4 ms·

No. World-widely adopted laws are the way to go (thus, with world-wide enforcement organ too). Any other method leads to workarounds and relocation of what was

No. World-widely adopted laws are the way to go (thus, with world-wide enforcement organ too). Any other method leads to workarounds and relocation of what was meant to be curbed.

nathias 4y ago
you know that there are quite a few of us that don't like the imperial boot on our face, and will always oppose it?
- henearkr 4y ago
  I am not talking about imperialism, but about an Earth-scale democracy. I am as opposed as you to imperialism lol, if it was not clear enough from my posts. By the way, I think that what can be put in the category of "traditions" is not touched by laws, so my proposal does not hurt cultural differences. However it does ask to some traditions to go, because they are just objectively harmful. Just to hit the nail a bit further: you see cultural variety INSIDE existing democratic states, for example regional customs and traditions, etc. So there is absolutely no hint of imperialism in building a world-wide democracy.
  - nathias 4y ago
    That would be a good goal, but how can you make it witout imperialism? Not through nation states or representative democracies but through voluntary networks that can compose.
    - henearkr 4y ago
      I think it is possible. Maybe a way to do it would be through world-wide petitions? Or more realistically through some world-wide voting system, as participating to such a petition overtly could lead to political persecutions. Then the problem is the verification that people are not voting several times. And then the problem of allowing people to vote (in some states like in China that problem will be difficult to solve)...
      - betwixthewires 4y ago
        If you had a world wide petition, you'd have 1 of 2 things: 1) everyone participating in one giant binding petition, in which case you're already imposing worldwide democracy on them without asking them (the act of making them vote on it in the first place is an undemocratic act), or 2) individual nations and groups being given the option to have a vote on the matter, in which case you'll certainly be left with nation states that say "no". People don't want what you're proposing. Is it not then undemocratic to impose it on them in the first place?
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    So under this proposed "traditions" umbrella, what can fit? Can a group perform FGM? The Maori committed a genocide on the Moriori and justified it with tradition, would that be allowed? Or is the "tradition" reservation something superficial and of no substance, with this global democracy reserving the right to determine what tradition is and therefore touch them with laws?

No. World-widely adopted laws are the way to go (thus, with world-wide enforcement organ too). Any other method leads to workarounds and relocation of what was meant to be curbed.

nathias 4y ago

you know that there are quite a few of us that don't like the imperial boot on our face, and will always oppose it?

henearkr 4y ago
I am not talking about imperialism, but about an Earth-scale democracy. I am as opposed as you to imperialism lol, if it was not clear enough from my posts. By the way, I think that what can be put in the category of "traditions" is not touched by laws, so my proposal does not hurt cultural differences. However it does ask to some traditions to go, because they are just objectively harmful. Just to hit the nail a bit further: you see cultural variety INSIDE existing democratic states, for example regional customs and traditions, etc. So there is absolutely no hint of imperialism in building a world-wide democracy.
- nathias 4y ago
  That would be a good goal, but how can you make it witout imperialism? Not through nation states or representative democracies but through voluntary networks that can compose.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    I think it is possible. Maybe a way to do it would be through world-wide petitions? Or more realistically through some world-wide voting system, as participating to such a petition overtly could lead to political persecutions. Then the problem is the verification that people are not voting several times. And then the problem of allowing people to vote (in some states like in China that problem will be difficult to solve)...
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      If you had a world wide petition, you'd have 1 of 2 things: 1) everyone participating in one giant binding petition, in which case you're already imposing worldwide democracy on them without asking them (the act of making them vote on it in the first place is an undemocratic act), or 2) individual nations and groups being given the option to have a vote on the matter, in which case you'll certainly be left with nation states that say "no". People don't want what you're proposing. Is it not then undemocratic to impose it on them in the first place?
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  So under this proposed "traditions" umbrella, what can fit? Can a group perform FGM? The Maori committed a genocide on the Moriori and justified it with tradition, would that be allowed? Or is the "tradition" reservation something superficial and of no substance, with this global democracy reserving the right to determine what tradition is and therefore touch them with laws?