We are advocates for world peace through a single, globally inclusive democracy.
We believe we must adopt this as our goal, and that we can achieve it within our lifetimes. It is simply the best design for human society.
We as a people need an inspirational goal, a guiding star to work toward that is more enduring than the next election, more just than preserving our privileged status, more positive than preventing the next crisis or correcting the latest injustice, and more ambitious than spending our money wisely. We need a higher goal that can keep us headed in the right direction, one that will inspire us enough to insist on reaching it.
As a practical matter, international borders are standing in the way of humanity responding effectively to the greatest challenges we face, ranging from climate change to human trafficking to financial crimes and economic inequality. It’s time we eliminated them, and created something dramatically better.
The United States of America is a useful model, however flawed. What we propose is, essentially, a United States of the World. A single, globally inclusive democracy.
We invite your comments and humbly ask for your support in developing and advancing this vision.
It would be essential to eliminate all forms of welfare to do as you suggest. Are you willing to do that? If not, how would you manage social welfare?
Jack, thanks for writing. It’s also possible that people worldwide would vote for some kind of social safety net. In fact, the international polling data suggests that they might.
Hi Peter, I think this is a very interesting read “The Great Hard Fork: An Unraveling of State Legitimacy” (https://medium.com/@justingoro/the-great-hard-fork-an-unraveling-of-state-legitimacy-a559b7d125ed). I am a lazy writer, but would be interested to get in touch and maybe have a converstion. What we / I do you can see here: http://www.humanitad.org.
Thanks for writing, Wolf. Our mission and the mission of Humanitad appear to be aligned. Glad to know about your work. How did you hear about ours?
If a large segment of the world does not wish to participate or go along with the one world democracy you support, what would the next step be?
John, thanks for asking.
It depends on majority support. That’s why we are building a movement.
If you are asking, what if a large minority disapproves, the best way to answer might be by analogy.
Let’s imagine, for example, that there are 100 people. Let’s imagine that one is a murderer, one a rapist, and one an arsonist. Should those 3 people be able to prevent enactment and enforcement of criminal justice codes? Certainly not.
The world population is 7.6 billion.
Extending our example to global scale, what if 1% were murderers, rapists, and arsonists? That would be 76 million of each of these. You could say that’s a “large segment”. Should they be able to prevent basic measures essential for human and social survival? Almost certainly not.
The numbers are just examples, of course. Other numbers might be closer to accurate, but these ones illustrate the point.
Hi Peter, Interesting idea and, perhaps in the longer run, where the world is headed. But maybe we need some interim steps, so I wondered if you were already familiar with the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) initiative?
Hi John. Thanks for taking a look. Yes, interim steps will certainly be needed. Here’s an extended piece on how we imagine that might go, linked below.
Thanks for the great work you’re doing.