Global Direct Democracy Quick Guide


1. The universe is collectively owned by all humans. Decision making must be determined by direct democracy. Global direct democracy has the highest say.

2. Regional sovereignty should be respected, but global direct democracy still has highest say. For example, if the people of Africa democratically voted to take over the rest of the planet, the rest of the planet has the right to vote against that and enforce global democratic will.

3. Global direct democracy can grant temporary regional sovereignty so countries can run their own internal affairs.

4. Human rights such as free speech, equality for people of different physical races, genders, sexual orientation, and religion should be respected. However, direct democracy still has higher say than these human rights. No minority should be allowed to enforce human rights on the public against democratic will.

5. Individual countries should never engage in foreign intervention that is not approved by global direct democracy. Additionally, if global democratic will calls for a country to intervene, an individual country should not be allowed to veto such a resolution.

6. The global public should cut off funding and weapon supplies to countries that have severe human rights abuses.

7. Lying to enforce poverty should be illegal.

8. Different regions can democratically choose different economic models. Only economic models that ensure zero poverty are acceptable. Capitalism requires a basic income to function properly. Marxism requires democratic worker ownership.

9. Countries need to ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable minorities.

10. Major projects such as gas pipelines, nuclear reactors, fracking, or hydroelectric projects that seriously impact the environment must be approved via referendum.

11. Major changes to economic policy must be approved via referendum.

12. The public has the right to determine what wealth and resources can flow in and out of a country. Freedom of mobility should be respected, so that people can leave a country, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can take wealth they acquired in that country with them. Additionally, public will does trump all rights including freedom of mobility. Only the public can grant such a privilege.

13. Euthanasia and early stage abortion should be permissible. (Again, public rule has final say.)

14. Those responsible for imperialistic intervention (not approved by global public will) and resulting war crimes must be prosecuted.

15. If a dictator can be put in power via direct democracy, s/he can also be taken out via direct democracy at any time.

16. A second referendum on an issue trumps a first referendum on the same issue. People have the right to change their mind. New public will always rules over old public will.


The Earth is collectively owned by all humans

Tags:+Direct democracy

I am not sure human own the whole universe (there may be some intelligent alien life out there!!), but the Earth, certainly! I'd say the Earth is collectively owned by all humans, present and future, and why not: by all Life (including the Animal and Vegetable Kingdoms). :)

I do agree with your point, on collective ownership. This is one of the cornerstones of my own political philosophy, and the basis for a tax reform that I support. Like you, I wish people had a more global vision of things.

The solar system is collectively owned by all humans.

There is currently no evidence of alien life within our own solar system and humans have already begun moving things around on other planets in our solar system. This is important because if there are precious resources on other planets, there needs to be a framework in place for dealing with how those materials are allocated.

Direct democracy

Following our private conversations, I agree with you that the USA is not a democracy. At this stage, it is at best an oligarchy, controlled by party-politics, media-politics as well of course by lobbies and special interests who know how to use parties and media for their own purposes.

Those are issues that Fred, myself and others are trying to highlight in this site, while also trying to promote solutions.

With regard to your Direct Democracy, how would it work, concretely speaking? Would every single member of the human race vote on every single issue? I'd say it's neither practical nor in our best interest. How can we expect every single voter to be an expert on every single issue they vote on?

Our challenge is to find, promote and implement a system that would drastically reduce or even eliminate the influence of special interests over the will of the majority, especially at the expense of the common good.

We try to explore answers to the following three questions:
1) What are our current problems and challenges?
2) What do we want instead?
3) How to get from here to there?

It's not about being perfect.

I'm not really taking into account how difficult it is to implement global direct democracy guidelines right now. I just think it's important to keep them in mind so that people know what to work toward and what is ideal. Trying to implement global direct democracy and doing so imperfectly is better than trying to implement global oligarchy and doing so successfully. An attempt should at least be made, in my mind.

"With regard to your Direct Democracy, how would it work, concretely speaking? Would every single member of the human race vote on every single issue?"

If Europe were to shift to European direct democracy (or as close to it as possible) what would the set-up look like?

Additionally, I define democracy as majority rule. The US was never a democracy and has always been a constitutional republic that blocks majority rule.

I'm just here to set the ideal.

I'm just here to set the ideal so that people have an idea of what to work toward and what has highest authority.

The Dangers of Direct Democracy

I am a strong advocate of democracy, but I fear Direct Democracy. By way of example, I'd like to mention the events that transpired in the United States in 2002. Our nation was inundated with reports of dire threats to our well-being in the form of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I could not believe our susceptibility to such an incredible flood of propaganda, and on August 13th, 2002, I wrote:

Am I alone?

I read that we (Americans) are preparing to invade Iraq. I see it referred to on these boards. But nowhere do I see a sign of outrage that our "leaders" would undertake such a horribly aggressive, destructive act.

Do people really believe this nonsense about fighting terrorism? I fear we are living proof of Adolf Hitler's assertion in Mein Kampf that "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." or, as Isaac Singer said in "Yentl, the Yeshiva Boy", "It is a general rule that when a grain of truth cannot be found, men will swallow great helpings of falsehood."

The event of September 11th, 2001 was one of the worst that has occurred during my lifetime. It ranks right up there with the fire bombing of Hamburg, the obliteration of Nagasaki, the tragedy of the Munich Games, the car bombings in London, the firestorm in Tokyo, the bus bombings in Israel, the terror in Northern Ireland. Do you imagine that horror and death are less painful if they occur outside the U. S.?

The planned invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. It is an effort to gain control of a major source of oil. It is a commercial enterprise; it has nothing to do with "right" or "justice". The use of 9/11 as a pretext to put troops in position in Afghanistan, and to justify attacking Iraq, illustrates the terrible cynicism of those who have taken control of our nation.

I fear my view is not commonly shared, and I'm sure it will bring a boatload of invective down on me. That's too bad. I've been a proud American for a long time. I learned of our country's virtues in a one-room schoolhouse. It sickens me to see them trampled like this.


The problem with Direct Democracy is that the people are easily manipulated through the media. In this case, the public was stampeded into supporting our nation's invasion of a sovereign nation.

A strange facet of human nature is that, in a group (like a lynch mob) we will act in a way we would never consider as individuals. That's one of the reasons we need a representative democracy.

It is my opinion that representatives selected for their persuasiveness, intelligence and integrity would not have been as easily hoodwinked by threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, to prevent the invasion, they would have had to go contrary to the (then) will of the people, and I believe they would have been justified in doing so.

Stated another way, I believe the selection of principled representatives is the cornerstone of true democracy.

I think we need more majority rule.

It's a lack of majority rule that causes the public to become stupid. Majority rule forces people to be more educated and forces those who have important information to cough it up and tell the public exactly what they need to know to prevent uninformed decision-making. Lack of majority rule causes people to become lazy. They become dependent on rulers to think for them and stop thinking for themselves.

"It is my opinion that representatives selected for their persuasiveness, intelligence and integrity would not have been as easily hoodwinked by threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction."
The US is a constitutional republic and is not truly democratic, but is more similar to a representative democracy than a direct democracy. Who started the lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Politicians who knew full well that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction lied to the people. Let's say the US changed to a system of true representative democracy. You would get better representation of the needs of the public and less harm done to humanity, but the forces selecting for oligarchy are so naturally intense that this could also be abused and representatives could easily begin lying to the public.

Who has the right to truly limit what the majority wants? Who has the right to put their foot down and block majority will using violent means?

Asking the Majority What They Want

Good Morning, Poramics

Our views differ greatly. I don't want to waste your time or my own, but I'll offer the best insights I can.

It is not lack of majority rule that causes people to become lazy, it is the lack of a way to take meaningful action. Party-dominated political infrastructures deny the people the right to decide the issues they want addressed and the right to select the candidates they want to address them. As a result, the people's political skills atrophy because the system gives them no meaningful participation in the political process. That's not the people being stupid, that's a flawed political infrastructure.

Plato felt democracy could not work because 'ordinary people' are 'too easily swayed by the emotional and deceptive rhetoric of ambitious politicians'. He failed to note that some folks are more easily swayed than others, and that some individuals are not swayed at all. Yet, Plato's faulty view of democracy survived and still dominates political thought.

In my view, the one of the weaknesses in Plato's notion, and in the idea of Direct Democracy, is that it does not recognize that 'ordinary people' are made up of individuals: some good, some bad; some skilled, some unskilled; some with integrity, some deceitful; some brilliant, some dull; some sociable, some unfriendly; some with leadership qualities, some without. Failure to accommodate that simple reality is the flaw in the Platonic view. There is no shortage of good, principled people in our society. What we lack is a means of identifying them and electing them as our representatives.

The challenge of democracy is to sift through the huge number of people to find those with the wisdom to accept the best parts of competing opinions, the ability to integrate them into productive proposals, and the persuasiveness to motivate others to adopt solutions that benefit society. Given the range of public issues and the way each individual's interest in political matters varies over time, this can only be done by examining the entire electorate during each electoral cycle and letting every voter influence the outcome of each election to the full extent of their desire and ability.

One way to accomplish that is described at Practical Democracy Method here on Minguo.

You'll note that the method has several advantages:

  1. It ensures that every candidate is repeatedly and carefully examined before they are elected.
  2. It lets every member of the community participate to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability.
  3. It repeats frequently, always starting from a different base, thus reducing the effect of personal animosity to an absolute minimum.
  4. It encourages those who have specific goals that describe those goals in ways that benefit the community.
  5. It does not have to be installed on a national or state-wide basis. Any town, like Frome in the U. K., that wants to get rid of party domination can use the Practical Democracy concept.

However much we may resist the notion, there are leaders among us and they are going to seek power. Our task is to ensure that those who rise to leadership positions do so because they are the best advocates of the public interest. I hope you will consider the fact that there are plenty of good people among us. We are tempted to doubt that because of the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our culture. The idea that corruption is inescapable leads to the self-defeating notion that trying to correct it is futile.

The reality is that the vast majority of humans are honorable, law-abiding people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise. By far, the greater percentage of our friends, our relatives, our co-workers and our neighbors are trustworthy people.

The reason our political leaders are corrupt is that party politics elevates unscrupulous people by design. Since the goal of a party is to advance its own interest, it rewards those who do so unfettered by the restraints of honor. Once these unprincipled people achieve leadership they infect our society because morality is a top-down phenomenon.

The idea that we can't remove corruption from our political systems because we are corruptible is nonsense. It is a myth. The problem is not the people; it is a political system that demands subservient politicians at the expense of integrity. The vast majority of our peers are honest, principled people. When we make probity a primary concern in our electoral process, the pervasiveness of dishonesty in our society will diminish.


Instead of updating this blog entry, you should put this in a new page in your Personal Book and update it there.