• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would you be willing to join a World Wide Democracy?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Tick

I've heard of it, it just doesn't bother me terribly. I'm already ruled partly by 300 million Americans. What difference can a few billion more people make? I've already specified this hypothetical government respects human rights, and has as US or EU like economy, so what tyrany can the subject me too?
Click to expand...

Who decides what is a human right or not? Is owning a gun a right? Is using lethal force to protect the theft of property and invasion of your home? Is free college a right?

Where is the accountability? Currently, if a Sen. or Rep. votes in their own interests, or engages in activities not in the best interest of their constituents, they can be held accountable and be ousted from office next election.

Who decides the punishments for breaking the laws?

What about private property rights? If it is for the greater good of humanity, we should trample over current private property rights?

These are just some of the huge obstacles to overcome.
Click to expand...

I think a good starting place for these is the UDHR. But your right, thier are many questions. That's why we have the democratic process. I believe, thought, that the net average, that is to say, the average belief of the peoples of the world, is a reasonable choice for how to handle these problems. And of course, common sence is important too. Free college would be nice, but if we have trouble feeding people, then it's not important. But if we have money to spare, then why not? I do not have so little faith in humanity as to feel that we can not overcome these difficulties.
Click to expand...

About the democratic process.

How do we make decisions? Who gives us the information that we'd need to make decisions on issues? Is there a required amount of information we have to read before making a decision, or can we just go willy-nilly and make uninformed, irrational decisions? Do we get time off from work to research?

Also, does the democratic process extend to everyone having an equal turn to voicing their opinions on issues? Or do we just record it and send it out, so that we can choose to listen to it or ignore that voice? So in actuality, it's just a feel good measure.

Are you an expert on the local economies of southeast Asia? I know I'm not, and telling those people how to run their areas would be borderline psychotic.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making an assumption I was not making. Having a World Wide Democracy does not prevent having smaller, local, sub democracies. Thier will almost certainly still be the equivilent of the American State.

On your other point, by saying vote, I mean just. You either elect an official or make a descision with your vote. On the question of information, would you not gain information the same way you do now? Reading books, listinening to interest groups, the internet, and your associates? What is wrong with that?

The swiss have been using at least a partial direct democracy for many years. I think it is at least a model for how it might work.
 
because nationhood is an extention of tribe..family. it doesn't go further really, and its required for people to act in ways that are reasonably fair.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
because nationhood is an extention of tribe..family. it doesn't go further really, and its required for people to act in ways that are reasonably fair.
Click to expand...

What question are you anwering? If the one above, why can't this extend to the whole world?
 
Nah... I'd rather just do my own thing. Homeowner's associations are horrible. Neighborhood councils... worse. City government... eesh. County/Borough? Uggh. State government... frightening. Federal government... totally fvcking scary.

Global democracy? Are you nuts!?

Here's an idea... Let's see if we can construct the biggest bureaucracy in the known universe! It'll be great!

Worst idea ever.
 
No, the smaller the government, the better, in my opinion. The US federal government has become too powerful and too far reaching as it is; put that on a world scale and I'll be looking for another planet to move to.
 
Yes, but only if parties from both sides get equal media coverage et al.. Not like in my country where the Communist Party is supposed to be 'centre left'.
 
It wouldn't work. Current democracies like the US are so large that there are literally millions of people who hold minority opinions that will never get to see their opinions and values put into practice by their government, they're simply outnumbered. A global democracy would be exponentially worse, with hundreds of millions of people without a real voice because their opinions can't overcome several billion who oppose them.

Ideally i think democracy works best the smaller it is. As other people have mentioned, the larger any government gets the more ponderous, slow, and corrupt it gets as well. Id be up for more globally enforced agreements on tariffs, trade, crime, etc though.
 
no way
we would lose our freedoms and be economically subverted/destroyed

sounds like a commie idea with a different label

and as far as i can tell , the UDHR is 100% communist, it was written by pinko commies i am sure
 
It wouldn't work, especially since a pretty large percentage of people are socialist liberals. I definitely would not want them running the entire world.
 
it wouldn't work because there are so many different people with different ideas in the world that there is no way we could all somehow agree on anything.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lose control over your country. 300 million vs just 1 billion from china alone. drowned out, and by poor people who frankly don't care about your well being... the richer less populous countries would be plundered. no sense of unity or real common heritage around the world. in a country you have obligations to fight for your country and such... the world? too diluted

you'd have to exclude a billion muslims anyways.

http://www.iheu.org/node/1541
islam is incompatible with the universal declaration of human rights
Click to expand...

If you knew an inkling about Islamic law (Shari'ah) you'd know that penalties like that, stoning for adultery, etc. only apply in an ISLAMIC STATE (think of the huge Ummayad and Fatimid states that existed over 1000 years ago). In today's world, not a single proper Islamic state exists; these laws shouldn't be issues. Saudi was fighting to have that clause in the UHDR taken out, yet they have laws keeping women from driving just because they're women, an assbackwards law that has no place in Islam.
 
Any world democracy would end up being very socialist, budgets would take money away from the economically prosperous countries and dump it into backwater hellholes because even though people are incapable of generating income, they still have votes. I'd be like a global robin hood. Worst Idea Ever.
 
No, nothing would ever get done because we can barely agree on how to run things just in our own democracy. Imagine adding 15 or 20 or 50 unique countries to that...does everyone get an equal say? Or would the smaller countries never have a voice because they are too small?
 
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: Soybomb
I have no interest in being partially governed by someone on the other side of the planet.
Click to expand...

Illinois? You are already partially governed by people 100s of miles away, what's the difference?
Click to expand...

There is no benefit to big government to me to begin with. I like small localized government. The closer your representative are to you, the more responsible they are to you. Smaller government is less wasteful. All the people in both my state and the US are pretty much working on the same american values of ideals. I see no reason to bother with battling for my freedom of speech with germans when I want to talk about the holocaust or freedom of religion with middle eastern countries or arguing with the brits to keep my second amendment rights. We aren't all the same, I don't get the urge to try to pretend like we are. To me it just seems like another way people will be able to force their values on others. I like my country and I'm here for a reason. We've been ruled by those on another continent before and I'm not sure we need to do that experiment again.
 
I suggest that anyone who thinks this is a good idea read up on the American Civil War. You will understand what results from a democracy that does not share by a majority people who have the same economic and social interests.
 
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
because nationhood is an extention of tribe..family. it doesn't go further really, and its required for people to act in ways that are reasonably fair.
Click to expand...

What question are you anwering? If the one above, why can't this extend to the whole world?
Click to expand...

because there are limits to the human animal that must be acknowledged. the 60's taught us that niave idealism is fantasy. from open marriages to communes to communism.. its all gone to sh*t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top