BahadirArici

We can fix this World

Recommended Posts

We need change. We need change not only for the merging but also we owe this to ourselves. These are the things we should do to create a fair, better World:

1) Fixing the World

Every decade, no every year, the gap between the rich and the rest is getting greater and we do need to act because obviously it is not going to change by itself. The system we are living in is inhuman. It is not only inhuman for people living in the war zones or living in poverty or for people working like a machine, through out the week, with an unacceptable tempo, without having any existential experience. It is inhuman for the wast majority of this World, billions of people, and it is making them live without a decent human experience, forcing them to feel content if they are lucky enough to feed themselves and their families. It is an illusion that this is an issue of the third World. There are millions of people living in similar inhuman conditions in the very first World. It is a pyramid we are living in and it is sickening.

Yet we can do better. Not only doing your best to create a better society, by that a better World, is an existential responsibility but also we all will benefit from living in a just World, even the richest.

2) The three step formula

Creating the better World has a 3 step formula:

1) Building a decentralised World Federation of City-States
People, living hundreds of kilometers away, vote how I live, and vice versa which doesnt make sense at all. There should be city-states rather than countries. So each city could rule itself within the roof of decentralised Wold Federation. By achieving a World of City-States, the concept of “nation” will be history.

2) Establishing direct democracy via internet
If the whole country was just a city like in Ancient Greek, we could rule ourselves with the help of internet. This, direct democracy, could easily be organized online in city-states. It would be almost like discussing on a facebook group. Besides, why does lawmakers are a limited crowd? Anyone should be able to offer a law, or offer to change a law, as a existential right, in the city-state ze lives in. Anyone should be able to offer a law draft, with enough “thumbs up”, that draft should turn into a law offer. Then we can vote online and see if it should become a new law or not.

3) Using a precious material such as gold as global currency
We should use gold. We should use gold because any currency except dollar means nothing and dollar is under the control of some families. They are downright selling us paper. It is not just that, 1 out of 10.000 owns 80% of the money in the world. This is absurd. So there should be a limit to the money that one can own. Actually, the rest 20% of the money is not divided among 9,999 people equally, either. To be honest, 9,500 people doesnt have a dime. If that American Dream doesnt work out, wont ever have. Lets build a New World of City-States, a World without countries, without kingdoms or empires.

3) The essential rules of the new World

There are three things i simply can not pass without pointing out: First one is, World resources should not be allotted to city-states. We should have a World Federation which will make sure that every individual (organic or inorganic) living on Earth benefits from the richness of this World. The second one is, there should be Universal Basic Income for every intellectual being, for every person living on this planet. And the third essential rule is, there should be a limit to how much one can own. Any person should have maximum 2.500 KG gold worth goods and gold. Any “extra” that is earned should either be paid as tax or spent for charity purposes by a none-profit organisation. The “shares”, the “stocks” of a company are not included to this sum yet the profit is included. A similar cap should exist for legal personalities, for companies and institutions too. Either a firm or an institute, the maximum cap should be 25.000 KG gold yet the goods that are production related are not be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's so simple why isn't it already fixed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

People, living hundreds of kilometers away, vote how I live, and vice versa which doesnt make sense at all. There should be city-states rather than countries.

Having numerous City-States would make cooperation more difficult. People would segregate by religion, affluence, language, and etc to even greater degrees than they already do.  That would create a lot of international trade and immigration/travel issues among other things. 

26 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

So each city could rule itself within the roof of decentralised Wold Federation.

Decentralized systems tend to evolve into either centralized systems or  empty tokens. The good faith required by all to follow unenforceable direction is too tenuous. 

 

36 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

By achieving a World of City-States, the concept of “nation” will be history.

City-States would just replace the concept of Nation.

 

39 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

If the whole country was just a city like in Ancient Greek, we could rule ourselves with the help of internet. This, direct democracy, could easily be organized online in city-states. It would be almost like discussing on a facebook group. Besides, why does lawmakers are a limited crowd? Anyone should be able to offer a law, or offer to change a law, as a existential right, in the city-state ze lives in. Anyone should be able to offer a law draft, with enough “thumbs up”, that draft should turn into a law offer. Then we can vote online and see if it should become a new law or not.

Everyone isn't educated or experienced enough to draft law. Even when experts do it there ends up being unexpected loopholes which lead to unexpected consequences. Allowing anyone to do based on the momentary popularity of an idea is dangerous; mob rule. Such direct Democracies schemes are extremely vulnerable to corruption and manipulation. 

 

48 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

We should use gold. We should use gold because any currency except dollar means nothing and dollar is under the control of some families. They are downright selling us paper. It is not just that, 1 out of 10.000 owns 80% of the money in the world. This is absurd. So there should be a limit to the money that one can own. Actually, the rest 20% of the money is not divided among 9,999 people equally, either. To be honest, 9,500 people doesnt have a dime. If that American Dream doesnt work out, wont ever have. Lets build a New World of City-States, a World without countries, without kingdoms or empires.

How would this be enforced?

 

49 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

There are three things i simply can not pass without pointing out: First one is, World resources should not be allotted to city-states. We should have a World Federation which will make sure that every individual (organic or inorganic) living on Earth benefits from the richness of this World.

The decentralized Federation would have to be very powerful to ensure this. More powerful than any combination of City-States and I struggle to imagine how anything decentralized would be.

 

54 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

The second one is, there should be Universal Basic Income for every intellectual being, for every person living on this planet. And the third essential rule is, there should be a limit to how much one can own. Any person should have maximum 2.500 KG gold worth goods and gold. Any “extra” that is earned should either be paid as tax or spent for charity purposes by a none-profit organisation. The “shares”, the “stocks” of a company are not included to this sum yet the profit is included. A similar cap should exist for legal personalities, for companies and institutions too. Either a firm or an institute, the maximum cap should be 25.000 KG gold yet the goods that are production related are not be included.

How would this be enforced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

 

2) Establishing direct democracy via internet
If the whole country was just a city like in Ancient Greek, we could rule ourselves with the help of internet.

 

Actually, they elected senators, who then wrote the bill, which was then brought before the people to be voted on.

The people didn't write the bills. They just voted on which ones to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

2) Establishing direct democracy via internet

That would need a bit more evolved human value recognition (we yet seems to be a bit simple for such a solution- lack of general co-operation, respect, knowledge, intelligence, peace, unity, love, freedom....) You just have to change humanities general basic value recognition/perception (i.e: not everything is negative - open the news - but it is absolutely positive). 

It is suggested that your approach to common co-operation and basic human value recognition is scientifically grounded so you can create a good solution and so a science supported trust-based better acceptance.

Edited by 1x0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

 

That would need a bit more evolved human value recognition (we yet seems to be a bit simple for such a solution- lack of general co-operation, respect, knowledge, intelligence, peace, unity, love, freedom....) You just have to change humanities general basic value recognition/perception (i.e: not everything is negative - open the news - but it is absolutely positive). 

It is suggested that your approach to common co-operation and basic human value recognition is scientifically grounded so you can create a good solution and so a science supported trust-based better acceptance.

Pure democracy where everyone participates always seems fair provided your side isn't a minority side. People  compete to get the things they want and seldom feel they've gotten enough. When humans aren't fighting over money 'n power they are fighting over everything from sexual mates to closest parking spot. That perpetual combativeness dooms any global Democratic cooperation. We (humans) simply aren't to that level yet. Yes we are sentient but limited to perception of ourselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can fool [please] some of the people, all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool [please] all of the people all of the time.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

It is not just that, 1 out of 10.000 owns 80% of the money in the world. This is absurd. So there should be a limit to the money that one can own.

Rich people of this world, at the moment, don't have much money. They (mostly) own companies (stocks of companies) instead.

It is impossible to go to anybody from Forbes 100, and say e.g. "give me half/all of your wealth in cash". Simply they don't have it in cash..

(and in the reality, significant amount of them is bankrupt, but nobody knows about it)

Forbes and other similar institutions which are comparing wealthiness of people are simply summing current prices of shares owned by people on their list. To be able to compare. Without bothering about fluidity of their assets. Nobody cares about company and private loans, and doesn't take them into account.

Not really smart people are "wow" impressed, pissed off and jealous.. If somebody owns apartment/house worth $100k with loan and has 300 usd in cash, does he/she feel rich? For somebody in Africa or Asia, such person is unimaginably rich, while in Western world he/she is almost bankrupt.. But richness is only inside of assets that cannot be easily sold. The same is with the all richest people from Forbes lists. Company they own can be worth on stock market $1bln, with loans for $1bln+. Trying to sell stocks by the main shareholder, would drop price significantly, to the level in which loans are significantly higher than value of company (which can start procedure of termination of the loan by bank).

For the more appropriate comparison of wealthiness of people there should be compared "money after (theorized) liquidation of companies they own" (so there would be included company loans in the first place).

Taking shares from creators of company and giving them to everybody, there is risk that nobody will care about company anymore. Inappropriate people at management will appear, politically chosen, without knowledge. They won't have vision (and passion) how company should develop and will collapse. It happened on mass-scale in early communism. Resulted in millions casualties, as production of food collapsed (because of taking lands from farmers).

In USA there are retirement funds, which invest money of retired and retired-to-be people, in companies. They're major shareholders of companies listed on stock markets. I don't think so majority of these retired people bother much (or even know) about where are their money invested, and how these companies are ruled by managers.

 

10 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

A similar cap should exist for legal personalities, for companies and institutions too. Either a firm or an institute, the maximum cap should be 25.000 KG gold yet the goods that are production related are not be included.

Every company of this world should be worth maximum 1 bln usd, regardless of what it does, regardless of assets?

Not sure what you meant at the end of your sentence. Every company has some product to sell. The question is how much virtual it is. IT company instead of giving people file to download after on-line purchase, can (again) waste paper and other resources to print boxes and make CD/DVD of their software, just to meet requirement of selling material thing.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If it's so simple why isn't it already fixed?

We should work, we should figtht for it.
 

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Having numerous City-States would make cooperation more difficult. People would segregate by religion, affluence, language, and etc to even greater degrees than they already do.  That would create a lot of international trade and immigration/travel issues among other things. 

Decentralized systems tend to evolve into either centralized systems or  empty tokens. The good faith required by all to follow unenforceable direction is too tenuous. 

 

City-States would just replace the concept of Nation.

 

Everyone isn't educated or experienced enough to draft law. Even when experts do it there ends up being unexpected loopholes which lead to unexpected consequences. Allowing anyone to do based on the momentary popularity of an idea is dangerous; mob rule. Such direct Democracies schemes are extremely vulnerable to corruption and manipulation. 

 

How would this be enforced?

 

The decentralized Federation would have to be very powerful to ensure this. More powerful than any combination of City-States and I struggle to imagine how anything decentralized would be.

 

How would this be enforced?

1) There is the example of European Union right in front of us. It wont be countries but city-states wil represent themselves. Or USA is an example of collaboration of 50 city-states. So, there would be simply chaos is not a valid claim. The expenses will be step by step so there wont be an immigration problem. We should start uniting first World, at first. And the union will absorb 3rd World slowly. 2nd World wont stand when the time comes.

2) I should be clear here. It wont be decentralized taxwise. So there won't be tax havens. It will be under a World Federation so it wont be totally loose city states. Again, we can consider the EU a good example.

3) You are being plain unfair here. The concept of Nationality is very deep and quite different what you d get if you break it and only leave city-states. You are so wrong with this claim of yours. I recommend you think harder on this topic.

4) The system we have is not democracy. There are planty of law graduate, like me, who are qualified to draft laws. It is not that hard, really. The system we live in let's corporations buy the sellected few. I recommend you have no sympathy to those guys. Direct democracy is superior democracy. This is a fact.

5) Using gold? By direct democracy, we will have a referendum as we always do in direct democracies and change the currency in one day. It will be quite easy.

6) It is not that complicated really. Economically it wont be decentralized but law-wise it will be. To explain clearly, a city-state wont be able to be a "tax heaven" because the World Federation will regulate taxes but a city-state could have shariat laws if the majority do want it under direct democracy. Makes a bit more sense now?

7) As we have ministary of anything, we will have a ministary for this too. The World Federation will make it happen as long as we want it with direct democracy.

 

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Actually, they elected senators, who then wrote the bill, which was then brought before the people to be voted on.

The people didn't write the bills. They just voted on which ones to pass.

That makes my system even superior.

 

9 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

Respectfully ...

You must be joking!

I am dead serious.

 

9 hours ago, 1x0 said:

 

That would need a bit more evolved human value recognition (we yet seems to be a bit simple for such a solution- lack of general co-operation, respect, knowledge, intelligence, peace, unity, love, freedom....) You just have to change humanities general basic value recognition/perception (i.e: not everything is negative - open the news - but it is absolutely positive). 

It is suggested that your approach to common co-operation and basic human value recognition is scientifically grounded so you can create a good solution and so a science supported trust-based better acceptance.

If ı would offer communism, i would agree with your answer but with the system i offer, we are devoloped enough, actually devoloped enough for more than 2.000 years.

 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Pure democracy where everyone participates always seems fair provided your side isn't a minority side. People  compete to get the things they want and seldom feel they've gotten enough. When humans aren't fighting over money 'n power they are fighting over everything from sexual mates to closest parking spot. That perpetual combativeness dooms any global Democratic cooperation. We (humans) simply aren't to that level yet. Yes we are sentient but limited to perception of ourselves. 

I have more faith in humanity. And governments are fucking us. We should take action.

 

6 hours ago, beecee said:

You can fool [please] some of the people, all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool [please] all of the people all of the time.  :)

beecee, i just need majority.
 

42 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Rich people of this world, at the moment, don't have much money. They (mostly) own companies (stocks of companies) instead.

It is impossible to go to anybody from Forbes 100, and say e.g. "give me half/all of your wealth in cash". Simply they don't have it in cash..

(and in the reality, significant amount of them is bankrupt, but nobody knows about it)

Forbes and other similar institutions which are comparing wealthiness of people are simply summing current prices of shares owned by people on their list. To be able to compare. Without bothering about fluidity of their assets. Nobody cares about company and private loans, and doesn't take them into account.

Not really smart people are "wow" impressed, pissed off and jealous.. If somebody owns apartment/house worth $100k with loan and has 300 usd in cash, does he/she feel rich? For somebody in Africa or Asia, such person is unimaginably rich, while in Western world he/she is almost bankrupt.. But richness is only inside of assets that cannot be easily sold. The same is with the all richest people from Forbes lists. Company they own can be worth on stock market $1bln, with loans for $1bln+. Trying to sell stocks by the main shareholder, would drop price significantly, to the level in which loans are significantly higher than value of company (which can start procedure of termination of the loan by bank).

For the more appropriate comparison of wealthiness of people there should be compared "money after (theorized) liquidation of companies they own" (so there would be included company loans in the first place).

Taking shares from creators of company and giving them to everybody, there is risk that nobody will care about company anymore. Inappropriate people at management will appear, politically chosen, without knowledge. They won't have vision (and passion) how company should develop and will collapse. It happened on mass-scale in early communism. Resulted in millions casualties, as production of food collapsed (because of taking lands from farmers).

In USA there are retirement funds, which invest money of retired and retired-to-be people, in companies. They're major shareholders of companies listed on stock markets. I don't think so majority of these retired people bother much (or even know) about where are their money invested, and how these companies are ruled by managers.

 

Every company of this world should be worth maximum 1 bln usd, regardless of what it does, regardless of assets?

Not sure what you meant at the end of your sentence. Every company has some product to sell. The question is how much virtual it is. IT company instead of giving people file to download after on-line purchase, can (again) waste paper and other resources to print boxes and make CD/DVD of their software, just to meet requirement of selling material thing.

We are not taking the shares  my friend. Shares are not counted. 2.500 KG gold is app. 100.000.000 dollars so if they dont have such worth goods and money, there is nothing to worry in their case.

With the last sentences, i meant, a companies building and machines and stuff wont be icluded.

You know that Apple has 250.000.000.000 dollars out of USA because it doesnt want to give tax? Do you think this is acceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

We need change. We need change not only for the merging but also we owe this to ourselves. These are the things we should do to create a fair, better World:

1) Fixing the World

Every decade, no every year, the gap between the rich and the rest is getting greater and we do need to act because obviously it is not going to change by itself. The system we are living in is inhuman. It is not only inhuman for people living in the war zones or living in poverty or for people working like a machine, through out the week, with an unacceptable tempo, without having any existential experience. It is inhuman for the wast majority of this World, billions of people, and it is making them live without a decent human experience, forcing them to feel content if they are lucky enough to feed themselves and their families. It is an illusion that this is an issue of the third World. There are millions of people living in similar inhuman conditions in the very first World. It is a pyramid we are living in and it is sickening.

Yet we can do better. Not only doing your best to create a better society, by that a better World, is an existential responsibility but also we all will benefit from living in a just World, even the richest.

2) The three step formula

Creating the better World has a 3 step formula:

1) Building a decentralised World Federation of City-States
People, living hundreds of kilometers away, vote how I live, and vice versa which doesnt make sense at all. There should be city-states rather than countries. So each city could rule itself within the roof of decentralised Wold Federation. By achieving a World of City-States, the concept of “nation” will be history.

2) Establishing direct democracy via internet
If the whole country was just a city like in Ancient Greek, we could rule ourselves with the help of internet. This, direct democracy, could easily be organized online in city-states. It would be almost like discussing on a facebook group. Besides, why does lawmakers are a limited crowd? Anyone should be able to offer a law, or offer to change a law, as a existential right, in the city-state ze lives in. Anyone should be able to offer a law draft, with enough “thumbs up”, that draft should turn into a law offer. Then we can vote online and see if it should become a new law or not.

3) Using a precious material such as gold as global currency
We should use gold. We should use gold because any currency except dollar means nothing and dollar is under the control of some families. They are downright selling us paper. It is not just that, 1 out of 10.000 owns 80% of the money in the world. This is absurd. So there should be a limit to the money that one can own. Actually, the rest 20% of the money is not divided among 9,999 people equally, either. To be honest, 9,500 people doesnt have a dime. If that American Dream doesnt work out, wont ever have. Lets build a New World of City-States, a World without countries, without kingdoms or empires.

3) The essential rules of the new World

There are three things i simply can not pass without pointing out: First one is, World resources should not be allotted to city-states. We should have a World Federation which will make sure that every individual (organic or inorganic) living on Earth benefits from the richness of this World. The second one is, there should be Universal Basic Income for every intellectual being, for every person living on this planet. And the third essential rule is, there should be a limit to how much one can own. Any person should have maximum 2.500 KG gold worth goods and gold. Any “extra” that is earned should either be paid as tax or spent for charity purposes by a none-profit organisation. The “shares”, the “stocks” of a company are not included to this sum yet the profit is included. A similar cap should exist for legal personalities, for companies and institutions too. Either a firm or an institute, the maximum cap should be 25.000 KG gold yet the goods that are production related are not be included.

    Hello BahadirArichi, I take it your having a rough go of it. It's a tough world out there. There is probably one separate and distinct opinion of "what's wrong with the world and what we should do about it" for every single person on the planet. And there lies your problem. To save the world you would need an identical number of worlds to that which you could derive a consensus of individual groups supporting a particular solution or approach to solving the world's difficulties. Then each group could have a go at it on its very own planet without having to fight all the other groups and their ideas for "fixing the world". Because as you know we tend to send armies and navies out to fix problems.

          Ah, but they would need thousands of worlds to satisfy so many opinions, probably you would need millions of earths.

   But then most of the problems would be gone wouldn't they. Everyone would spread out around their new world they were now on and find there own little spot of good earth, clean water, mild weather and enjoy their new found freedom and happiness. So it would seem that the problems of the world is what would keep you from solving the problems of the world.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, arc said:

    Hello BahadirArichi, I take it your having a rough go of it. It's a tough world out there. There is probably one separate and distinct opinion of "what's wrong with the world and what we should do about it" for every single person on the planet. And there lies your problem. To save the world you would need an identical number of worlds to that which you could derive a consensus of individual groups supporting a particular solution or approach to solving the world's difficulties. Then each group could have a go at it on its very own planet without having to fight all the other groups and their ideas for "fixing the world". Because as you know we tend to send armies and navies out to fix problems.

          Ah, but they would need thousands of worlds to satisfy so many opinions, probably you would need millions of earths.

   But then most of the problems would be gone wouldn't they. Everyone would spread out around their new world they were now on and find there own little spot of good earth, clean water, mild weather and enjoy their new found freedom and happiness. So it would seem that the problems of the world is what would keep you from solving the problems of the world.      

Hello there. 

Well i think if we 9.500 out of 10.000 could see that we are f*cked here, it might be easier to come to a solution for a better World. We should start with acknowledging this is not acceptable, i mean how we live.

You guys are from first World but even you are f*cked. You are a bit too blind to see it, i am afraid.

So, do you acknowledge something is fundamentaly wrong with the way we live?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You concentrated yours opening post on economics..

 

Serious problems of this world: global warming and overpopulation..

Poverty, inequality, economics are small problems in comparison to these two above..

Economical poverty is nothing in comparison to intellectual poverty.

 

Who would bother about economics if there would be asteroid on trajectory straight to the Earth.. ?

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You concentrated yours opening post on economics..

 

Serious problems of this world: global warming and overpopulation..

Poverty, inequality, economics are small problems in comparison to these two above..

Economical poverty is nothing in comparison to intellectual poverty.

 

Who would bother about economics if there would be asteroid on trajectory straight to the Earth.. ?

 

Says someone who thinks ze is well-off. Economical poverty is the very reason of the intellectual poverty for millions of people maybe billions.
 

if there would be asteroid on trajectory straight to the Earth, it might be another thing but still we would need a change for the remaining people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admirable goals @BahadirArici. Here are a couple of points that I think are impractical.

You speak of internet democracy. If it were not for the efforts of the moderators and admins on this forum it would rapidly descend into a morasse of invective, backstabbing, name calling, threats and general chaos. How is this policed? By excluding people. Do you think the best way of running a democracy is to exclude people?

Your comments on city states via nationalism are ill founded. Both create a sense of identity that takes advantage of our evolutionary past as tribal creatures. We identify with those who share similar views and experiences. Are you seriously telling me that a citizen of Newcastle would have trouble replacing her sense of being English with her pride in being a Geordie? On this point it is you who needs to think more deeply.

You suggest gold as the currency because the dollar is under the control of some families. You might want to look into the history of George Soros and silver. It could cause you change your mind.

Here is the key question: if we assume for the moment that all these proposals are sound, how would you go about implmenting them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Admirable goals @BahadirArici. Here are a couple of points that I think are impractical.

1) You speak of internet democracy. If it were not for the efforts of the moderators and admins on this forum it would rapidly descend into a morasse of invective, backstabbing, name calling, threats and general chaos. How is this policed? By excluding people. Do you think the best way of running a democracy is to exclude people?

2) Your comments on city states via nationalism are ill founded. Both create a sense of identity that takes advantage of our evolutionary past as tribal creatures. We identify with those who share similar views and experiences. Are you seriously telling me that a citizen of Newcastle would have trouble replacing her sense of being English with her pride in being a Geordie? On this point it is you who needs to think more deeply.

3) You suggest gold as the currency because the dollar is under the control of some families. You might want to look into the history of George Soros and silver. It could cause you change your mind.

4) Here is the key question: if we assume for the moment that all these proposals are sound, how would you go about implmenting them?


I liked you!

(I gave numbers to your comment so i can write down here.)

 

1) When i say having direct democracy via internet, firstly i mean that we should use block-chain thechnology, by that an unhackible system, and everyone will be able offer or vote for a law. But of course, lets use internet to discuss the laws too. But this doesnt mean we need to use only one platform to discuss. You can discuss anywhere anything, in peace or with heat but you will vote via internet.

2) I stongly disagree. There is nothing wrong being proud of the way your "hometown" thinks and does things. But if that proud is about your nation, things get ugly. So, lets say you are from Berlin, It is totally fine to be proud of how multi-cultured your city is or lets say how good beer is there. But going all Germany about it, makes you be proud of being German too, which is a whole different thing. My friend, you are stuck with nationalist perspective so iam sorry but you simply ddidnt understand the diference when you wrote that commend. Please think again.

3) I dont know his history with silver but i know that you can not achive anything when there is dollar around. It is the only real money on this World.

4) I think we should follow this steps

- EU should turn into Union and keep on expending, starting the first World, places like S.Korea, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and USA.

- Than Union should have structural reforms and have City-States and Direct Democracy.

- Than should absorb the 3rd World step by step and devour 2nd World finally.


 

Edited by BahadirArici

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

There is the example of European Union right in front of us. It wont be countries but city-states wil represent themselves. Or USA is an example of collaboration of 50 city-states. So, there would be simply chaos is not a valid claim. The expenses will be step by step so there wont be an immigration problem. We should start uniting first World, at first. And the union will absorb 3rd World slowly. 2nd World wont stand when the time comes.

Brexit shows the limits of the E.U. and that movement in part is because of Immigration. Also influence in the E.U. is slowly becoming centralized in Germany. Here in the U.S. there has already been one Civil War and currently the divide between various states is ever widening and immigration is front and center. The current U.S. President's entire campaign was almost exclusively about immigration and pitting individual states against each other. I think the E.U and the U.S. are examples which prove a global federation wouldn't work. 

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

I should be clear here. It wont be decentralized taxwise. So there won't be tax havens. It will be under a World Federation so it wont be totally loose city states. Again, we can consider the EU a good example.

  Brexit is a good example of its limits. Nothing stops a city-state from walking away.

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

You are being plain unfair here. The concept of Nationality is very deep and quite different what you d get if you break it and only leave city-states. You are so wrong with this claim of yours. I recommend you think harder on this topic.

From ethnic cleansing to holocausts humans have found ways to divide themselves up into camps and use those divisions to justify killing each other. Replacing nations with city-states won't change that. The Palestinians haven't had a nation of there own in a hundred years yet still consider themselves and are considered by others to be a specific group of people. What you are proposing would create situations similar to that all other the globe. 

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

The system we have is not democracy. There are planty of law graduate, like me, who are qualified to draft laws. It is not that hard, really. The system we live in let's corporations buy the sellected few. I recommend you have no sympathy to those guys. Direct democracy is superior democracy. This is a fact.

Far more do not have Law Degrees. How does your plan prevent mob rule from creating law that oppress people based on gender, religion, age, and etc? If 51% of a City-State votes to ban all Christians, kill all unmarried non-virgin women, and exile everyone over the age of 70 then what?

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Using gold? By direct democracy, we will have a referendum as we always do in direct democracies and change the currency in one day. It will be quite easy.

How is this enforced? Is the Federation going to have the physical military power to coerce City-States? What stops groups of City-States from banning together against others or the federation itself. You are ignoring the fact that War is right up there with fire as one of Humans earliest inventions. Revolt within the system you describe is inevitable. Direct Democracy doesn't ensure every gets what they want. It only ensures the majority do which means they will still be angry people. 

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

 It is not that complicated really. Economically it wont be decentralized but law-wise it will be. To explain clearly, a city-state wont be able to be a "tax heaven" because the World Federation will regulate taxes but a city-state could have shariat laws if the majority do want it under direct democracy. Makes a bit more sense now?

Enforced how? In the U.S. Marijuana is federally illegal yet people are using Marijuana in every community throughout the entire country. Marijuana is as available as Pepsi. Making something illegal doesn't automatically stop it from happening.

5 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

have more faith in humanity. And governments are fucking us. We should take action.

People good, Govt bad; makes zero sense given that Govts were created by and are ran by people. If Govts suck it is because people suck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Brexit shows the limits of the E.U. and that movement in part is because of Immigration. Also influence in the E.U. is slowly becoming centralized in Germany. Here in the U.S. there has already been one Civil War and currently the divide between various states is ever widening and immigration is front and center. The current U.S. President's entire campaign was almost exclusively about immigration and pitting individual states against each other. I think the E.U and the U.S. are examples which prove a global federation wouldn't work. 

  Brexit is a good example of its limits. Nothing stops a city-state from walking away.

We can easily see that EU and US is totally different system-wise. The World Fed should look-like more EU than US. Brexit was an ugly displation of nationalism and ignorance, i think and will see if the people of Britian will benefit from this decision or not.

 

Quote

From ethnic cleansing to holocausts humans have found ways to divide themselves up into camps and use those divisions to justify killing each other. Replacing nations with city-states won't change that. The Palestinians haven't had a nation of there own in a hundred years yet still consider themselves and are considered by others to be a specific group of people. What you are proposing would create situations similar to that all other the globe. 

Replacing the nation with state will change everything. I am going to give the same example: When you are from Berlin, it says nothing about your etnicity, your nationality, nothing. But when you are German or from Germany it says a lot. The difference is anormous. You dont see it because you think nationalist perspective, my friend.

 

Quote

Far more do not have Law Degrees. How does your plan prevent mob rule from creating law that oppress people based on gender, religion, age, and etc? If 51% of a City-State votes to ban all Christians, kill all unmarried non-virgin women, and exile everyone over the age of 70 then what?

First of all, apart from tax-wise issues, if lets say a city-state, with majority, chooses to live with Shariat Laws, we can do nothing about it, they wil have Shariat Laws. And people who doesnt want to be ruled with Shariat laws will move to next city-state. You should understand that these sort of cases would hapen in 4 or 5 city-states among 10.000. 

 

Quote

How is this enforced? Is the Federation going to have the physical military power to coerce City-States? What stops groups of City-States from banning together against others or the federation itself. You are ignoring the fact that War is right up there with fire as one of Humans earliest inventions. Revolt within the system you describe is inevitable. Direct Democracy doesn't ensure every gets what they want. It only ensures the majority do which means they will still be angry people. 

Does EU have a military power against the countries living in there? When USA becomes part of the Union, they can declare the currency as gold. The Federation will have a military power against resisting 2nd World, in case. 

 

Quote

Enforced how? In the U.S. Marijuana is federally illegal yet people are using Marijuana in every community throughout the entire country. Marijuana is as available as Pepsi. Making something illegal doesn't automatically stop it from happening.

Overlooking some people selling some weed is a lot different than letting city-states decreasing their taxes by their own. It is quite easily detectable, don't you think? It has nothing common with selling weed.

 

Quote

People good, Govt bad; makes zero sense given that Govts were created by and are ran by people. If Govts suck it is because people suck. 

I strongly disagree. Governments are run by either owners of corporations or dictators, always by an elite class in this system.

 

Edited by BahadirArici

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Brexit was an ugly displation of nationalism and ignorance, i think and will see if the people of Britian will benefit from this decision or not.

I agree it was ugly but that is my point. How would your system prevent something like Brexit?

9 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

When you are from Berlin, it says nothing about your etnicity, your nationality, nothing. But when you are German or from Germany it says a lot.

You've never met someone from Dallas TX apparently.

12 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

When USA becomes part of the Union, they can declare the currency as gold. The Federation will have a military power against resisting 2nd World, in case. 

So the world Federation will control the world by force? Seems more like an empire. For this thing to be truly democratic wouldn't every City-State need to choose to be part of it rather than be coerced? 

14 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

It is quite easily detectable, don't you think

No I don't think. Currency manipulation, money laundering, fraud, and etc are very real problems that Govts struggle to curtail.It absolute is not easy.

16 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

I strongly disagree. Governments are run by either owners of corporations or dictators, always by an elite class in this system.

Govts, Corporations, Dictators, and etc are all either groups or people or individual people. At the end of the day such people would still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I agree it was ugly but that is my point. How would your system prevent something like Brexit?

World Federation would not be same with EU. There will be a shift in people's perception. Today you can be first World country and not be part of EU and it is totally normal. But if every First World City-states is part of the decentralized World Federation, you -as a city-state- can still decide not being a part of it but you will be considered as a 2nd World. No-one wants that.

 

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You've never met someone from Dallas TX apparently.

Some people still might cling to their "nationalism", you are right, but they will be a very small minority.

 

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

So the world Federation will control the world by force? Seems more like an empire. For this thing to be truly democratic wouldn't every City-State need to choose to be part of it rather than be coerced? 

I didnt do a good job explaining myself. When the Union, the World Federation gets strong enough, it will turn its glace countries like Iran. So, if Iran turns into a city-state federation and is ruled with direct democracy but doesnt want to be with "devil westerns", we have to respect that. But if the Molla wants to keep their rejim and no direct democracy no city-states, good old Iran, than the Union should use whatever within its power to stop the oligarchs.

 

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No I don't think. Currency manipulation, money laundering, fraud, and etc are very real problems that Govts struggle to curtail.It absolute is not easy.

I agree but do you know that Apples 250.000.000.000 dollars is out of USA because they dont want to pay taxes? So, this problem will be aliminated, i think. And i do think, if the governments were not this curropted, they would have more difficult time stealing our money.

 

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Govts, Corporations, Dictators, and etc are all either groups or people or individual people. At the end of the day such people would still exist.

But they wont have the power they have today. People will have the power.


I d like to invite you being more optimistic. We can fix this World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

That makes my system even superior.

 

Respectfully, I disagree.

One thing I've learned is that you can convince most people of anything.

If you're clever enough, you could get people to vote on a bill that is completely and utterly terrible......because you convinced them it wasn't.

When we vote in politicians, they know what to look for in bills. If it's completely and utterly terrible, they'll point it out and most won't vote for it.

 

Let's say I wanted to pass Bill A.

 

Bill A states as follows:

All consumption of coffee is now illegal.

 

Now I got to prove why we should do this. I get a lot of scientists to publish thousands of studies on the harmful effects of coffee. (If this doesn't make sense, replace coffee with marijuana or a drug of some type)

Then I convince the majority of voters, at least 51%, to pass this bill.

Congratulations. You now have a bill that doesn't absolutely nothing.

There's no power under it.

 

Who will enforce the bill?

Where will funding to enforce the bill come from?

What are the penalties?

What are the offenses?

Is it legal to own just not to use?

How will this fit into the current budget of the city-state?

What are the estimated impacts of this bill?

What are the predictions for this bill?

Is the bill realistic?

Will it waste more money then it saves?

And about 50 other questions.
 

 

Even if a bill was written by an idiot, if it sounds popular enough, it could possibly become law. Like "No more paying taxes for anyone making less than $75,000." That'd get a large number of voters considering most of them will be far below that. And convincing them they shouldn't pay taxes is not hard. Trust me.

 

 

 

 

 

But, if you'd like to theorize about this idea I have no problem with it.

First and foremost you have to address the budget.

How much money does each city-state get? Is it dependant on how many people are in the city-state? Is it dependant on the poverty level(since you're thinking worldwide, you MUST account for this) etc. Questions like this you need to answer with a solid budget plan. How are taxes collected? How much per person are taxes? Do city-states only get what they collect in taxes? etc.

The U.S.A. made the mistake of not having a powerful government to collect taxes. They nearly destroyed themselves when individual states refused to pay taxes. Think carefully. Use statistics on the number of people in the world, how much they make, etc.

You may have to set the budget up in stages. As you absorb 3rd world countries your budget needs will have to shift dramatically. So maybe have differen't stages like "Stage 1: Absorbing Europe. Stage 2: Absorbing Asia Stage(Many small poor countries here.) 3: Absorbing North America(You get Mexico here. A massive poorish country.) Stage 4: absorbing south America Stage 5: Absorbing Africa(final stage. Most 3rd world countries. Poorest people on earth.)

 

Also, drop the Aussies in with Europe.

 

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your constructive criticism. 

The system we are living in is no better. You need to buy some congressman and have your way. Or better, have a pressident from your class and he will have a bill clearing your tax debt. 

I understand your need more clerification about these issues but i want us to agree on the framework first. From there we can develop best version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Thank you for your constructive criticism. 

The system we are living in is no better. You need to buy some congressman and have your way. Or better, have a pressident from your class and he will have a bill clearing your tax debt. 

I understand your need more clerification about these issues but i want us to agree on the framework first. From there we can develop best version.

United States, United Kingdom, Europian Union ... Which framework do you prefer and why? Because the best version, historically, comes and goes, it comes through strength and unity and goes through ignorance and division; how do you plan to walk the tightrope?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

United States, United Kingdom, Europian Union ... Which framework do you prefer and why? Because the best version, historically, comes and goes, it comes through strength and unity and goes through ignorance and division; how do you plan to walk the tightrope?

I prefer Eropean Union. It should get rid of European and be the Union and keep on expending first First World than step by step 3rd World and finally 2nd World.

When Union unite all the First World, it should turn into the federation of City-states, start using direct democracy via internet and change its currency to gold.

Than slowly add more city-states from rest of the World.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

I prefer Eropean Union. It should get rid of European and be the Union and keep on expending first First World than step by step 3rd World and finally 2nd World.

When Union unite all the First World, it should turn into the federation of City-states, start using direct democracy via internet and change its currency to gold.

Than slowly add more city-states from rest of the World.

Any union of good, better and best is doomed to fail, it has to start with mutual respect not first, second and third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now