This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and it’s a huge problem, but I don’t really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That’s amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It’s hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it’s hard to verify elections haven’t been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don’t think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don’t know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
It would be like EU, but worldwide.
As for internet voting, nah, you can’t preserve anonymity while ensuring election integrity
Yeah, this is simply the correct answer. Everything else I’ve read here ranges from overcomplicated to completely insane.
Why are people so obsessed with digital/internet voting?
Just use normal ballots, with pen and paper, and have a little patience while it gets collected, mailed and counted!
Or an EVM
I think internet voting for the less important things tonbe voted on. Like in addition, not to replace current big elections.
India manages with a population of over 1.4 billion people. It’s a mere six-fold increase from there to the planet, so probably whatever India is doing.
Ive had that opinion for a while too. Though my understanding is that cultural enforcement of norms and rules is big part that minimizes some of the need for a stronger state. Though this also has issues such as caste system and strict gender roles in some areas (speaking broadly about 1.4 billion over a huge land mass, so plenty of exceptions and the like).
Given that a decent chunk of the world holds political views I find repulsive, most notably around women’s rights, this sounds like a terrible idea.
Yeah, lol. This person clearly hasn’t thought through the consequences of letting india, the muslim world, and latin america vote on things that will impact their own nation.
Same sex relationships are another one, I’d wager less than half the global population are in favour of gay marriage.
By a lot. Not to mention trans rights
You need social proximity for democracy to work, because that’s how you have conversations about issues. We would need a shared global culture and factors that mean people at every level of society have friends distributed around the world. The specific rules and bureaucratic procedure are less important, the main thing is people in different places need to become more connected to each other.
There’s no good reason not to have a global direct democracy
It’s just old sacks of shit that don’t want to give up power
Despite not everyone having internet, more people would still end up participating in the process than our current systems.
I agree. I think with a robust enough proposal, there are a lot of people with power who would be willing to get on board. Some people though… they’ve shown that they’re willing to kill huge numbers of people to maintain and expand their power, and I don’t know that that kind of powermonger can be dealt with gracefully. And I think an internet-native global democratic movement would have to be started by people with internet access, and one of its goals would have to be providing, to the best of its ability, internet access to everyone.
Direct democracy sounds good on the surface, but it’s an impractical system when you actually into it. For example, direct democracy can overwhelm voters with complex issues they may not fully understand, leading to uninformed or emotionally driven decisions. Participation tends to be inconsistent, with only a small, active minority shaping outcomes. The process itself is often slow and expensive, requiring frequent referendums that delay urgent action. There’s the risk of majority tyranny, where the will of the majority can override minority rights, and it’s vulnerable to manipulation by well funded interest groups. Complex policies are also often reduced to oversimplified yes/no choices, bypassing the expertise and deliberation that’s required.
We don’t have direct democracy because it’s only practical in small scales. Once you get outside of your immediate communities like neighborhoods, schools, families, the system just doesn’t work. There’s a reason why the evolution of political system led us to where we are. History has shown that the best form of governments are liberal representative democracies with strong checks and balances. We should strive for that.
We’ve never really had direct democracy at scale becauseit was physically impossible.
But now we have the technology to implement it.
We have the technology to implement it. It’s extremely questionable as to whether we have the society to practice it.
No it isn’t.
Nepal just proved it.
These baseless arguments against the most fair possible system only benefit rouge representatives that seek to abuse their power.
It’s not a matter of technology, the concept is just inherently flawed. Even if every person could vote instantaneously and have their votes counted immediately, it still wouldn’t work because direct democracy requires everybody to vote on every issue. There’s just way too many things going on in the world for this to be feasible. Direct democracy is only works on small scales, and it’s just not a good form of government beyond that. This is why you rarely see direct democracy in history, the evolution of history has favored representative democracy as the superior form of democratic governance because it’s more practical, efficient, and flexible.
Democracy doesn’t require every person vote on every issue.
Also there has never been a direct democracy in human history because it has never been technologically possible, no Greece was not a direct democracy.
You’re kind of just grasping at straws here.
If it feels like a bad system to you then that’s a you problem.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day lmao.
Idk how historically illiterate you are, but direct democracy HAS been used plenty of times throughout history. Native American tribes like Muscogee, Swiss Cantons, and even early colonial New England towns all used direct democracy. There are plenty of examples of it being used, however, it’s only ever been implemented successfully on small scales. Technology isn’t a limiting factor and never was, it’s only a limiting factor when it’s implemented on really large scales due to the logistics, however, the issues of logistics go BEYOND just technological limitations. You would think that this is just common knowledge, but apparently not.
But if you’re genuinely incapable of comprehending any of the points that I made then you’re not qualified for this conversation.
Wow you are an annoying little pedant aren’t you?
I’m talking about a government ran by direct democracy, not tribal villages.
You’re clearly indoctrinated to want a master, so i don’t think this is a productive comment chain with ypu unblocked.
You’re literally brain dead lmao
Take a moment and think about what the global conditions were like 300 years ago, and think about how things improved every 50 years since then.
Around 1725, most of the world was rural, poor, and ruled by monarchies, with low life expectancy and little technology. By 1775, Enlightenment ideas and early industrialization began shifting societies. In 1825, machines and railroads transformed economies. By 1875, electricity and vaccines improved life. In 1925, cars, radios, and modern medicine spread. By 1975, civil rights, global trade, and computers reshaped the world. And today? Well, you can probably tell how our modern lives are better today than they were in the 1970s.
To put things in perspective, in the 1800s, only around the 10% of the world was literate, but today only around 10% are illiterate. Similarly, in the 1800s, more than 90% people were living in extreme poverty, but today that’s around 10%. The same goes for many other stats. What does this tell us? It tells us that things do get better with time. Even though we went through plagues, wars, famines, droughts, and genocides we did come out the other side better than we did before.
So maybe, just maybe, we don’t need a global government. Maybe vastly different people separated by culture, land, and history shouldn’t be forced into a system with people they don’t understand very well. Maybe it’s better for us to respect the concept of sovereignty that has persisted throughout history, and focus on strengthening the trends that have brought us tremendous progress over time… like improving the access and quality of education globally, developing and sharing new advancements in medicine, innovating new technologies to make our lives easier, pushing for and protecting civil rights and individual liberties, and generating wealth and prosperity through market economies.
The point is that maybe it’s better that we focus on improving what we know works from historical trends instead trying to create a global government, which will certainly create a whole new set of issues. Perhaps what we need is more dialogue and cooperation through forums like the UN instead of consolidation through a world government.
These don’t need to be mutually exclusive though. A lot of the progress in Europe the past 80 years is a result of the improved cooperation brought by the EU.
The EU isn’t like the UN, where everyone is equally represented (sans veto powers), but is a democratically elected super-national body with opposing super-national political factions. I can see a concept like that working on a global scale some time in the (relatively far) future.
The EU consists of a bunch of European countries that are similar culturally, economically, and politically. It makes sense for them to form a union that aims to achieve their common interests. A lot of similar unions exist like ASEAN, Arab League, African Union, etc. These are still different than having a single government for the entire world. There are way too many differences for that to work, different cultures, unequal economies, different religions, different politics, etc. This global government would end up trying to appease everyone to maintain the unity, but this would ultimately lead to have no teeth. In other words it’ll be reduced to what the UN is now.
Oh, I definitely meant far future. While the differences are far too big today, I can see gradually increasing cooperation between e.g. the EU and African Union at some point culminating in the construction of a governmental body that has some regulatory power over them both.
Once such a body exists, I can imagine that it over time accumulates power, bringing the two unions even closer together. The EU started out as a relatively small organ, and has grown gradually to what it is today over many decades. My point was that if some “global government” ever forms, I think that kind of gradual process is how it will happen. Starting out with trade agreements, and then gradually regulating more aspects of government.
I mean that’s a completely fair point of view. If we make the assumption that humanity will continue to progress with time, even if there are periods of regression, then I could see where you’re coming from. Humanity did evolve from being nomadic tribes to creating settlements of tribes to creating nations from settlements to creating empires from nations to today where we’re forming unions of empires and nations. It’s logical to think that with time we’ll have these unions merge and create a higher authority, and if we follow this trajectory it should eventually lead to a global government. I just hope we don’t go extinct before that happens.
You might be interested in the idea of World Federalism
Personally i think it would have to work as a series of institutions that each person is part of. Maybe a geographic organization that acts on municiple levels and coordinates with other municiple level orgs with a higher level org that coordinates agendas and the like.
But there some things that would make sense being technically bound by skill set. So more anarcho sydicalist structures for technocratic orgnizations as well.
Its honestly why i try to join democratic orgs where i can. My insurace is a mutual fund, my bank a credit union, grocery coop, electric coop, etc A lot of my software is devoloped in KDEs system whish is pretty democratic as well.
Im saving up with the intention to create a dual community land trust and housing coop in my area as well. Just taking back ownership out of autocrats hands where i can.
I’ve been kicking around the same idea of a “community land trust and housing coop” for the better part of a decade now. It’s on my short list of things I want to accomplish with my life that might be beneficial for society. Mixed housing community (large plots, multifamily dwellings, apartments, townhouses), support for cooperative company creation within the community, local store that sells the goods produced by the community (and online), plus actual facilities a community needs to thrive (community education auto/tech/farming/maintenance, help with transportation, etc).
I strongly feel like Cooperative based communities is the only way to gently guide us into a better future. It can compete within the commercialized world while still maintaining growth and development because the profits are being directly funded into the community as a whole. I think one imperative action that needs taken within the coop is the establishment and expansion into other communities so you create a network of these villages that can help sustain each other in harder times. Could even get already established coop’s like land-o-lakes or create other mass industry leaders so you’re not stuck with small ma and pa stores that can’t compete in this style of market we find ourselves in.
The realistic part of it is that we only have to convince a few neighbors at a time to grow it, and reach out to like minds to build the circle of communities. Right now my fights are paying off my house and saving money for it to build a equity base i can contribute and trying to nudge my communities credit unions to supporting coop housing loans.
Ive been too swamped but i was volunteering more with Habitat for Humanity too which would be a great partner for the land trust housing (where people own the invidual houses/condos) and the housing coop for people that dont want the indiviual responsobilty of ownership (but shouldnt be exploited by land lords all the same).
Tenent unions are really interesting options as well to get people organized and slow the grinding wheel down some. I wonder if a tenet union offering rental insurance, legal support, and price transparency might be a good starting place before full collective barganing.
This guy fucks. Those are really simple and really effective ways to make a real impact without a lot of effort.
Change your electric provider to a coop and now you’re chipping away at corporate interests while investing in your own community one bill at the time.
Same thing with banks, software has become so accessible that most Credit Unions will have apps and websites that are as good, if not better than any big bank. And you can rest assured knowing that your saved money is helping the guy down the street run his restaurant and not funding dead babies in Gaza.
Well, step 1 would be doing something about the US. The US wields enormous power and influence around the world despite having a relatively small population (compared to how much influence it has). What you’re proposing is that every person in Africa, China, Southeast Asia, etc, should have equal say in what happens in the world as an American - I agree with that, as anyone who believes in democratic ideals should. But countries like the US that benefit from the current arrangement would never allow it, and are well armed enough to be a serious impediment to that goal.
step 1 would be doing something about the US. The US wields enormous power and influence around the world despite
In progress. Sometimes you just need to step back and watch things fall apart. As part of what’s falling apart im fairly upset, but you may not be
Oh no, I’m not happy about the US falling apart, because the military strength is still there, and that creates a very dangerous situation. We could see a situation where a president starts WWIII and nukes China or something, just to distract from internal problems. The right is much better equipped and has more clarity of vision, while the left is weak, disorganized, unarmed, and confused. In the event of chaos and a breakdown in government, it’s hard to imagine that anything good would come of it.
In my ideal world, the US gradually draws back from international commitments while refocusing on domestic problems, accepting a smaller role and (after addressing domestic issues) competing with China through soft power, regarding who can offer developing countries the best deal.
Unfortunately, nobody seems to like my approach (people even call me an accelerationist despite my perapective being pretty much the opposite of that), so we’re going to crash at full speed. Hopefully the rest of the world survives.
I think it’s just American culture, we can’t accept potentially being #2, or not being Superman, or not pouring all our money into bombs.
-
Nation States exist primarily as a bi-product of war. The Russia/Ukraine war, as well as the Israeli genocide in Palestine, show that global economics carry significant weight in modern warfare. IMO in the long run, we will see the role of nation states reduced to legislated authorities. while their provinces/states shoulder the majority of the actual administrative responsibility. International trade, defense, and regulatory agreements will become become global standards (like GAAP) providing the stability that nation states used to.
-
The economy will not function to create artificial scarcity as the current economic status quo does. Taxes will not be something people think about regularly because our economies can sustainable provide for its citizens when there aren’t rich people carving out a massive slice for themselves.
-
With war largely being a bi-product of scarcity and greed; armed forces will expand it’s role as a logistics entity. They’ll continue being the primary vehicle for disaster and emergency relief. International collaboration in training and deployment will be the norm.
-
The global economy will boom as infrastructure and amenities are built for billions of people. Elections will become digital using block chain tech to verify integrity. Hopefully elections will shift away from electing individuals and towards electing policies.
In general I believe that the majority of shitty human behaviour should be expected in a dog eat dog world. As our global society shifts slowly towards egalitarianism, so will many of our contemporary problems fade away.
-
Honestly we would need to create a new way of making it work.
We have yet to see a new type of governance that was developed with our current tech capability taken into account.
There is no reason we can’t have medicament increased representation, and major decisions could easily get public opinion on, but we are trying to build on methods that are hundreds of years old.
I’m sure there has been many students that have written papers about a novel form of governance, would be interesting if she country actually tried it. Communism didn’t work so good in reality inspite of how it looks on paper… And neither did democracy apparently
Everyone would need infrastructure, not only internet access, but also power, a smartphone and/or a PC. Still millions of people live in areas where they don’t even have reliable electricity acces, or don’t even know how to read and write. How would these people, that live of soley their land, buy a smartphone or PC and internet access and be able or know how to use it?
You first need world education, basic world infrastructure (water, electricity) before you can even dream of internet access.
Is that even desirable? Sure we really need to get our shit together as a species, but most voted are irrelevant to most people. If I have no stake in an election and no reason to be informed, aside from whatever streamers form my echo chamber, do you really want me voting in something local to you?
Why wouldn’t we still have representatives, organizational structure? If there are some things we all care about like world president, why wouldn’t that organizational structure hold votes like they do now? My state runs an election and gets a result. My country rolls up all the states and gets a result. The world election bureau rolls up all the countries and tabulates the overall. A practical answer doesn’t need the internet and can operate similar to now, except give the UN more power
I think you’re talking about “direct democracy”. Where I live, it’s fairly common to implement that by town hall such that every resident votes for every item. There are good things about that but it’s very unscalable: it only works for small towns. The internet can help with the procedural aspect of scaling, but you’d still be left having to figure out to vote on a massive scale for things you don’t know anything about and have no stake in. Who’s got time for that?
I think perhaps something like a Grey Council from Babylon5 would be nice.
- Scandinavian-style education everywhere.
- Virtue > everything else in life > profits.
- Only people like Marcus Aurelius in charge.
