Universal Democracy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Universal Democracy » Universal Democracy

Universal Democracy
Should Everyone have a say?

Page: 1 2 3

Universal Democracy

Alekhine
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Over the Line
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 458

Posted 05/23/07 - 06:45 PM: Subject: Universal Democracy	#1
With the advances in technology and the "shrinking" of the world in the last century, people are much more involved with each other on an international scale. Given this, would a single democracy that would rule the whole world be feasible? Would it be better for all humanity to vote and weigh in on all the major issues, and have a direct system? With the technology of the internet available to us, it seems that this form of total democracy could work, but is it the correct thing to do? Are all the citizens of the world responsible enough to have a say in the lives of everyone else? If such a thing is not possible, would it be a good idea for there to be an "alternative government", an online democratic system that weighed the ideas of all the people and pushed the most popular views to the top? Is the world ready for complete unification?
Meh

si
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 148

Posted 05/23/07 - 08:06 PM:	#2
Definately not. There are too many cultures and people to be governed by one government. By making the world one unified force we increase the difficulty in maintaining a country. This one government is now controlling thousands of problems. It is not practical or proportional to have a single central government for the entire world. Some countries are theocracies they would simply refuse becoming a unified government unless their religion was in charge. There are too many religious wars and nations that all will want representation and equal influence to make it work successfully. Too many countries that have great disdain for each other to work as a cohesive unit. Besides the fact that some countries will not be given enough attention as others. There are too many cultural differences. Why would people even want to vote for something in Poland when they live in Canada? It relates to the idea that people care about the stuff directly affecting them. Having separate governments increases the likelihood that the people in that area will be taken care of. Countries have a hard time communicating in the UN nonetheless as one government. Why would people even care if abortion is legal in Oregon when they want to decrease poverty in Brazil? Governments are made for the people living locally. A democracy ideally is to serve the people I highly doubt the people would want this. The Internet has bettered communication and illustrated the time distance compression but just because I can chat to someone in China doesn't mean that a global democracy is a step away. I don't think one unifying government can even be a democracy because with so many people wanting different things it would have to be some sort of totalitarian government with the leader representing one group. A government should govern a country not countries. In order to represent each country and province/state in country we would have thousands of representers or governors/senators. There also is the language barrier. If there is legal abortion in Ne should there be legal abortion rights in Algeria. Why have people that aren't even in the country or state vote for it? If you aren't living in the area are you knowledgable enough to do what is right for the people who live there. And if the countries are not voting on every specific detail like abortion why have a unifying government at all? What do you see as a pro of having one global government?

Ajax the 8jax
Orangutan

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/24/07 - 07:28 AM:	#3
I have to agree with si. A global democracy would probably be nice in some respects, but I feel that it would be highly difficult, improbable, and ineffective. First of all, a global democracy would be very hard to create. It would require the cooperation of over 6 billion people and over 200 already existing governments in the world. Needless to say, not all these governments have friendly relationships with each other. It would be very difficult to negotiate a global democracy with countries that have unfriendly relationships. It would also be incredibly difficult to build a democracy that everybody wants. One must consider that not all people find democracy the best way of government and would object to a worldwide democracy. Second, this is highly improbable. As said before, establishing a global democracy would be very difficult. And...what is the chance of 200 some countries agreeing to embark on this formidable task? What is the chance of them putting aside their conflicts and such to cooperate in building this global government? I don't think they would do this. Finally, a global democracy would be very ineffective. There is the simple fact that People Don't Care! People wouldn't care about an issue on the other side of the world, and wouldn't vote because of this. People don't even vote on domestic issues in the United States! This being said, I don't think that people would care about issues pertaining to another part of the world, even if it was ruled by the same government. I think the only way that a global democracy would be possibly possible would be after some worldwide event that shakes the foundations of every government and calls for a strong unification as such. Technology might make a global democracy easier and a little more feasible but not by much. I feel that the downsides of a worldwide government outweigh the small number of positive effects. First post...how'd I do?
This is my signature.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 05/24/07 - 08:09 AM:	#4
Centralization only benefits the agents of power. Decentralization benefits the people.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

kinoko
kosp

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 25, 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/26/07 - 07:47 AM:	#5
A global democracy... That could mean a lot of things. Do you mean no government but the global one, or a global government in addition to local ones? If you mean no government but the global one, will there be different districts or provinces or states or prefectures with their own laws on top of the global laws, or will there just be one set of global laws for the whole world to obey? Will there be officials representing the people of certain governing districts when dealing with global affairs, or will everyone just be directly voting on the global issues? I don't understand why si even mentioned the Canadians not caring about Poland thing... that seems like a given to me. It wouldn't make any sense to have the whole world voting on matters concerning only one country... but you didn't say that's how it would be, did you, Alekhine? Obviously, like Ajax said, there's no way that every single government of the world would cooperate with each other. However, I don't think it's unlikely that almost every country might band together for the purpose of letting its people have a say in global affairs. Most of the countries of the world already have banded together for a similar purpose; 192 countries out of ~250 have joined the UN. Of course, the UN doesn't exactly demonstrate how effective a global collaboration of governments could be... but it does show that if there's a good reason, the world will at least attempt to work together. Also, to unite, countries won't have to "put aside their conflicts" like Ajax said. Call me naïve, but if two conflicting countries had the opportunity to become part of a large organization with many other countries involved, I think they both would eagerly join after thinking about it. The chance of a conflict being resolved between brothers is, after all, much greater than that of one between strangers, especially when the whole family is involved. When each brother believes he is right, he will easily seek the counsel of the family, and when the family chooses one to be wrong, he will have to either stay in the family with all of its benefits, or leave, with all two hundred or so of his siblings now his enemies. Sorry to keep disagreeing with you, Ajax, but still, I think a global democracy has much more potential than your third full paragraph says. Like I said before, no one in the right mind would create a government where the issues of one small area would be voted on by the whole world, so I agree with you there. But is the effectiveness of a democracy really measured by the amount of people who vote? Think about it--do we really want everyone to vote on important global issues? The only ones who vote are the ones who care, and I think that's for the better. Of course, not all those who care are as educated about the issues as they should be... but that doesn't have to do with the potential effectiveness of a global democracy; it has to do with that of democracy in general. Surely someone has posed that question in another thread... Back to the main topic. Basically, my answer is... Yes, a global democracy would be great, and it's possible. But it's government, so naturally, it wouldn't be simple. And that alternative online government idea sounds interesting, but I'm not really sure I understand. Elaborate on that, please. [first post ] Edited by kinoko on 05/26/07 - 12:08 PM
In verity, a modicum of snuff scintillates quite efficaciously when stellar luminescence fails to disencumber the umbra of the novalunar firmament.

Alekhine
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Over the Line
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 458

Posted 05/26/07 - 11:36 AM:	#6
OK, to clear things up a little bit... A global government could just be a strengthened UN, with each nation becoming a district and more power given to the UN to enforce its rulings much the same way that the United States government enforces its laws in each individual state. Each district would be independent of one another in terms of laws relating to local customs and traditions, obviously there are cultural differences between the civilizations that would prohibit some laws from being the same. In effect, the idea here is to eliminate a lot of conflict in the world by uniting us in a set of laws we all could follow, much like what you said, kinoko. People do care about issues that affect them, Ajax, and the issues that they would be voting on would both be local issues, like pollution in New York City, and global ones, like suffrage laws. I'm not the biggest fan of government in general, but I think that one large, unified government representing all of the people of the world would be better than very many smaller governments that have a tendency to disagree and fight. On the idea of an "alternate government", I am talking about a way to directly get the people to give their opinions on major issues in a very large public forum, where we could analyze the popularity of any one view in comparison to the others in the hopes of finding something we could all agree on. If you want to see an example of a plan for this, first view the thread "Ideological Democracy" in the Politics and Law section, and then follow and read the link. By the way, welcome to Philosophy Forums, kinoko. I have a sneaky suspicion that I know you. Please do not get offended if I am completely wrong in this assessment.
Meh

kinoko
kosp

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 25, 2007
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/26/07 - 12:28 PM:	#7
In that case, I definitely think the world is ready. In fact, that sort of international collaborative government is the only realistic "next step" in the process of improving international communications/relations/whateverations. That online alternative government idea is great (I just read the Civil Simian thing). There's still the problem of underrepresentation of those without internet access, but there are a few ways that could be solved pretty easily. However, I think the biggest problem [i.e., the one least likely to go away quickly] is the ability of any person to vote, no matter how uneducated, biased, or ignorant. This makes me think--what's better, having a few "qualified" individuals decide how to handle global issues, or having many definitely unqualified people decide? And you're a nosy one, aren't you, Alekhine? You guessed right. [I'd PM you back but I can't until I've posted five times.] Thanks for the welcome.
In verity, a modicum of snuff scintillates quite efficaciously when stellar luminescence fails to disencumber the umbra of the novalunar firmament.

Alekhine
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Over the Line
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 458

Posted 05/26/07 - 12:37 PM:	#8
kinoko wrote: This makes me think--what's better, having a few "qualified" individuals decide how to handle global issues, or having many definitely unqualified people decide? I don't think that anyone is "qualified" to determine who is "qualified" in that respect. I think that everyone is qualified because their opinion is worth the same (1 in 6 billion) as anyone else's. The fact that they may be uneducated just means that they have a different perspective on things than other people. The "uneducated, biased, or ignorant" people are still people with opinions that need to be counted. Just because we are more educated and post on a Philosophy Forum does not mean that we are more "qualified" than anyone else. The world is definitely ready. It becomes apparent when you look at the history of government and the sizes throughout history. As a general rule, with a few exceptions, governments are generally getting bigger (more area) and the populations are definitely growing larger. A world government would allow more efficient advances as well, especially in the realm of space travel. I am extremely disappointed in the way the UN has handled space. I think that space is something the whole world needs to share, and I don't think that any agreement made by current national governments would be fair.
Meh

si
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 148

Posted 05/26/07 - 12:38 PM:	#9
kinoko posted: "I don't understand why si even mentioned the Canadians not caring about Poland thing... that seems like a given to me. It wouldn't make any sense to have the whole world voting on matters concerning only one country... but you didn't say that's how it would be, did you, Alekhine?" "Would it be better for all humanity to vote and weigh in on all the major issues, and have a direct system?" I guess that is what led me to think that. I don't understand why you would mention what I said as something obvious since I stated it as common sense to illustrate a point. Well evidently I misinterpreted the question. Edited by si on 05/26/07 - 12:45 PM

si
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 148

Posted 05/26/07 - 12:44 PM:	#10
Then it isn't a government at all? Therefore you should have phrased the question quite differently. If each countrty ends up being a district to the UN then it is a government. Either way I'll be back later to argue this.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.