The great political movement of our time, is for the formation of an official world government - a global federation. Don't fight it outright please, because we need it. Fight for its correct structuring.
1. The need for a world government, with strictly specified and contained powers.
2. The need for the mass-decentralisation of our democracies. (many more nation states - much smaller).
3. Self governing, private villages.
----------------------------------------------------
1. The need for world governance.
If the libertarians had their way the entire world would be free to do what it wants, with everyone living in a super prosperous free-market harmony. The problem is they're right that freedom induces prosperity, but wrong in their assumption that that is all we need to worry about.
With real prosperity will come an inevitable rapid population explosion, in particular within the Islamic and African worlds.
If every Muslim has the potential to actualise their ideal of about 4 to 8 children per-couple, then they will quickly breed the rest of us out of existence (my video here). The hard truth is population must be balanced to resources, when and as required. This will take a given level of world government in the end. Population stability is a global game and it will finally require global cooperation and enforcement.
We can't forget that without active population control, we can then only get passive population control, eventually, and that would be ugly.
There's also the need for global environmental defense, and probably the need for a degree of fertility control to the end of resisting dysgenics. The latter is an incredibly sensitive topic of course, and I talk about it here, but it's irresponsible not to ask the question on eugenics. Dysgenics may well be a long-term threat to our species. It is also ultimately a global issue as we are in fact one great gene pool. There are no more islands in this world.
Building a global government, if we do, should begin with nations that are not clearly backwards, and then it should expand out from there. That is, it should only accommodate countries that know what basic human rights are, such as not abusing children with brutal circumcision, for example.
The current United Nations has become contaminated by giving voice to nations that are backwards, and this has eroded the UN's credibility. I believe we need to start again with a new organisation. The United Western Nations (of the world) sounds like a good idea to me.
Backwards nations should not be allowed to join the Western union until they have raised their game. Until then, they may need to be controlled to a degree, to the end of enforcing the most basic human rights, fertility management, and basic environmental defense.
Note: I know this looks arrogant, but when nations are committing sins on the level of chronic culturalised child abuse and gross environmental damage, etc, and refuse to reform in spite of the facts, then there's a place for so-called arrogance. In my view, the serious violation of human rights - and ultimate necessity - are issues that go beyond the geo-political abstractions of national borders, cultures and religions. On these levels, I believe outside nations have the right to take invasive action as required.
However, absolutely no world government should be given power to intrude on domestic policy that does not need to be their concern. The strictest of constitutions must be laid down to ensure that this does not happen.
Also vital, is the freedom of nations to abandon the western union without undue consequence of sanctions. This is very important to ensure that any given world government can be held to account by the collective, and ultimately abandoned and dissolved as required. The threat of "mass-Brexits" should always be on the world governments mind. To reinforce this, it could be a good idea to mandate opt-out referendums say every five years, for member states. A bit like an ongoing performance review with consequences.
We should never forget that positions of power are notorious for attracting people who want power for its own sake. Again, major institutional protections are essential.
2. The need for the mass decentralisation of democracies.
My included image below says it all. It's foolish to think that democracy on its own is the way forward, as it only protects people from the very worst excesses of government. The truth is, pure democracy equates to power to the propagandist at least as much as power to the people.
For example, we can let communists build their communist ideal if they believe in it; and when they fail, quickly and badly, it will induce them to immediately reform. Let them learn the hard way, fast, and be done with their economic naivety. And let them make an example for the rest of us to note and learn from.
Political decentralisation complimented with foot-voting will fix any bad idea quickly, and the need for long-winded political dramas will be put to an end. (Indeed, decentralisation will promote any good idea quickly as well).
In the competitive commercial world, failure is comparatively fast and swift, with reform following immediately and with results that are not too devastating for anyone in the long run. It can be that way for democracies as well. There will be no more Venezuela's with this structure, and it will be the end of much of the childish politics as we know it.
3. Self governing, private villages.
You don't have real freedom until you can choose your world - socially and structurally. When you can build and live in your own village, by your own select ideal, you have a kind of freedom that has become largely alien to us in the modern western world. My included video below is a comprehensive expression on this idea.
However, the 'village' political dimension is the least of our concerns for building an ultimate ideal political structure, because if I'm right then the private village will develop all on its own, just as soon as our democracies are decentralised and forced to compete.
When honour-real-demand-or-fail is the name of the game, like it is in the commercial world, then what is best can only win in the end. So if the private village is best, your nation state will have no choice but to facilitate them to hold onto its people.
----------------------------------------------------
A final note.
As I have been interested in politics and public policy for a long time, you can ask...Why do I think about taboo topics like population control and, God help us, eugenics? The answer is because I have no right to not think about these things, if I am to have a credible opinion on where I believe our political world needs to go.
Is dysgenics a real possibility? Yes. Is overpopulation a real possibility? Yes. Ouch, I have to look at these things then.
So what, to the best of my mind, should be done to address these issues? I have of course written my answers here and more comprehensively elsewhere on my blog. But again my point is, I have no right to make policy suggestions as though these sensitive concerns do not exist. If I worked like that then I would be just as illegitimate as the extremist-Left that believes in, and promotes, policy that cosmetically looks good though in spite of hard facts. I will be better than that, and so should all of us be better than that, because a failure to be realistic is simply dysfunctional and ultimately dangerous.
Another issue I have not highlighted, is the need to control rogue expansionist states - existing and developing.
ReplyDeleteOur technological status has become so advanced, and so capable of easily advancing further, that there's no room to just leave other states alone no matter what. In a nuclear (and other) age, the security risks are simply far too high, I believe.