This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
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?
James Whitehead
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?
Levi Leatherberry
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.
aaron mckeil
Levi Leatherberry
michael Chmpion
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
Levi Leatherberry
Manoj Pal
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.
Levi Leatherberry
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.
russell lester
Levi Leatherberry
russell lester
russell lester
russell lester
iNSTAED OF SLOWING ACTIONS TO CORRECT THE TREND IN THE CLIMATE IT MIGHT SERVE AS A MEANS TO ADRESS THEM ON A MORE DIRECT LOCATION BY LOCATION LEVEL. INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ACT GLOBALLY MAYBE WE SHOULD ACT LOCALLY. damn sorry accidentally hit caps locl looks like I am yelling sorry.
russell lester
russell lester
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.
Levi Leatherberry
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.
russell lester
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.?
Luis Garcia
Levi Leatherberry
"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.
Manoj Pal
Rhona Pavis 50+
Avais Ehsan
Levi Leatherberry
Luis Garcia
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...
Levi Leatherberry
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.
russell lester
Levi Leatherberry
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.
Jeff Cable
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. ;)
Levi Leatherberry
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.
Jeff Cable
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?
Levi Leatherberry
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.
Luis Garcia
Levi Leatherberry
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).
russell lester
Levi Leatherberry
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
Levi Leatherberry
Rhona Pavis 50+
Levi Leatherberry
Rhona Pavis 50+
Levi Leatherberry
Rhona Pavis 50+
russell lester
puppy power!
Rhona Pavis 50+
russell lester
Rhona Pavis 50+
russell lester
.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
Rhona Pavis 50+
russell lester
Rhona Pavis 50+