More Global Governance

[ttiiyy]

This is an unrealistic idea. When Russia invaded Georgia, the UN failed to stop it.

That's the truth.

[oliviamulgrew]

master manipulators and power freaks all wanting to manipulate and control you WHY ..because they feel they have to control the universe they are part of ..why because the feel they are separate from it ...thus powerless freaks MANIPULATING HOW YOU THINK AND MOVE AND REACT SO THEY CAN GAIN OBJECTIVES AND BECOME GREAT HAHA

[RVqueen]

Large communities will vote no and view this order as illegitimate... can participation in this not be optional? What sort of force will be used against those who voted no or did not vote?

[TheModestAgnostic]

Participation could be optional. It could be optional within your city, state or country too. That tends not to work as well, but it would be a good start.

[RVqueen]

Anarchy is the only way to beat your NWO. YAY Anarchists!

[SnipeYurFartbox]

Funny, just as little as two years ago I was called crazy for saying there was a coming one world government. Now it's all coming together. This is fucked up man. I vote FUCK NO leave me and my family alone I don't want this and so should want this.

[SnipeYurFartbox]

I mean And so no one should want this

[littleredbirdy]

The people with the money and guns do not want that to happen.

[littleredbirdy]

Not only does the average person not know what is best for anyone, the potential for abuse is too dangerous.

Imagine.....

[eman8111]

fuck the un fuck the new world order!!!

[jimjimereeya]

I think you had some really valid ideas about world politics and ... stuff. (?) But, I couldn't really pay attention. Had trouble focusing. -- The only idea that came across was your first one about the earth rotating in a westward direction. (actually you didn't say it, but kept showing it) I couldn't stop thinking about that. I think that would be pretty cool. Sun rising in the West, setting in the East. Cool!

[TheModestAgnostic]

LOL .... I had no idea ... well spotted:-)

[TheRealEda]

Comment: The Swedish Instrument of Government says that the Swedish king cannot be prosecuted. Thus, he can still murder someone without punishment. Ironically, the king is also forced to be a protestant Christian. Thus, he is free to murder, steal, rape and assault someone, but cannot question the existence of God. How's that for enlightenment? ;-)

[gr0mithtimon]

if he would do something like that the government would be forced to change the law and prosecute him, or get their asses democratically kicked

[TheRealEda]

He he! You've really got too much time on your hands... But I love your videos. Keep them coming!

[haircutname2]

Won't the individual be lost forever? Do the ends justify the means?

[TheModestAgnostic]

I don't think so. We are not talking about something totalitarian, merely a structure that will create an environment of global peace and stability, that will allow people to go about their business. Local governance at all the various levels should seek to engage those who wish to engage, and leave the rest largely alone.

[bezvezeceda]

I hope you won't mind my critic. The problem i notice is in the root similarity. Since most of your vids show "Book following" where the best book followers are rewarded mostly. People are encouraged to disregard logic and reason for the sake of protecting current power distribution."merely a structure that will create an environment" You are offering "structure".

[bezvezeceda]

And repeating the same mistake as others before you, you are dealing it in the same way it was dealt before. We need to go for lower level. We need a process which will include large amount of people constructing "unified book" which can be followed without disregard of reason and basic logic. One of the results of global government would be deletion of "choice of book" following. Making it pointless in the form of offer.

[bezvezeceda]

I lack somewhat mastering of English language, so i hope i'm understandable. For eons we humans "most of us" had no choice. It can not function without participation in construction. This is hard process, and it is this that can overcome current world problems. In this process of "book unification" you have to give something to people that are rewarded by following books with flaws.

[bezvezeceda]

And what can we give them, we can give them only reason and logic, full freedom in participation of defining this "unified book". So then we will have a war but not in physical sphere, as everyone is offering than we would need transparent process of counter-thoughts and decision rules of logic and reason analasys. We are participating and consenting by confronting with our errors and direct view on majority wish.

[TheModestAgnostic]

If I've understood you correctly, this is exactly what is happening right now. The internet is the mechanism by which this "unified book" is being produced. However, we still need institutions, procedures and to be blunt occasional focused force on individuls to ensure the new "unified book" is adhered to be the small minority of extremists in every society.

[1Vaudevillian1]

The problem with this unified book "internet" is its being squished due to this very reason of people sharing and talking. Governments are letting companies kill the way the net operates today. This whole idea would need to be done in the next 5 years or it will not happen.

[LMickee]

I see we share the same idea of how a "virtual parliament" could improve our societes ;)

Thx for the book. Will surely read it.

[MikeSarno]

I'm wondering how you'll be able to implement the elections of the global parliament. The physical problems are difficult, but even they are easy compared to motivating billions of people to take part in an election that you've admitted is to elect people who do nothing at this stage. Finally, I still don't see the check on the force of the global government. Even though I disagree, still a 5/5 if only for presentation and clarity.

[TheModestAgnostic]

I suspect the kind of apathy you point too is more prevalent in the developed, rather than the developing world. Several billion motivated southern hemispherans, is likely to have an energising effect on the rest of us, maybe even for all the wrong reasons:-)

[Birdtrooper]

The U.N. is dysfunctional and I'd love global governance, if I were more optimistic. Not a big supporter of open democracy when it comes to significant issues because just as I'm psychologically certain most people are theist, it seems the vast majority of people don't bother to understand or consider the repercussions of what they vote for, made worse by herd mentality. I suppose this could work by our prospective constitution and or some form of separation of powers.

[TheModestAgnostic]

I would imagine the global parliament being endorsed by a core of constituencies initially. Clearly the fewer particpants it has, the less legitimacy it has, so it could be a slow start with formal authority and power a long way off. Absolutely the powers of such a body would have to be clearly demarcated, and I would also insist such a body never got it's hands on any significant military.

[TheModestAgnostic]

The military should stay in the hands of the nation states, with the parliament putting in requests in case the enforcement requirements. However the parliament should also be constantly agitating for general disarmament.

[velation]

I would suggest that you don't mention anarchists at all if you're just going to pat them on the head and shoe them out the door. It's incredibly insulting to have your ideas dismissed by someone who so obviously hasn't listened to them. Do some reading on libertarian anarchism, before you presume to know anything about nature of the state or the reasons for prosperity.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Look guy, I'm treating you chaps as politely as I can. Let me be clear, the anarchist idea is a complete non starter. It will be a neat trick to convince the nation states of the world to surrender sufficient sovreignity to make a global parliament workable, but at least its an idea with some resonance, and a chance of success.

[TheModestAgnostic]

I don't need to know every detail of a particular idea to see it's fatally flawed from the outset, this is simply the same logical fallacy being proffered by creationists and AGW deniers. A society without governance is a self evidently idiotic idea. It doesn't mean you're necessarily an idiot for embracing it, just young, enthusiastic or misguided. I can't be any plainer.

[velation]

The thing about philosophy in general, guy, and political philosophy in particular, is that it frequently offers conclusions that may, initially, seem counter intuitive. If it were just a case of picking what seemed obvious we wouldn't have so many damn problems. To me, and many other rational people, it seems self evident that people should govern themselves. Not that I'm saying you're idiotic. Just young, enthusiastic or misguided. I can't be any plainer.

[TheModestAgnostic]

You are just reaching for another fallacy here. Merely supporting a position that appears ludicrous, does not make you a lone genius. Generally these positions ARE in fact as nonsensical as they appear at first blush, and I'm pretty confident this applies in your case. We shall have to agree to disagree:-)

[velation]

I believe it's you who are making the fallacy by arguing about how ludicrous it "appears" to be. You have some very grave misconceptions about what anarchism is. Anarchists are not pipe bombers and we do not believe in chaos. I personally believe that everything that everything that is provided by the government can be done by the free market, and without the use of force. A great many political philosophers, including Hobbs, Locke and Paine struggled with the concept of the state. Why?

[TheModestAgnostic]

I've never suggested that anarchists are pipe bombers. Or even violent. I've crossed swords with a number of different variants in the discussions on these two videos (itself and interesting illustration of the challenge of any general embrace of the concept), as well as prior to this. I have yet to be convinced of it's value, and have, reasonably I think, taken to concentrating on the discussions I see as potentially productive.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Every thinking person struggles with the challenge of how to balance the right of the individual against those of society. I have come to my conclusions over a fairly extensive period, and I think they are well supported by historic precedent. All of the concepts of anarchy are theoretical, and generally depend on very large bodies of people, behaving in ways in which people have NEVER behaved. So I'm a skeptic.

[jogayot]

1. anarchy is not necessarily about political system but about economics, that then in turn controls the political system. government as form of hierachy in principle should be considered as problem and designed properly and yes democracy is the way to go always because even when there are more than two people voting is the fairest thing to do to not fight and constructively move forward. finally i think that what you proposed (parliament as advisory body to at first absolute monarch) might be

[jogayot]

2. the way it will play out. but at this point in time i think it would be better to go/target at "enlightened" global monarchies (big monay) of now to be their advisors than national governments which will never agree to (all at once or even slowly) divest themselves of power: too much local interest. eu is more of an abberation because of long history of wars on one hand and real modern democracy developing there ... erm here ;) bhah too long... so if i let myself preach this long let me

[jogayot]

3. add this: i think you are too quick to dismiss anarchy. it's not accidental that this line if thought developed recently during the democratic struggles, socialist/communist relovutions and so on. to draw an analogic parallel anarchy like atheism (for human) is natural state of new born societies. and similarly like atheism in the current climate of religiousness is hard to sustain/create now with modern nation states, big global corporations and electronic media overlords. munch on that =P

[TheModestAgnostic]

Well good luck with it:-)

[jogayot]

well. i'm not an activist by any means. but if we do not blow up ourselves before i foresee space faring civilization as a form of new feudalism, so in time the history as you put it might repeat itself and we'll gave global democratic government, when "national" divisions will move onto solar system scale, then galaxy... rinse and repeat.

[TOOBola]

Simply scaling up the existing notion of the 'state' to encompass the globe will solve nothing.

The State is defined by it's monopoly on violence - a world government without this would be impotent, and therefore irrelevant - and a world government WITH it would be a nightmare.

[TOOBola]

(cont'd)

Your apparent willingness to sacrifice human freedom to right some perceived wrongs in the human condition is troubling. If you ever achieve your ideal world, I hope they allow aristocrats like you to keep George's books to read in your cell...

)

[TheModestAgnostic]

This is merely an assertion. I have the benefit of evidence, vast sections of the world internally at peace. This is a hard fact. Simply wishing things does not make them so. If your skills of analysis ever match your arrogance, you'll have something interesting to say, for the moment you're something of a light weight:-) Back to school!!!

[TOOBola]

That the State is defined by it's monopoly on violence is not mere assertion, it's ontology. Forget Monbiot - check Webster's.

Anyway, Burma's "internally at peace". I'd just like to hear you state clearly that you wouldn't accept that state of affairs globally if you thought it would solve problems that have been around forever like hunger and war.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Obviously not. Brutal oppression will in case not solve war. It merely postpones it. Any global system will have to be broadly inclusive, respect culture and have the primary remit of protecting the weak from the strong. It should not be a monolithic central government, rather just the icing on a multi layered cake of regional and local legislatures.

[stratvic]

So if I understand you comformity is your solution. Again, I find your ideas intolerent of minorities. Stating that you wish the government to be monolithic ensures that diversity will be forcibly squashed. As I stated before history determines more than lip service to protection of minorities as mobs by their nature are neigh impossible to control once formed.

[TheModestAgnostic]

You simply seem determined to misunderstand me. In any system of government, the rights of any given individual must be balanced in the context of the right of all the individuals they impinge. In human society, these interactions sometimes result in violence, even in the must, just, stable and peaceful of societies. Hence governance. Read Thomas Paine's Common Sense.

[stratvic]

We agree that government is force then and that democracy delivers that force to the majority over the minority. What disturbs me is the callous disregard that you display towards those that you would unlease this force upon meaning the minorities of this world. Why don't we just not govern and maintain minimal government and minimal force ie the exact opposite of what you advocate here.

[TheModestAgnostic]

A minority not getting their own way on consuming a foodstuff considered harmful (for example) is not quite the same thing as being expunged from the face of the Earth. You seem to be having trouble seeing anything but black or white. Try taking a look at everything in between.

[stratvic]

The point is that you believe that you or your majority should determine what is harmful to me and everyone else.  If I have a different view then you would apply whatever level of force necessary to have me comply with the majority rule.

[TheModestAgnostic]

At it's most basic yes, but in practice, democratic societies do not have to savagely oppress 49% of their citizens, if they did they would not last very long. Generally what happens is what you see in most European countries, especially the social democratic ones. A high degree of social cohesion and low crime. You have got it into your head that it's all black or white. It's not, it's a kalediscope of greys.

[stratvic]

Its not 51% verses 49%. The most common minority is the smallest ... the individual. And there are many groups in society that are never represented in a 2 or a 10 party system.

Social cohesion means conformity, conformity is violence to minorities who just want to be left alone by your government. Super size the government super size the injustice.

[TheModestAgnostic]

This is the way you have been presenting it. Now that you phrased it rather more coherently, certainly in the US system which is very crude, a significant proportion of the population may not feel represented, even in proportional representative systems this will occur. This a downside which occurs in every group of people. We do not live in isolation like hermits, and stuff that you like may enrage me. How do we deal with that? Fisticuffs?

[stratvic]

We should deal with our differences through tolerence and voluntary community participation, not interfering in the affairs of others and certainly not through violence.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Yes we should. But we won't. Reality bites.

[stratvic]

I am conerned that your solution to political disagreement is force and violence and on an individual disagreement that is the solution you also reach for first. At least your consistent you obviously see violence as the means to solve all your problems. If that is the society you want count me out.

[TheModestAgnostic]

On the contrary, this is once AGAIN a completely bizarre reading of my position which cannot be sustained in the face of the facts. I merely reject the self indulgent fantasy of anarchism, like most of the rest of intelligent people. A philosphy I might add, that seems almost exclusively the province of bored western kids. Those in the developing world have a much keener sense of the realities of power. To keen to embrace such fatal fluff.

[TOOBola]

Well, at least we seem to have found a point of departure. So fascism's bad, even if it ends war and hunger.

Now to protect the weak from the strong requires someone or some institution that's stronger. States that have internal peace all require police. How could we ever create an institution bigger than the regional and local legislatures and with power over them, without creating something capable of destroying all personal liberty?

[TheModestAgnostic]

That is not at all what I said. I disagree that fascisim would end war or hunger, it merely shifts it around, or at best postpones it. You and your friend are determined to conflate an authority legitimised by the citizens of a polity, with a criminal gang, and seem hell bent on remaining blind to the nuance and complexity of human society.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Regional bodies could ceed power to a global body to pursue individuals cross border and with relevant force. Military power would remain at the national or regional level, but a global body would exert moral force to reduce weapons. Where required the global authority would request assistance for military engagements if authorised by the parliament. Something along those lines.

[stratvic]

Democracy is the formalizeation of the tyranny of the majority over minorities. You can't avocate democracy without dealing with that issue. This requires a limitation on democratic power. The question is where will this come from? What we need is smaller more reponsive democracies limited in their power so that you can have your theocracies, socialist states, meritocracies, monarcies etc. Not larger mobs to bash the minorities that populate the world.

[TheModestAgnostic]

There will always be a "bigger" mob to bash the smaller mob, there always has been. We need a final arbiter "mob", that adjudicates the bashing, otherwise its just endless bashing for eternity:-)

[visioninverse]

We do not need an arbiter mob. We need people to agree. You can do this by increasing the ability for communication all across the globe.

[TheModestAgnostic]

ok, that I can certainly agree with. What about those who don't agree? Who violate human rights, who ignore you?

[visioninverse]

We do need an arbitration association. I had taken the word mob literally, which I think, isn't what you meant.

Those who don't agree... I don't know, how about exile?

[stratvic]

So you are advocating mob rule and violence to minorities as your final solution to the problem of governance. That would be a mean and intolerent world my friend. I think we need more tolerence not less and diverse societies are the way to achieve that end not forced compliance to the will of the majority or in your case a super majority.

[stratvic]

Government is never the solution. Government is the problem.  The last thing we need is more of a bad thing.

[kurtilein3]

great :)

i already liked your last video about global gouvernment, and this one just continues the awesomeness.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Thx:-) Raising awareness:-)

[elliotcheely]

that was excellent. i am so impress by your analysis, even though mr. monbiot is heavily used throughout your video; you nevertheless did a good job of establishing a point worth listening to. bravo. i wait eagerly for your next installment.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Thanks for your kind comments:-)

[italianchappy]

I'm very happy of losing sovereignty and I support global government *in the future*. That future is very far away. You need a lot more cultural homogeneity among populaces, no massive crazy religions and mass media rules around the world. It's a XXII century thing at least.

[italianchappy]

Addendum: even with the mentioned populace's homogeneity there will be awful problems. We ourselves in EU are silencing the real troubles there are with Basque Spain or French Corse (even more secret situation this one). Imagine where there are real cultural/religious differences. I'm a very pessimistic globalist. Nationalism by now is resurgent and rampant (Russia also is awful in this respect, just to cite someone culturally near to us).

[TheModestAgnostic]

That there are problems, does not preclude us from continuing to improve our political systems, on the contrary. They are not obstructions, they are INPUTS.

[italianchappy]

I'm confident there will always be improvement in the global government because our economic system takes advantage from homogeneous rules around a world where both consumers than producers have their number maximized. The only thing that could hinder seriously this development is a severe recession/depression. The process will be very slow because of the aforementioned cultural resistences as well

[TheModestAgnostic]

You could be right, but you might be wrong, and how long can we wait before having structures that allow us to address the very real global problems we face?

[italianchappy]

5/5 in any case, BTW. Let me be a pessimist though :-)

[TheModestAgnostic]

It is very even handed of you to award 5/5, while still expressing doubts:-) Be certain I share many of them. Nonetheless, I think we have a chance to get it right:-)

[CadicusTheDamned]

It's not really plagiarism if you quote your source.

It's more like an advertisement that the author doesn't have to pay for. Most authors rather enjoy that.

About what you said, I personally fear loss of national sovereignty would denigrate personal liberties. After all, about a billion voices are screaming loudly for theocracy and Sharia law. Look at what happened when democracy was implemented in Iraq.

[TheModestAgnostic]

Yeah I know it's tounge in cheek:-) A representative body without power would be an important trial run to work out those kinds of kinks. The parlamentarians would have to be reasonable and appeal to a broad base. Muslims are not a majority, and they are not a monolith of opinon either.

[visioninverse]

I want to do a video response... tomorrow morning. That'll give me some time to read up on Thomas Paine. :)

[Nasikabatrachus]

I'm very disappointed in you, TMA. "[insert snarky comment about Somalia here]. Silly anarchists!".

It is quite beneath you, I think.

[gratex]

anarchy has always lost out to statism (regardless of whether anyone would want it to). The best the human race could do at this juncture is to embrace global government, or at least an end to this state competition.

[Nasikabatrachus]

And for most of human history, democracy lost out to monarchy. What changed was the ideas.

[gratex]

very true, but in an arbitrarily segregated world little pockets of anarchic areas cannot sustain themselves in the face of state competition for land or resources (Palestine?). anarchy will never be a sustainable reality prior to a globalised society, which will change the ideas.

[visioninverse]

Can Liberty and this Global Government co-exist?

[TheModestAgnostic]

I've no idea, but indefinetly running the world as a series of heavily armed fiefdoms isn't such a hot idea either. Statistically alone, someone, sometime is going to make a mistake and then BOOM!!

[TheModestAgnostic]

I don't have time for a detailed rebuttal, and I don't think one is needed. The Anarchist idea is a dead end, a distraction and self evidently unworkable. It violates the common sense of millenia AND our growing knowledge about human cognition and behaviour. Dismissal is all it deserves. Harsh huh?

[Nasikabatrachus]

As long as you don't pretend you're being anything but dismissive--you haven't "gotten it out of the way" as you claim in your video, you've ignored it.

[TheModestAgnostic]

I'm not randomly dismissing it. I simply consider it the "flat earth" theory or "creationist" science of political thought. For what I consider very, very good reasons. My time (and yours for that matter) is limited, and I would much prefer to focus on what I consider useful. I say very similar things to creationists. I'm not remotely interested in debating evolution, but I AM intrigued by theistic reasons for embracing a particular version of God.

[Nasikabatrachus]

Given the definition of anarchism you've given elsewhere, as well as the grounds you provided in your video (Somalia? Was everything rosy back when the dictator Siad Barre was in?), you don't appear to have much of an idea of what we're talking about.

As for wasting time, your proposal seems quite counterproductive. It's bad enough that the costs of leaving most countries is prohibitive, but a global predator you can't escape without the permission of the rest of humanity horrifies me.

[TheModestAgnostic]

This is just a version of right wing "are you a fan of Saddam Hussein"? I've made my position clear, authority should be as broadly legitimate as possible, a series of interlocking legislatures at all levels of governance. To charactise this as a "predator", simply abuses the word so badly that it has excellent grounds for divorce. We are just discussing the physics of the flat earth here.

[thefakeyeti]

watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

Haveyou watched that video?

[TheModestAgnostic]

What hysterical nonsense. Sounds like a great idea.