citizens .Presdent Obama in a recent speech made the point that I had seen as apparent myself in reseraching oil and other issues, that no one nation can control its own destiny, shape its own future and its own present all by itself. All nations must act as members of a global community.

    He also made an important point that we in America, also first value and affirm the rights of individual global citizens. In other words that each of us as "we the poeple of the world" have fundamental and inalienable human rights which transcend the righ s of soverignty ( iei of nations and national policy) and that each of us as global citizens of the wolrd must honor and uphold as our first principle in all things

    In this conversation I was not tackling and don't think we should include any vision of structures and insitutions that might allow us to work together as a global "we the people". My intention and my invitation to you is to explore what these universal human rights are and also what the limits of soverignty are in a global community..

    At my posterous blog

    to get that discussion going, I have posted a "charter for a global democracy" that speaks both to individual human rights and to the limits on soverignty. I invite you to look at it and comment on it in this conversation. It is a compilation of many previous and more distinguished efforts to lay out these universal human rights and to consider the limits of soverignty.

    Also we have set up a google moderator that explores this..check in and vote if you have not doe so already and feel free to add your own. And perhaps we can reference that as well in our conversation here.
    • thumb
      Jun 5 2011: Global citizens, earthlings, human beings, and "people" in the broadest usages should be dictated in public educations to help move the world closer together. A "critical thinking class" with science fiction-based lessons, debates, philosophy, psychology, and other cognitive science involved in the lessons would prove to be a benefit for uniting the people of the world. This class could easily be academic; the lessons would be installed with skills to use in thinking "open-endedly" or logically based on largely consensus-ed facts or opinions.

      Oh, caught in a land slide, no escape from reality, open your eyes and see... I'm just a boy living in fantasy...

      I love your ideas Lindsay and it really does warm my heart to know people are truly thinking in the direction of "Uniting the World" because that means a lot less "evil" to me.

      Just talking about these ideas is a great thing, but it is even a better thing when discussing these ideas with people who have never considered the idea to be a reality. The V.P website is full of people already considering your ideas and arguments of why the world should be united, how it can come to be possible, and what is preventing such. I suggest to you, personally, to go check out the V.P website and poke around.

      I rather argue against others who find this to be "useless thinking" then to agree with others who already are thinking my kind of considerations. When you got some nay saying realist debating with you, e-mail me, I'll unleash my subjective opinions on their argument like a plague of humanitarian philosophies.

      Otherwise, my pessimism kicks in; I believe in even in my life time I will not see the changes needed to truly unite the world under one government and/or one common goal. Although I see the tools needed to do such exist presently, the politics, cultures, and personal want to be right/great in the world are tied into the roots of humanity as of now. A lot of "big" things need to happen for true unity.
      • thumb
        Jun 7 2011: by V.P. you mean the Venus project?

        I find them to be a little light weight in depth and intellectual rigor..jacques is not a leader, in my opinion.

        I am much more deeply involved with and resonate with the the Co_intelligence insitute

        A great deal of vision, depth, wisdom ther and most importantly to me the work here is all about right no win the real the immediacy of everything that is happening right now and how to build transformation and change from that.

        You might enjoy hooking up there .
  • thumb
    Jun 5 2011: The world grows smaller. Avoiding having a world government will become increasingly difficult as we all start to want to be protected from the misbehavior of people half way around the world who are becoming more and more capable of hurting or killing us and our children or destroying our porperty or businesses. Imagine how much more difficult it is to respond to terrorism when unstable international agreements have to be negotiated for each new project. Now think about the fact that it is not only terrorists who are going to have a more and more significant effect upon us. We can no longer regulate our food supply, or the chemical composition of the toys that are marketed to our children.

    What happens in Countries far away from our own is becoming increasingly important to us. As it does, we will want more and more say in what happens there. In turn people in those countries have more and more reason to want a say in what happens here. Either we are going to go to war with each other to determine who will dominate and enslave who, or we will enter into a "social contract." It is a classic Lockean state of nature. There is only one rational choice. We must negotiate the terms fo a global social contract.

    How we do that is not easy. Everyone comes to the table worried that others will exploit them or try to destroy what is dear to them. But this has been done before. The United States and the European Union were both negotiated creations negotiated by those who did not trust each other. The road is not always entirely peaceful: witness the American Civil War.

    That war should be a warning to anyone who wants to try to establish an international socail contract that does not spread the benefits of world government fairly equally. The result of overreaching is an instability that will ultimately give way. Likewise, the absence of genuine democracy gives another ground for instability when differences cannot be worked out in the voting booth.
    • thumb
      Jun 5 2011: glad ti have your voice here..I know from your comments at my blog a little of what values you see as funadmental..Perhaps you could post the link to the Charter for Compassion and explain a little bout that here?

      I know you have already posted some additional values at the google moderator (
      and as you can see I have invited everyone to do the same.

      I would invite you, if you are so inclined, to bring in each of the values you have posted there as a separate thread here and say a little more about it.
  • thumb
    Jun 22 2011: Mario, who posted here has started a conversation about the "Intrenationalization" of the Amazon.

    Exploring that current issue in Brazil is a good opprtunity to explore two of the "global values" we have referenced in this discussion:

    (1) a nation's right tomanage its own natural resources
    (2) global right sin the wolrds atmosphere and oceans that excede soverignty

    reminder: did you vite at our TED Common Ground Values survey which includes these two glbial values
  • thumb
    Jun 11 2011: Here is a link to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. written in 1948. In 1976 togteher with two additional covenants it became international law

    Member nations agree to embrace and suppport these righs in their countries, to uphold and promote them through teaching and education. Even though there i s no means of enforcement for non- member countries, the decalartion states that the rights apply to all; that all have a duty to uphold theses as universal human rights. The covenants have lovely language on cultural and social rights & oppotrunities which afford and individual to develop personality as well as language on the right to leisiure and a day off.

    It does not include any language on duties of nations to the planet or address limitations of soverignty as respects global issues. It does not address or provide for a global banking system.

    Would you say though that it is complete in term sof universal human rights.?
  • thumb
    Jun 6 2011: I have previously written a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that could be adapted to any fundamental law document. I would offer it as a suggested First Article for an International Constitution.

    As I have suggested in an earlier post in this discussion, I believe that formation of an international government is inevitable (unless we destroy civilization first). The question is how long we will continue to accept the negative consequences of refusing to form a government adequate to regulate international trade. It took the American states some time before they were willing to form a strong Federal Government. The first step was to move from the (weaker) Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. The Second Step, after the Civil War, was the Fourteenth Amendment which allowed the Federal Government to protect fundamental rights against state encroachment. The third step was the (proper) interpretation fo the Commerce Clause after the 1930's New Deal to give broader powers to the Federal Regulation of Commerce. Each step was and remains subject to resistance from those who prefer local or no regulation of interstate commerce, but each step was taken in response to an expanding need for regulation that was consistent across the national scope of a growing national market.

    The proposed constitutional provision would make the moral foundations of Law explicit in the Constitution. I believe that all interpretation, especially legal interpretation, is necessarily grounded in a moral point of view. Even Justice Scalia, when he argues that Judges should e historians rather than moral philosophers is asserting a view about what we SHOULD do. That "should" is a moral evaluation. I suggest that we make the moral foundation of law explicit so that we can be more disciplined and directed toward acting consistently with the moral foundations of community.I have posted the proposed amendment at my new website:
    • thumb
      Jun 6 2011: Glad to have your wisdom here inthegarden, especially on this subject to which you have given much of your own prior indepedent thought .I accept your principle that all of what we might consider universal human rights or global stewardship that transcends soverignty would have to point to, or emanate from, a central ordering principal..a first principle.So I think it is very worthwhile to wrestle with that here and see if we can actually. come up with a truly universal first principle.

      I have just come from a day long retreat on Ken Wilber's teachings so I am also thinking more about the importance of a universal first principle and believing that we might be able to actually articulate that. Wilber and all the thinkers I am influenced by believe that all the worlds great spiritual practices lead ultimately to the same place..and I would add came ultimately from the same place..from some fundamental and universal undersatanding of what humanity is.There was a documentary series a few years ago. two brits traveling to the most untouched remote cultures they could find all over the world. The similarities in values and practices from imdigenous people toindigenous people was astonishing. and point to root universal values.Definitely important to include that concept in our exploration here. .

      The Golden Rule, which I know you point to as a universal is too associated with christianity to be used as given from the new testament even though what it is saying is the universal. Mohammad's last sermon contained another version of that first principle "Harm no one" . So maybe we are aiming for is something that resonates simply and universally no matter what your race, creed or religion.

      Perhaps something more along the lines of

      "Harm No One; Harm Nothing;
      Care For One Another; Care for the World"

      Certain ideas take a little time to understand..they aren't immeditaely apparent as any articulated firts principle guiding us as global citizens would have to be.
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2011: Hi Lindsay,

        This is the fourth time in the last few days that I have tried to respond. Each previous response was wiped out when I attempted to submit it.

        Any position will have some cultural history that subjects it to some prejudicial bias in favor or opposed to it.

        I like the Golden Rule because I think it really identifies the first step in the origin of rationality: to recognize another as another inherently equal spirit. It requires that rationality, whether we are talking about scientific rationality, ethical rationality, religious rationality, etc., must all be built upon a foundation of the recognition of equal original importance of each and every spirit (consciousness with cares and concerns).

        Not only does it call upon us to care for each other and not harm each other, it provides a basis for determining who will count as "another" that must be respected. Since it calls upon me to make use of myself as a being with wants as the measure of what is right, it ultimately leads me to respect all other beings with wants, so that the essentail feature that brings one within the circle of beings that count as "others" for purposes of the golden rule, is that they are beings with wants. (This would include beings who are capable of suffering and enjoyment. Beings that "suffer" are beings who not only feel the sensation of pain, but who also want to be free of that sensation. Beings who can enjoy things are beings who not only feel the sensation of pleasure, they are beings who want to have that sensation when they have it.)

        I do not think that we can build community on the basis of some lesser principle than the principle that actually brings us together. That is why I keep focusing upon the golden rule. It identifies that step that we take, usually pre-reflectively, each time we adhere together in a community of the sort that respects its members, not merely as tools for each other, but as being the actual purposes for which the community exists.
    • thumb
      Jun 10 2011: I would prefer it if the law would use the silver rule as it's foundation.

      Bit too much to be enforcing the golden rule.
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2011: Hi Tim,

        My proposal does not call for enforcing the Golden Rule. To the contrary, it maintains the current state of the law with regard to enforcement of obligations. An obligation becomes enforceable only if the legislature or the people enact a law making it enforceable (or in common law countries, if court precedent establishes it as enforceable). You will note that there is a paragraph within my proposal that specifically addresses this point.

        The law often identifies non-enforceable obligations. It usually does this in the course of identifying the obligations of government officials. That is consistent with what I am trying to do: identify the obligation that we always have when we exercise the powers of sovereignty. To merely identify the obligation and affirm that it exists, and to say that we should assume that law makers were attempting to satisfy the obligation when they made law, does not make the obligation enforceable. It merely serves to make the process of law making and interpretation more transparently rational.
  • thumb
    Jun 5 2011: Invocation for a Global Communiiy'..:The Window". Leonard Cohen 1979
    Lyrics & Chords
    A ......................................E
    Why do you stand by the window
    D...................................... A
    Abandoned to beauty and pride
    A........................................... E
    The thorn of the night in your bosom
    D.......................................... A
    The spear of the age in you side
    A................................ E
    Lost in the rages of fragrance
    D............................ A
    Lost in the rags of remorse
    A.................................. E
    Lost in the waves of a sickness
    D................................. A
    That loosens the high silver nerves


    O chosen love, O frozen love
    D............................. A
    O tangle of matter and ghost
    O darling of angels, demons and saints
    D................................. A
    And the whole broken-hearted host
    A................ E
    Gentle this soul

    And come forth from your cloud of unknowing
    kiss the cheek of the moon
    the new Jerusalem glowing
    Why tarry all night in this ruin
    And leave no word of discomfort
    Or leave no observer to mourn
    But climb on your tears and be silent
    Like the rose on its ladder of thorn


    Then lay your rose on the fire
    The fire give up to the sun
    The sun give over to splendor
    In the arms of the High Holy One
    For The Holy One dreams of a letter
    And he Dreams of a letter's death
    Oh bless the continuous stutter
    Of the word being made into flesh

  • thumb
    Jun 5 2011: Government is good as long as the enemy are E.T, not "terrorism" or other human beings. A world where people make profit through the government with little to no laws restricting such is a bad world. Especially one that is governed with religious views being a factor.

    Need to look at ourselves more as animals and not people. We have instincts, we have patterns.

    People/we need to look at ourselves scientifically, and arguably spiritually. To live a life with longevity, happiness (from success, highs, bettering ourselves, and/or competition of both mind and body in life), and to have the closest to true freedom involving reality, without people profiting off of your personal and planetary destruction , in my opinion.

    Help one another is a simple science fact. Do not need to know the subject or word "science" in order to come to that conclusion just the word selection.

    Science in it's most refined understanding is "to eliminate the unlikely to make the likely more likely". People perform scientific conclusions all the time with out knowing the word science or knowing it could be called science. Words have no intrinsic value, try first understanding the emotions behind the words and then discuss. This is difficult sometimes, but it can be done.

    "Live and let live" or "try to understand prior to judging others" should be virtues in all lives to help us come together and live together. My opinions.

    I need to practice what I think is right also, it is challenging but it teaches me daily about ideas of life and how we are all similar in the most fundamental but separate over superficial philosophies about life (Strong judgement I know, who am I? But, sometimes I feel that way, I also feel lucky I can feel that way, that we are all just "people")

    This level of criticism is necessary for a world government.
    • thumb
      Jun 5 2011: Nichiolas

      Your. voice ,your wisdom, and your intellectual rigor are most needed and most welcome here.

      Didiyou know about the google moderator created to facilitate another conversation on Common Ground? I don't think we have your input there yet and would welcome your commentray here on what posts there you would conider either

      (1)global values that supercede soverignty
      (2) fundamental and universal human rights

      Same for what I have posted up at my blog as reference points to build this discussion ( see link above)In this discussion we are not considering whether there should be a wolrd government or how it would work

      In this conversation we are narrowly focused on these two large enough issues.. We are just exploring its foundations in what we consider universal human rights and what we consider issues of such global importance that they supercede soverignty

      .By the way ..did you check outthe Leonard Cohen?? ( see my post above which includes a link to the Youtube of him singing it and also the lyrics and chords))Hhe is a wisdom master speaking from the commonalities of all wolrd religions of all world peoples in this 1979 song, "The Window".. I see it as expressing so much of what all of us here at Ted Conversations have expressed and shared and in particular as an invocation to acknolwedge that we are a global community and just not acting that way.
  • thumb
    Apr 21 2011: Too many politics involved with doing such a great thing as what you are talking about.

    However, education is the key to set the world free from the shackles in which are placed on itself by humans. By creating systems of education where it promotes open-ended learning in all fields of study, the world could start connecting. The connections would come in the form of the youth being able to figure out the great problems of the world and wanting to work with one another to fix them. These ideals are not found in the academic system of education, unless they are extra curricular in which many students do not take part of, as a far as a America.

    I find education to be the starting solution to your ideal world, which I agree with, the world that is. The Venus Project is an extreme ideology of where the world should start heading but since it being mainly structured on transhumanism and humanitarian efforts, this ideal is not far from yours.

    I find the world should start helping providing everyone that doesn't have the basic needs (health, nutrition, and shelter) met and thus should be the first goal. After all the primary needs are met, the rest is extra and life can be lead to the fullest.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Thanks for your comment and I share your values..see number 7, below on universal access to lieracy and number 6 that all peoples should have sound housing and freedom from hunger. Do you agree then that universal lietracy and education is a basic global human right of every person? That as a global community our desire is for no one to be hungry and evryone to have a safe and gabitable dwelling? That is what this conversation is intended to be values that transcend national identity, religion, politics..It is not baout proposing a global governmental is about determining whether our sense of ourselves as global citizens is actually expressed an held in shared fundamental values. And then I guess stage II would be how does your own government measure up on those values? Is there universal literacy and access to education in your country? Is that something you feel all peoples of the world asipre to and should have? I would love to see feed back from your students here ..what do they consider to be core global concerns that exprss who we are are as a global cuommunity?
      • thumb
        Apr 21 2011: Lindsay I could write you a book on the value I find in global connecting, and half of it would involve education a quarter love and another quarter for the 'sake' of the human species.

        I have too many thoughts concerning everything you are asking already existing to be able to simplify them just yet, in the future I will. I got time on my side, not to make a joke about your age, however it is elders like you who inspire me to think right and think it right now! while I can do change. As far as fixing the world... I'll do my part in education then see where I can go from there!
  • Apr 21 2011: why not use government word?

    this is impossible in current world.
    it is impossible when nations have war to each other.
    this is possible just in pure peace
    and peace is not possible among human
    while there is devil, so there is bad and good human
    this is possible just when you can change all humans to good human
    and this is impossible
    if possible then humans are not human and are animal
    animals live in peace and not have war
    so this is impossible
    this is world, this is life, this is human.
    you can not change life of world. you have not such power.
    this world is made in this situation knowingly and purposely and wittingly
    world should be so to good have meaning
    if there is peace then good has no meaning
    and if good can not be known then God can not be known
    God created all universe and sky and earth and nature for human needs.
    and created devil to say human do bad
    God did all these to human know God
    the goal of life is to:
    you know God
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: your commemt is off topic,..this isn't a conversation about forming a global government. or about the feasuibility of desireability of is exploring whether we the people of the world share certain core values..whether we hold values in common globally as global citizens which transcend religion and government.. would welcome your further comments provided thaey are on topic and speak to what values you believe are universal.
      • Apr 22 2011: the only common global core value of all people in world is God.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2011: Hi SR,

          What if we are all wired for empathy? See:

          Most religions officially subscribe to something like the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you want to be treated, or do not do to others what you would not want to have done to you.

          Its not clear that God is a common global core value. There are a lot of poeple who do not believe God exists, and as between those who do, some insist that their version of religion, based obn their particular book, is the only one that comes from God.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2011: Prof Ahmadi,

          Thanks..why don't you add that to our common ground moderator.

          "Global Core Vlaue is God" and see how the whole commjnity responds to that.

          INn the Graden

          Yes empathy is a core calue. and I believe you have listed an expression of that at the google moderator.

          I am actualy looking towards things that we could use as standrds for governance..ege our own decalartion of indrpendence and our consitution include notions of God and of some ways..but they afre expressed in amanner that all peoples can reer to abd from which peoples and nations can be goverened.

          Empathy is indeed a core value but how do you translate that into a possible basis for governance...???
    • thumb
      Jun 5 2011: Prof Ahamadi

      Here we are exploring two very specfic questions. I am glad to have you here but ask that you keep your remarks strictly and only to these two very big questions

      (1) are there global concerns that supercede soverignty?

      (2) are there universal human rights that every citizen on this planet has.

      We are not discussing religion. Only the freedom of religionand fereeddom from religious persecution etc. as they bear on universal freedpms, universal rights.

      We are not reviewing history .

      We are speaking here from the present moment.only

      We are not exploring whether there should be a global governmnet or exploring how that would work.That is not invited here.

      We are not exploring whether any of the existing world governmnets would be vehicles for a wolrd governmmet. That discussion is not invited here

      Nol links please unless they are to models of either universal human rights or discussions of what supercedes soverignty from a point of view of wolrd values.

      IHere we wnat to hear principlaly from you..from each of a wolrd citizen..

      (1) what rights do you personally feel are universal human rights
      (2) what issues about our planet are so important to the whole planet that they supercede soverignty

      Your voice..personally..and only on these two points.

      I would appreciate your specific consideration and comment here of what is posted as a charter for global democarycy at my posterous blog..see the link above.

      I would appreciate your specific consideration of the "common ground" values posted at our google moderator and your discussion here of any of those you think are most imporant as universal human rights or global values that superceded soverignty. (
  • Apr 21 2011: what is the best form of government?
    is democracy best form of government?
    do you accept this?:
    "if a shepherd have enough money for advertisement can become a president in a democratic society"
    do you know how many forms of government say Aristotle and what form is worst model in his view?
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: hello & thanks for your comment..I am afraid your quote is..perhapstrue but not just in deomocratic countries. I should, perhaps, change the title to avoid confusion.and invite conversation that is more to heart of my intent in this post..I am not advocating or inviting discussion on whether there should be a global democratic government..I am inviting an exploration through conversation in the TED community on whether the age of the internet has also heralded a set of global values that "WE the people of he world" hold in common..beyond religion, beyond soverignty, beyond any particular form of government. I would welcome your thoughts on that. Are there values and principles which you believe are global in nature..the violation of which is an affront to and petrhaps assult on the global community?
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Just wanted to add that I used the word "democracy" in the title of this conversation because as an ideal it represents a government by the will of the goverened based on a set of shared values. So here I am inviting discerbment on whether there is a global "will of the shared values" and in this context I think using the word Democracy in the title is to the heart of the intended conversation.
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2011: I like Democracy, but i think that what you want is impossible.

    1- Never, never, there will be a world government. Countries just don't want it, and it won't happen;

    2- Democracy is good for me and you, but no for everybody. Democracy is not universal.

    (9)Affirm that we as a global community are jointly responsible for exploring and seeking to understand and protect the earth’s ecosystems

    this point, tho, i think is quite reasonable and it must happen, or else we all be destroyed by the nature force.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Thank you Mario..I agree with you completely that no country, or not enough key countries would agree to governance by an external authority and don't envison that. The Charter for a Global Democracy, cited above, sought an actual world governing body through ammendement of the U.N. Charter. Their effort was visionary in recognizing that we are a global community and in trying to define those core elements that require global decision making. What I am inviting conversation on here is not a super soverignty but a serach for those universal values and morals which bind us a global community.?.The conversation I am proposing here is about a sort of international "We the people"..what issues transcend soverignty..what are issues are so important to the survival of the planet, to the helath and safety of the wolrd's peoples that all countries must honor and uphold.. I am also asking beyond that do "WE the people of the world" have a shared moral standard that trasncends and supercedes soverignty? May a country exploit children for the production of goods..use slavery to produce its goods? Persecute to the extent of genocide or "ethnic cleansing" the elmination of a grup of people because of their age, gender, rcae, religion?I am envisoning here only the possible creation of a "WE the people of the World " document and not advocating or seeking comment on whether world governance is possible.In that context is #9 the only "We the poeple of the world" value you subscribe to? Is genocide or "ethnic cleansing" an offense morality.?
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2011: I didn't say i just subscribe to #9, i said that this point is the only point that everybody on the world feels like something must be done. And by everybody i'm not saying that i just want that.

        The thing is...

        I want all other # to be true, i live on a democracy, on a violent city and i don't like dictators, genocides and so on. But that's me.

        One real example. Kadhaffi (Libya's dictator), he doesn't give a damn to democracy and human rights. But for sure he doesn't wanna die cause of a huge Tsunami. Even being a pig as he is, he can't be blind to the force of nature, that can eventually destroy him, his family.

        That's why i think that the acceptable principle to everybody on the world is #9. World must do something about it, or everybody will be destroyed.

        Go to Saudi Arabia and say to the king that everybody must be free to choose their own religions. He will get mad and red, and will send you to prison or worse.

        I don't know if that is better for the Saudi Arabians or not, because i'm not Saudi Arabian. For me everybody should choose their own religion or none at all (like me).

        I hope i made my point clear this time. I'm not against the points you wrote, but i'm from the West, just like you.

        Our morality is the morality from the WEST, not Global Morality.
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2011: Hi Mario

          Thnaks for your further thoughts and clarifications.

          I am glad to know that you support all of the universal human rights values in the model at my blog. And of course we all recognize these don't exisit now.

          President Obama in his speech before the british Parliament a few weeks ago ( I think it was that speech) made reference to universal human rights..rights we beleive all people should have wherever they are born. What we do with that is another consideration we are not taking up here.

          And what about our atmosphere, our oceans, does safeguading those in your opinion take precedence over Soverignty? ( agin we are not lokking at what todo about that..just the oundational values)

          Since you last commeneted another Ted Conversation seeking to epxlore what we consider Common Ground created a google modertaor which houses all the values poeple have put forwar as defining the "common ground". I put som eof mine frommy blog there.

          Would be gteat if you could check in there vote..add what you think is missing.

          would be very interested to hear your commentary here on what is there.
      • thumb
        Jun 6 2011: Hi Lindsay, i voted on some ideas there and added mine own. Great poll, btw.

        About the environment being more important than sovereignty, my answer is SURE.

        Sovereignty is on our minds, it doesn't exists without us. Environment is here, it's concrete, and our existence relies on it. The States, all of them - rich, poor, catholics, muslins, etc- and UN and other's I.O needs to answer to these questions right NOW. The planet is going crazy and we can't keep on livin like this.

        I think there will be an international organization for environment soon, very soon. It should be the most important on the system, or else...
      • thumb
        Jun 22 2011: Hi Lindsay. I opened a debate that has a text i think u will like. Take a look and let's discuss.

      • thumb
        Jun 22 2011: As a matter of fact, i should really have posted the text here. I went on rush and just now i saw that my conversation is pretty much the same of this one =(
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2011: My List Charter For A Global Democracy(1)Recognize that we are a world community and that all nations jointly, severally and singly have a duty to safeguard the health of the planet and all it’s peoples, including peoples of the future (2)Recognize the sanctity and dignity of every human life; value every human life ..All persons have an inherent and inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness without fear of persecution for race, religion,age , or gender(3)Recognize that the world’s oceans, its air, and it’s atmosphere belong not just to all of us but to all future generations and we as a global community have a duty to maintain the health and vitality of these global natural resources(4) Affirm that no nation may undertake , or allow to be undertaken , any production of goods or extraction and processing of natural resources that degrades or threatens the degradation of the waters or air of other nations (5 )Affirm that global interests require a world banking system and a world commodities markets that are transparent, ethical, and based in fair trade and commerce and which curb or strictly limit speculation and exploitation .(6) Affirm that we as a global community have an obligation to feed all peoples of the world so that no one goes hungry; house all peoples of the world so that none is homeless;(7) Affirm that we as a global community have an obligation to insure that every person hasaccess to literacy and to an education(8) Affirm that we as a global community are jointly responsible for the safety health and preservation of all species who migrate and live beyond the boundaries of nations.(9)Affirm that we as a global community are jointly responsible for exploring and seeking to understand and protect the earth’s ecosystems(10)Affirm that we as a global community are jointly responsible for the elimination of poverty.
  • Apr 20 2011: ya its essential one