Levi LCL

Business Development Executive, Panther Social

This conversation is closed.

A global political party - which could lobby and create institutions of legitimate global grassroots governance via global political will.

For untold ages humankind has dreamed and foretold of its eventual unification in a dreamlike state of global unity. This age-old dream is becoming a practical and utterly necessary reality as the economic and social issues of our time call for a system of practical global social and political institutions and commons. From Albert Eisenstein to Aristotle they greatest intellectuals among us of realized the need for this alternative to mankind's present anarchic nation-state relations (or city-state for Aristotle).

Why must this remain a theory? It's is common sense to even the illiterate and uneducated among us who too call for global recognition of their rights and freedoms, and their stringent enforcement. What global social issue such as the environment, women’s rights, poverty, disease control, animal rights or those of refugees and nation-less millions (according to UN) can realistically circumvent 180+ government bureaucracies? The need for global governance has never been greater, nor the means to accomplish it easier. Today a global generation exists more familiar culturally and socially to one another across nations than to previous generations. Global youth unemployment and vast economic stagnation and environmental degradation have already forced upon this generation the need to work together intimately, globally, consistently or face a decline into extinction. If humanity cannot unite, then it is not fit to survive, but many know it is fit, it is ready, the 21st century will be defined by the rise of supra-nationalism. Thus as with all social movements before, a political and social party that is neutral non-partisan should rise to advocate, lobby, and create these institutions in a grassroots and truly global manner - a Universal Party.

There has been millenniums of talk on this issue, the time has come for action for change for it's realization by practical day-to-day action.

My question is to your own sensibilities; does this seem a feasible goal?

  • thumb
    Jan 18 2012: I believe time has come to establish global governance to tackle the tremendous pressures on our societies from environmental, economical, social and plethora of other factors that affects the lives of all of us, however prominently and/or silently.

    We live in an increasing globalized and interconnected world linked by trade; technology has certainly helped in getting us here. I am have daily astonished by the progress and the advancement we have achieved since we decided to live as a society.

    The future is here, but it is not here equally for all of us.

    With increasing globalization, progress, and advancement, we have the responsibility to see that everyone can benefit from what we have accomplished. We have all the tools to solve all our problems, but yet we lack the spirit to do so. What better way to galvanize the human spirit that our progress and inventions calls out for than to establish a platform where we can campaign for values of the cooperation rather than competition, golden rule, unity, and for acknowledgment of our identities not as residents of any nation states, but inhabitants of the this floating oasis we live in.

    Just have a look at the great disparities we have today: the greatest disparities in the world is in healthcare; corporations extract resources from the global north without paying a fair prices for these resources which the local population relies on, thus diving the local populace deeper into poverty; rising sea levels threatens coastal areas and low lying islands all over the world.

    To address the global threats that affect everyone, we need global institutions to manage them. To have those institutions and other forms of global governance, we have to change ourselves, our values and social organizations and the way we make decisions. The only way to do so is to have a open and global platform where we can advocate for values and to inspire others, and that could be the Universal Party.
  • Jan 10 2012: I sincerely hope not!

    The feasibility and possibility of supra-national governance scares me silly. Among intelligent people, anarchy is the only sensible form of government... where all can have a say and their opinions would carry equal weight. Decisions (if made) would not be based on rulers who 'know' what is best for us all. Placing power in the hands of chosen people is not going to lead to utopia. It would lead to a dystopian society, where the (unchosen) denizens will blindly accept what is decreed..

    Power resides with the wealth-holders and we all collude with this notion because we collectively appear to believe that people who are wealthy must be worthwhile. We keep hanging around their tables in the hopes of being fed some scraps and by this means we elevate the rich to positions of great power. You should not need reminding that the global economy was brought to near ruin by the wealthy and it is the poor who are being made to pay the price for that stupid adventure.

    Albert Einstein was credited with the following aphorism: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insanity. Mankind has made attempts at (national & international) unity since we could first organise groups of people. Rulers will rule and governance is frequently not benevolent. I don't want, nor do I need, yet more ways of telling me how I have to live my life.

    Now I have to go and find where the anarchists are holding their meetings. ;)
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2012: Systems are run by people, thus no system is prone to more success than any other - people make or break it. Thus I’d suggest social governance, which is based on making structures based on societies needs and facilitating its manifestation is the best alternative. Since anyone can imagine a better system.

      Intelligent people disagree, and rich people not working together in a grand conspiracy. The analysis that they are cooperating indicates more than anything your lack of knowing either. That is not meant in an insulting occasion, but rather the extreme degree to which they disagree (the influence) accounts of much of the world’s problems. Cooperation, and coordination between all parties and ideologies would be the goal of the party - consensus - which would likely produce a better, more well thought out, just and practical global system than any handful of spiteful individuals vying for power can currently create.

      Human civilization emerged from anarchy, during hunter and gather communities for thousands of years. Those are not enviable times. Besides if you’re an Anarchist and well-versed in politics you should be happy, the world currently operates under anarchy in which 185+ governments act with impunity the only check being threat of violence or economic disaster.

      In fact, anarchy is the best word to describe present global politics and human history. As far as I know there has never been a system of global order, only the anarchy of hundreds of numerous leaders and nations working in a global state of anarchy to surmount one another, to no end - as Einstein said repeating the same thing over and over hoping for different results is the definition of insanity.

      The only time the world doesn’t look anarchic, is when you zoom in and set a small scope of events. We’ve given anarchy millenniums; it’s time to give humanity a chance.
      • Jan 12 2012: Levi said: "no system is prone to more success than any other"

        We may disagree in the details as to how this situation arises but essentially, I have no disagreement with the sentiment you expressed.

        You also said: "Thus I’d suggest social governance, which is based on making structures based on societies needs and facilitating its manifestation is the best alternative"

        How's communism working out? Just the same as capitalism... it swaps a different bunch of rules for the ones it displaces... that is all. The consensus would (of necessity) have to be reached by people agreeing that all of their aims are for the good of the common weal. The notion of everyone being equal when some are rich, poor, well educated or illiterate is not one that I can subscribe to.

        Equality does not come about by the well-educated and relatively wealthy, giving away all that they own and becoming dumb. Suppressing individual desires for the good of the species is something that may be found among ants or bees. Somewhat sadly perhaps... we never see this trait in humans en masse.

        Like many others, I suspect that most people do not actively pursue a global or even a local political stance. All we want is to just get by without too many interfering impingements on our lives while we raise our families and pass on. In truth, the people who desire to have the power to change things are usually proven to be the least suitable to hold it.

        Barack Obama went into The White House thinking he could or would be able to change things. America is still an economy based upon the mighty war machine and the hawks dictate how the doves must behave. It was ever thus and change won't come with our expressions of hope for a new way. Power is a corrupting influence and the wielders of great power tend to be corrupt. Which of the power wielders is going to accept social governance and the diminution of their own influence that it will presage?
        • thumb
          Jan 12 2012: Thanks, on the point you made, "I suspect that most people do not actively pursue a global or even a local political stance. All we want is to just get by without too many interfering impingements on our lives while we raise our families and pass on." This is true, the stance of a global political party would be the eradication of the 185 bureaucracies that hinder global trade (but also don’t monitor it), but also don’t manage national resources, manmade resources or technological achievements with any measure of competence. A global forest department may well do better to combat deforestation for example, as it as an institution has not only the responsibility but the capability to achieve it.

          Public support is a question of public awareness of a problem, nationalism causes severe crippling problems that have been chronically overlooked and underreported, if the public is proffered this idea in a blunt and direct way people will generate their own opinions some for, some against, the task then is to gather supporters and mediate adversarial views.

          As for bad leadership, that is a big concern. However the nature of big systems of governance is the demagogues have to be far more moderate, with moderate opinions. A global system wont make perfect leaders, but it will weed out the genocidal, tyrannical, and extreme members which are currently heads of state, and beyond contestation. It also relies on the party being successful in espousing in its membership the values of all for one - one for all, mutual interest, and a distrust of zero-sum mentalities in social leadership. The beauty of allowing everyone to vote, is that Korean people have no personal gain in voting for the promotion of a corrupt African leader to global office, and vice versa, by allowing foreigners to participate in elections it is far less likely you will have leaders who try and screw outsiders, scapegoat on them, for their own devices, as the worlds diversity becomes a safeguard.
    • Jan 13 2012: I agree with Jeff, love the anarchy comment, not for sake of anarchy but because leading is serving. Levi, have you noticed how leaders tend to loose ground? There is a saying "he standed on a brick and became dizzy" meaning just stand on a high place and its too much. Another quick question how will you overcome those current tyrants who dont want to relinquish power? By force?... please dont say it so.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2012: By force? Nope. Definitively not, any party for everyone cant justify attacks - since then you wouldn't be for everyone, unless you're attacking yourself and that'd just be a form of extended suicide. The Parties slogan toward violence would be along the lines of "the only justified violence is self-defense".

        How would this play in replacing tyrants, if these nations were apart of the system of global governance they'd be held to strict standards of general accountable election, as well as laws regarding the respect of independent media. Not many tyrants can survive a free media and fair general election. The media and election systems would be protected by a force, which would do so to defend the rights and freedoms of all people, attacks upon theses systems would be self-defense, and would be limited to the perimeter of the facilities - never full-scale conflict (as only the individual leadership is often responsible).
  • thumb
    Feb 1 2012: Hey. Some interesting ideas and questions Levi. You seem to speak from a utopian perspective with regards to the idea of global unity. I think it's necessary to recognise a difference in definition between Global Government and Global Governance in that governance does not imply a top-down hierarchical structure that a global party would need to enforce within capitalist constraints. Through established institutions such as the UN and the EU we can see a growing integration of nations foreign policy objectives in addition to the increasing interaction across borders through Multi-National Companies. This globalisation of communication and integration would suggest that many levels of governance are already in place (through various forums and institutions) to tackle many of the world's crises. Top of the list are, as you mentioned, security issues, environmental issues and managing the global economy. So would it be right to suggest that global governance exists to a certain extent already? Clearly it faces challenges but within the current international climate a complete global social upheaval is unforseeable.

    Your ideas seem to reflect some of Kant's thoughts and prudence on the idea of a global unity and the idea of world citizenship that leads to a mutual cooperation across an independent federation of states. Through threats such as global warming, we can see negotiations to TRY to cooperate against issues beyond national agenda.

    Would you agree with some of the ideas of certain Social Democrats who would draw from the utopian perspective and say that this 'social movement' can become a social political movement through democratic means in order to bring about the equality and unity you speak of? Could you not argue that in order to establish a more efficient global community it is necessary to draw money away from the capitalist monopolies/cartels and put money back into the development of economies and reduce foreign investment for SELFISH GAINS?
    • thumb
      Feb 1 2012: Yeah, global governance does exist to an extent - a very loose extent, without centralization in parts that require it, or accountability beyond that held by irritable and change-adverse national leadership. Complete social upheaval is not necessary to make change, although with global youth unemployment what it is and the looming possibility of another severe global economic recession it may be a possibility.

      Regardless, the goal is to reach a point where society can change worldwide, without the threat of extinction or revolution, but a steady paced evolution that comes from collaboration and the recognition of our flaws in addressing existing social systems. Nothing needs to change, no technology or invention, simply a new culture of politics, and method of practicing it that scorns the zero-sum mentality and looks at the well-being of systems for our species, not arbitrary divisions of it. A fresh perspective, the party wouldnt look for a miracle, or some utopia as you describe, merely a change in the character of politics. Your calculation of the world's readiness or ability to accomplish any change in character may be assisted by this realization, that if the stateless persons, diaspora, and expats of the world where counted 'the people who feel out of place in their nation' who do not have complete political or social representation - they would be around 565 million people - which is the more than combined population of Australia, Canada, The United States, and Russia - give those people a voice and a place within international political culture, a lobbying force, a organizing, force and they will reform and redefine its very character. We don't need a revolution, we need to give these people recognition - when they get figured into any political scenario their overwhelming voice demands new global governance by the needs of their existence alone.

      Kant, Social Democrats whatever - just represent these people, and let their voice redefine the world.
  • Jan 23 2012: Where does Aristotle advocate an alternative to the city state??????????
    • thumb
      Jan 23 2012: Oops, Socrates has many suggestions in his theories expressed in the famous quote "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."
  • Jan 23 2012: I believe we are at the point of change ,with the financial problems,if the youth use Icleand as the benchmark with their legislation on free speech in the press as an example and to i nsist that their memnber of parliment adopot this policy and boycott those that don,t or put their own candidate in that will.i believe that this action will be a much more usefull action .used with protest on the street ,but you would need an organisation like Wikileaks to keep them honest.you have to remember the elite will fight dirty thats why i believe the internet should be controlled and policed by the public independant of politicians,untill such time they can be shown as honest. to this end i don,t believe there should be career politicians, they should serve ten years in industry so that they have some experiance of what the average porsons problems are .
    if other countries adopted this approach,all countries could then invest in the internet with the view to video conferencing,to try and resolve some of the worlds problems ie monitor and police the multinationals and banks,stop suppression of inventions by vested interests use the internet as a world iniversity with world qualifiactions,in all diciplines and trades, just think what that would mean to the youth,and what oppertunitys this would open up. the Army could be used not for war but disaster relieif and development around the world.
    this is some of what,s possible its up to you to make it happen
    • thumb
      Jan 23 2012: Sure. There are many policies that could be pushed through by the party, sure transparency and media rights would be high priorities and could be complimented if seen as appropriate with non-violent protest on key issues. In terms of the internet being free, SOPA just got struck down so good news on that front.
  • thumb
    Jan 16 2012: Okay, sure. They do seem questions the average joe might ask. You may explain that the UP only votes on global issues currently, there is a list of global issues and suggestions for their repair via mechanisms available to the UP, and members each have one vote to cast in favor of issues, and their resolution.

    When the UP gets at least 500 active members in a given city or territory a group will be made, to help address these issues. Currently the UP is focused globally, as this is the advantage being the first global political party. Global issues are debated and implemented, and candidates from existing governments are selected and supported (with ad campaigns, funds,community drives and support) by the UP. The party fund raises for global social causes, say the environment, and gets $100,000 (which goes a long ways outside the US and Western Europe) this goes into the election of a green candidates who has similar philosophy, goals, and record as the UP. The UP coordinates after election (if successful) with the now gov employee, and gets them to enact new administration of the issue. If the candidate does not perform, come next election a new one will be selected. Members chose whether the green candidate stays or goes, and is updated on the ongoing UP//candidate relationship.

    Of course a wide range of grassroots activities are employedc as well, town-hall meetings, marches, speeches, social projects etc. But it is often wise to exploit the existing system from within, and by its own means for global human issues, than to circumvent it with one with no legal powerbase. So the global party does both, work to build the new while fully utilizing the old.

    This system requires working with existing zoning and will not be applicable to watershed based selection.
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2012: well regardless I would love to help if you could email me a copy of a sing up sheet or whatever I'llk start canvassing
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2012: Send me and IM with your email. I will pass it on to the coordinator for these affairs myself.
  • thumb
    Jan 14 2012: People fear big government. Instead I hope you'll think over my suggestion that watershed which often cross state and national boundaries but are clearly subordinate to the larger sates and nation states around them might prove more practical.As I said in an email to you: A Regional and Global government over top of big brother will be hard to sell,people will not like the idea of a political body able to tell the USA what to do (see the failure of League of Nations) but those same people who would be rioting about a global government wouldn't fuss much about a neighborhood meeting even if some of the neighbors were from an other state or country.
  • thumb
    Jan 14 2012: It could begin as Grassroots movement to establish a level of representation between the county and the state the would in cases where the watershed crossed state or national borders have special status for input to interstate and international issues relating to it.

  • thumb
    Jan 14 2012: we could begin as a grassroots movement and have each watershed in existing nations petition for the representation to be adjusted. Keep the state of Texas but make sure that their is a Rio grande district maybe between the state and county level? My personal exp is that above the county level Democracy's performance drops off sharply.
  • thumb
    Jan 13 2012: I am willing to begin registering voters as eligible for voting in UP elections I will begin in my area if we can work out what the processes and how and where the voter lists should be kept and, it would help if we had a very basic manifesto fo the UP concept that was agreeable to existing UP officials. Can this all be made available? I have experience with census voter turnout drives and other door belling projects, I will need some very official very safe documents to collect any signatures at all.

    A what does signing this get me
    B what does signing this cost me?
    C will signing this cause junk mail or telemarketers to increase?
    Dis this a recognized political body by the USA? by the UN? by anyone?
    E what are the politics of the UP as pertains to guns abortion ect ect ecft ect
    these sorts of issues will come up.
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2012: Thanks for your enthusiasm, the UP is currently registering with the United Kingdom. Once the rules and regulations are received they will be relayed to existing members.

      Joining the UP internationally is currently free although some European membership incur membership fees in order to maintain event schedules and offices.

      You may purpose a manifesto, the UP currently has a manifesto that was produced by its founders in an open-source collaboration. Unfortunately it is currently unavailable as the publishing house retains that free online publications are contradictory to official paperbacks (this will be resolved in the future).

      A. Nothing if not in EU
      B. Signing is free (just costs of printing)
      C. No junk mail increase
      D. The UK and EU are currently in the process of approval, as the UP is moving from its Asian headquarters.
      E. The UP is a platform for social causes, to unite all people, and leaves personal values up to its membership - values such as freedom of speech, right to life, the environment, etc which concern us all are its focus. If the UP took personal stances it would be impossible to be inclusive to all communities, all people but those of liberal or conservative stock - thus ineffective and generic.
      • thumb
        Jan 15 2012: I need to clarify The questions listed are the questions I expect to deal with being asked while enrolling voters. I assume that the idea is to form a large international body of voters, and I assume therefore also that there would be elections, and that a process for submitting locally and proceeding up regionally to globally these resolutions would be reviewed and acted on.

        When a voter signs up I need to let them know when and how they will be able to vote.

        I need to be able to tell them what district they belong to that sort of thing.

        Again (Did I talk to y9ouy about this) I am In favor of organizing by watershed, for example I would live in the Pacific Columbia basin lake Chelan drainage. Lake Chelan is fed by springs and glacier fed rivers from the surrounding montains containing the villages of Stehikin Hilden Lucerne Manson and the Town Chelan. Chelans population is 3,890, manson 1,468, togeather the others cany be more than 1/2 manson. call it 800, 6000 to 7000 people total. If I could just use existing voter registration and invite everyone to come and vote in an election or come to a caucus for the drafting of resolutions that would be much easier. I would like to see a set ratio for watershed to drainages for representation say 1 rep per 1000 residents round up. Then the entire drainage thru each watersheds reps would vote on resolutions those would be then voted up or down by the total population of the drainage in a general election. The resulting resolutions that applied to local issues would be enacted and those that were issues involving all those areas which drain into the pacific would be brought to a cacus of pacific reps at a ratio of say 1 rep per 1 000000 population round up. ect.?
  • Jan 13 2012: To me it is not a feaseble goal. Its surely good hearted thinking. But I think we are very very far from this nice tought to be possible. Just a few questions: Would it be capitalism? Really are we convinced that we have the right answers, just to roll-out the template all over the world? I actually would like less government than more. Very utopic. Every great idea has to have the means to make it a reality, how would this idea progress into a reality? We are currently moving into a world of greater gaps, rich and poor, religions, ideas, healthy and ill, too well fed and hungry. How could this be possible? Respectfully just an uthopic idea. How to prevent this from being just a large centralized monster.
    • thumb
      Jan 15 2012: In my experience the people who believe in it the least are the people who need it the least. If your a broke citizen of the Third World, who's job, rights, and very life is dictated by foreign powers or by the erratic elitist powers of your own nation, with no stability, no safety-net for generations - among these people you find a powerful and daily expression of human sentiment and the need for global governance. Basically if your nation works, you're more inclined to disagree - fortunately for us that is around 20-30 countries (depending on ones class) out of 185+. This is of course an opinion, but it does make sense that a refugee in the Congo would turn to international governance and a kid in suburban America who would do it at first for novelty. Nation-state models are by large a failure.

      "Would it be capitalism" no, this is a wise concern of course when you look at what is happening over the last decade, especially in the West. Most economic problems come from dogma, the belief in applying philosophies, not pragmatic systems based on the present human experience. Realizing this the party has no economic belief or dogma, merely a philosophy of 'do what works' and the model of 'a social economy'. A social economy being this, we take our present economic systems - identify their weaknesses and flaws (publicly) which harm society, then implement systems to address these errors, this new system will then have it's own flaws - which may in due time be identified (publicly again) debated, then steadily implemented. The Idea being that the market should serve societies needs, and be adapted to further address them.

      The answer this system purposes is that economic troubles by large come from a god-complex in an economic system and its people, what needs to be implemented is an idea of socially acceptable human fallibility in the culture of economics and business, and a willingness to admit and change flaws. Economics, without dogma - just results for everyone.
      • thumb
        Jan 19 2012: I agree that we need a new economic system that is more humane. The problem I have with capitalism, dogma and rationality aside, is the extreme belief that capitalism needs no change. The failure to learn and adapt based on what is working and what isn't might be capitalism's greatest fault. We need a new systems that is ready to change based on real world experience. We need capitalism to be less ideological, and more clinical based.
  • Jan 12 2012: Chronological age is irrelevant. What matters is the goals, the values, the positive words, the positive acts. There are good oldies and good youngies. We positive people must join forces as efficiently as possible and quickly implement all of our positive plans. I wanna live happily ever after and I know that is possible because there are so very many wonderful people in the world like us. I just think there is far too much patience in the world. Let's hustle. Thank you, russell, Levi and all of you positive ted.com people.
  • thumb
    Jan 11 2012: just correct two things ................ economy and jusdice ........................how ? big question ?
    • thumb
      Jan 12 2012: The world's economy is already global, what there needs to be is regulatory bodies and checks and balances to encourage transparency and ethical regulation which comply with industry, professional, and community standards. WTO is tough to change, so the creation of a third party research and regulation body staffed by an international team of highly qualified and socially responsible individuals would be a possibility. As for justice the ICJ would simply need fangs, and the ability to hold regional and global as well as national leaders accountable.
      • Jan 13 2012: Hi Levy. I would like to offer this:

        We cannot generalize that all of the World Economy is global, there is a major fault in that idea. Specially the larger markets are intimatly linked and hence yes for those linked countries we say in simplicity that it is a globalized economy. But it is also true that many and I mean many countries are left out of these market linkeages. And I also refer to supply and demand of goods market, not only the capital markets.

        The world's economy has a few titants in size, then a few midgets and then over 100 countries that are tiny. Would your world government stop protecting the current un-balance of things? or it will ensure that poorer less powerful countries have equal representation?

        It will be quite the procedure to make sure a man in Burkina Faso has his voice being heard and represented.In general your goals seem right to me, the tool you propuse (a single government) is not.

        You might find interesting the ideas of the late Peter Drucker, written over 50 years ago about Corporate Nations. That is companies that are larger than countries. Hence you become a "citizen" of company A or B. Scary? Tought so...
        • thumb
          Jan 15 2012: If there was a world government there would be no 'countries' so to speak, there'd be nation-states a respective order below regions. Under which everyone is an equal citizen, with equal rights, and a single vote. As mentioned before this the world would be governed in ascending order, village by village, city by city, county by county, country by country, region by region, global by global, meaning the issues which effect villages or countries will be voted on by it's inhabitants. This is the only system in which a man's voice (or a woman's) would be heard in Burkina Faso, alongside those in say Sweden, under a global legal and political entity which ensures equal protection. As nation-states have no legal or political obligation to listen to citizens of other nations, and often simply don't.

          By providing the natural resources and public decision making in the hands of those affected, stronger and cleaner governance can be expected. Social governance is 50% media 50% governance, meaning for each government body there is a independent media watchdog funded through a small portion of a tax (not run through government agencies). To allow for unprecidented levels of participation, interaction, awareness and transparency on each level of social governance - after all it wouldn't be 'social' if it wasn't.
  • thumb
    Jan 11 2012: yes and it is a scientifically definable boundary which makes arguments over jurisdiction less likely ( i Hope ) to result in violence. also an area should not exceed in its population the capacity of its watershed or its own plus water sheds devoted to supporting it which limit their own growth.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2012: I admit once again it’s a smart idea. One I hadn’t considered before, I can see more specifically how it could be applied to solve political disputes in say Africa, where many of the traditional identies of ethnic groups and cultures were defined by rivers not square lines in the sand. However there are many border disputes it would likely intensify, and the power to redefine national borders would require a global social order to implement, as scientists lobbying governments of 185+ countries is having a difficult enough time stopping global warming and ensuring the survival of our species, let alone new political boundaries.

      Particularly since the politicians involved would be essentially voting and campaigning to eliminate coworkers, and opponent’s jobs, as the duplication of jobs would be immense if dozens of governments were meshed, and not retained.
  • thumb
    Jan 9 2012: I am in favor of organizing the world by watersheds, that is for example the Columbia river would be a part of the north American pacific coast and smaller areas in side it would be equivalent to county or town level governments the idea would be that these "political" divisions would be more natural and in many cases crosses existing political lines, the Columbia watershed is in 2 nations and 5 or more states and Providences for example.Each watershed could send a rep to the level above it all the way to the world guiding body the council of oceans.
    • thumb
      Jan 11 2012: That is an innovative idea.

      From my own proposal I was suggesting governance be modeled from nation-states, to regions, to global structures. The reason being both national, and regional structures already exist and many change-adverse populations would be inflamed by the eradication of their identity. However by adding two layers of political, social, and economic power above nation-states (regional and global) many people would come to regard nations with the same relevance we currently assign to counties withing a provincial territory.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jan 9 2012: No. Neither of those organizations are supranational, they are run by a few nation-states for their own interests, The EU less so than the UN. However the EU model will never expand throughout the world, as it is based on an ethnocentric view of what makes a European. As seen by the treatment of migrants throughout the region. The good thing about the EU is it can make binding decisions, so think of the EU being on a global scale but without being European, same structure less xenophobia.
  • Jan 8 2012: Sounds good. Let's do it. I suggest we call it the PARTY PARTY or the POWER PARTY or the PPP (Positive People Party).
    • thumb
      Jan 9 2012: The Universal Party has been around for a decade and has thousands of members in dozens of countries. Good luck with the name change, but thanks for support of idea!
      • Jan 11 2012: Thanks Levi. I wonder what they believe in. POSITIVE EVERYTHING ONLY ALWAYS?
        • thumb
          Jan 12 2012: Their views comply largely with those I've expressed in replies, comments, and the original posting, they're on facebook.
      • Jan 12 2012: Thanks. Sounds good to me as long as they persist with positive everything. I'll check it out when I have time.
    • thumb
      Jan 9 2012: we find ourselves in similar chats maybe we can make it the peoples universal party party youth .....

      puppy power!
      • Jan 11 2012: no point in excluding the wise and wonderful older people.
        • thumb
          Jan 11 2012: I hope your right I crossed the dont trust em line 4 years back. and I still feel like i am a radical teenager
      • Jan 12 2012: Russell, I tend to not trust people who do not trust people with no valid basis for their mistrust. Your statement sounds prejudicial, discriminatory. Had you said that about a racial or religious group, just think of the hollering you would have generated. Rethink your position. Perhaps you are a radical person.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2012: Sorry

          .I am dating myself here , as in showing my age, but I was referring above when I said
          "I crossed the dont trust em line 4 years back"
          I was refering to the
          " Dont trust anyone over 40" saying a pop culture reference to the us 1960's when the man and the establishment were the universal bad guy and any one over 40 was a narc....

          .and to the fact that I am 44 and thus 4 years over the line

          the statement that I still feel like a Radical Teenager is meant to imply that maybe some peopel over the original questions age of 30 might still in support of change.

          I certainly Hope I am A Radical Person, Thanks for the feedback.

          To be clear I do not think I act out of prejudice or bias and I try to act only after seeking to educate myself and form an informed opinion.

          Am I perfect?

          god no!
          Do I make choices from bias ? I certainly do try very hard to avoid doing so.

          Perhaps you are making quick judgments on my positions
          which I have not presented clearly enough?
          I am sorry for any lack of clarity from me but I am very enthusiastic
          to have found a site where I feel the exchange of ideas is productive
          and not just a place where people can launch abuse at each other.

          In my enthusiasm perhaps I am not taking time to put my positions unambiguously
      • Jan 13 2012: Your input to this conversation is appreciated. Just keep expressing your true thoughts and true feelings and you will effectively communicate. I apologize if I misunderstood the point you were making. Communication is a 2-way street. It could be me or you. I just do not think age is a relevant issue in this particular matter. If you do, that's fine. I respect you for expressing your true thoughts and feelings, whatever they are.
        • thumb
          Jan 13 2012: I agree that age is not a relevent issue, my comment was inspired by the 52% under 30 ect portion above.
      • Jan 13 2012: Thank you for explaining that, Russell.