September 1, 2022 • 35 mins
There are many doubts and misconceptions about the idea, that can be dispelled by a close observation. On the way, we take apart some of the great lies that the current world order is built on.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:10):
As humanity is increasingly facing global problemsthat, by definition, are beyond the scale of any nation state,
you know, global warming, inequality, pandemics and so on,
an increasing number of peopleare daring to ask a very simple question:
‘wouldn’t it be so much betterif instead of having 200 legally separate governments,
(00:31):
all in competition with each otherand looking out only for their own interests,
we would also have a federal levelof democratic state above all of them,
that will be at the right size to address those global problems?
But when they share that thought with others,they often get a cold shower of objections
(00:51):
that tell them, ‘No, no, no!'That’s just a naïve utopia, it goes against the nature of humans,
and could may well end up in a dystopia of a global tyranny.
So forget that idea, and focus on realistic solutions’.
Yeah right. This type of objectioncan come even from rather educated people,
(01:14):
and yet I would argue that they reflecta profound ignorance about what’s really going on in the world,
and a complete failure of imagination of how different it could be.
So here I will take a close lookinto these objections and answer them, one by one,
which is not only important and interesting, but also easy and fun.
(01:36):
And as I will do that I want you to notice a patternthat will repeat over and over again of A, B & C.
A. At first glance, each objection to the ideaof global democracy seems to stand on solid rational logic.
B. But upon a closer look,we quickly begin to see that this logic is not solid at all.
(01:59):
Which then gets us to the tricky part of C,
that as soon as you just begin exposing the weakness of the first objection,
another objection will quickly pop its head outfrom another direction, saying ‘but what about me?!?’
It’s as if all of the objections are connectedin some underground mental system of mutual support.
(02:21):
Now, that new objectionwill also be standing only on seemingly solid logic,
but if you are not carefuland get distracted to start exposing its own weakness,
without first making sure that you have properly destroyed the first objection,
later down the line that first onecould just rise up again to help the other objections
(02:44):
And this is why I will take the time to properly dismantlethe foundation of each objection so that it cannot rise again.
So let’s begin with the classic‘Objection number 1’, which goes like this:
“People will never agree to live in a federation of the world because their nature is egoistic and tribal.
(03:04):
They can’t affiliate emotionallywith something so remote and as big as the whole world,
just as they can’t identify with a groupso large and so diverse as the whole of humanity.”
Sounds familiar? How do you answer that?
At first glance it looks like it’s standing on the solid logic that naturally,
(03:26):
every one of us cares more for the close circles of family and friends
than to the more remote circles,so surely we couldn’t care for the entire world, right?
Well, while indeed, human naturehas plenty of egoism and tribalism in it,
it’s important to notice the tension between those two things.
(03:46):
For example, going to the armyand maybe to battle to protect one’s own tribe or country
is in tension with one’s egoistic tendencyto protect oneself as an individual.
Which only means that we humans are complex,and by our nature we can hold multiple allegiances
to different social circles and levels of social circles,that are all in some tension with one another.
(04:10):
Think of the different levels of family and friends,the commitment for work versus one’s own hobbies.
It’s surely not easy to find the perfect balancebetween all the social circles and communities that we are member of.
But we, humans, have the basic ability to do that.
And so, having some measure of affiliationto the very largest circle, of the world as a whole,
(04:34):
alongside all the other circles or layers, and naturally,with some tension with them,
is certainly not beyond our human nature.
This is why it’s easy for us to imagine,for example, that if only we had some serious external threat,
like aliens from space,or an asteroid coming our way,
(04:54):
we would quickly put aside all our differences and disagreements
and come together to protect our shared homeland, our planet.
Think of it, just as many people todayindeed care, and strongly,
for their respective national or religious communities,
who can be groups of millionsor hundreds of millions or people,
they can also have some level of care for a group as large as humanity.
(05:18):
The very fact that we havesome affiliation with any group,
doesn’t mean that we personally know, or love, or agree with everyone in that group.
Of course not!So the same can go for humanity.
And on this point we can see the greatest thingabout democracy, that it creates for us a framework
in which we can passionately disagree with each other, but in a non-violent manner.
(05:42):
Are you aware of any rule of human naturethat determines that we can’t have that also at the global level?
Indeed, to have that, we needto have some core of shared identity and interests. Yes.
Well, but guess what?
We are all one species, we are vulnerable to the same diseases,
we live on the very same planet,
(06:03):
so if someone is wrecking the climateby pumping greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere
but just on the other side of Earth,it’s very much our business.
So we do have a very tangible basisof identity and shared interests to build upon.
These things are far more real, far more important,may I say, than many national differences,
(06:25):
or cultural symbols that people rally around today.
And just before any other objection pops its head from anywhere else,
and to make sure that this one will not rise again later,let’s just look at another variant of it.
This version of the argumentis built on a simple and unrefutable observation,
that the vast majority of the borderlinesthat divide today between the nation states of the world
(06:49):
have been relatively stable for many decades,
and haven’t changed roughly sincethe previous mid-century, after World War Two.
And when people try to explain what looks likea success of the current division of humanity into nation states,
many of them point to the strongnational sentiments that people have for their own countries.
In other words, they say that it’s thanksto the strong care that people have for their nation-state,
(07:15):
that the nation state exists and functions and succeeds to do whatever it does.
And hence the fact that we don’t yet havea federal state of the earth reflects, ostensibly,
the fact that humans just don’t care enough for the world and for humanity as a whole.
But what’s missing in this pictureis that it also goes the other way around,
(07:38):
that just as national sentimentsdo create and strengthen nation states,
the existence and action of nation statescreates and strengthens national sentiments.
And that makes a very big differencewith regard to the proposed idea of a world federation.
Because today, the simple fact is thatit’s only within nation states that we can see
(08:01):
examples of somewhat functional systemsof large-scale social justice and solidarity.
Like some taxation of the richer and redistribution to all,
or the rule of law that protects civil rights and liberties, and democracy.
So naturally, people who care for all those extremely important things,
(08:22):
care strongly for the political frameworkthat enables them, which today is only the nation state.
Which then makes you think of it also the other way around – that if so many people already today
profess such a great care for the earthas a whole and for our shared identity as humans,
even before we have any of those state-systems of justice and solidarity and democracy at the global level,
(08:49):
then how many more peoplewould have these sentiments of care and solidarity,
and how much more strongly they would feel them, if we had those state-mechanisms up and running globally?
Global democracy, in which people will have a framework to disagree with each other
in a non-violent and politically constructive way,
(09:11):
has a huge potential as a possible alternative to the existing system.
So now we can move on to the next objection,'number 2’, also a very common one, that says the following:
‘Global Democracy is impossible because a very significantportion of the world’s population simply doesn’t want democracy.
(09:32):
Democracy is this western and liberal idea
that is alien to the traditions of so many other cultures,who prefer a clear system of social hierarchy.
One could hope that maybe, one day,they will also develop a liking for democracy,
but surely it’s not up to us to intervene in any way in their decisions about that!’
(09:55):
Right. I can see the logic here as well, but have just small question about it.
How do we know?
How can we be so sure that the reasonthat so many countries around the world are undemocratic,
and I leave it up to you to say which ones they are,
is because the people there just don’t want democracy?
Is it because it’s clearly shown in the resultsof the free and fair elections that are held there? Or surveys? or something?
(10:23):
And are the people there really given a free and fairchance to make up their minds about it?
And you know, with all my heart I alsowarmly embrace the liberal principle of tolerance,
that we should keep outof other peoples’ business, and mind our own.
The only problem is, that whenever we do businesswith those who themselves are intolerant and exploit and harm others,
(10:47):
we end up going in practiceagainst our own noble principle.
Let’s take, for example, a stereotypical liberal guy from Germanywho would proudly tell anyone, including himself,
that he strongly believesin democracy and the values of democracy.
But to warm up his home in winter, he uses gas that arrives in pipes all the way from Russia.
(11:12):
That gas is really good,but the democracy in Russia… Ehh., a little less so, right?
And while he might like to tell himself that the things are not connected,
the simple fact of life is that a portionof the price that he pays for the gas every month,
covers the taxes and fees and bribes and other payments that the gas company, that is pumping it in Russia,
(11:35):
had to pay to the Russian governmentfor the right to pump this gas.
So while in principle, our German guyjust minds his own business, right?
And surely doesn’t support any form of oligarchy(that's the rule of the un-elected few),
in practice he does, and not with mere words,not at all - but with his money.
(11:56):
And it is this very money that allowsthe Russian tyrannical government
to pay for the guns and the prisonswith which they oppress the Russian people,
to pay salaries to their collaborators there,and to fund the media that tells the Russian citizens
that they live in the best countryand how all the others are so bad, and so on and so on.
(12:19):
And so the fact is that the decision ofwhat kind of government the Russians should have
is in practice not just a businessbetween the Russian people and their government,
but there are millions of people outside of Russia,that put down their money on the side of the Russian oligarchy
and against the Russian people and democracy.
(12:41):
And Russia is just one example.It’s true in so many other cases around the world.
And don’t let anyone take you down the rhetorical road of‘Oh, this German guy he’s just the small consumer, what can he do?
Life is so complicated and you expect himto somehow investigate on each product that he considers buying,
(13:03):
how it was produced,who did what to whom in the process etc. It’s crazy!’
No, no, no, no, no…When I say that market players like consumers, or shareholders,
have some undemocratic power over people in other countries,
it doesn’t mean that they can and should restrain themselves.
(13:24):
No. The whole idea of democracy is to have a systemwhere those with any power to govern others
should be restrained by those who are governed.A full circle.
For example, imagine that our guy in Germany is a truck driver, taking, let’s say,
apples that are grown in the countryside to the big city markets.Why is he doing that job?
(13:49):
Mainly because consumers who are interested in those apples incentivise him, financially,
to get up in the morning and hit the road, right?
But at the same time, they create also a similaror even greater financial incentive for another guy,
who doesn’t have a truck, but has a gun,to stop the truck driver on a small side road, get the driver out,
(14:12):
and then the robber himselfcan drive to the market to sell the stolen apples,
and the truck,to the local vendors at a cheap price.
And in such a case, do we expect then the consumers in the market to start investigating
whether the apples are fine or stolen?Of course not!
Do we expect the truck driver to somehow find the robberand then fight with him to take back his truck?
(14:38):
Maybe in the movies or in placeswhere there is no government. But in Germany?
All the driver needs to do is pick up a phoneand call the police and tell them what happened,
and they have the means and authorityto investigate and bring the robber to the court of justice, right?
And notice, the German policeand the German courts work on behalf of the German public.
(15:02):
Not only that their salaries are paidby the German public taxes,
but the rules that they enforce are writtenby representatives of the German public in the German parliament,
which is super important because it creates within Germany this nice democratic circle on the national level.
The police and the courts that have power to govern,are governed by the public.
(15:27):
But when it comes to the global market,when those who buy and those who sell are located in separate countries,
under completely different and independent systemsof laws and justice and politics, that circle is broken.
So, if it’s not a truck, but a whole countrythat is somehow taken over by a group
(15:47):
of basically armed robbersthat dispose of democracy and establish an oligarchy,
those robbers should not be allowed to export the oil and gas or other natural resources of that country
and keep the money to themselvesin private bank accounts abroad.
They shouldn't be allowed to buy from abroad new gunsto continue to oppress the local population, and so on.
(16:11):
And of course, it cannot and shouldn’t be the role of the consumers anywhere to do that enforcement!
That should be precisely the role of democratic government agencies that work on the same level of the market.
There should be on the global level a democratic justice system,with a federal police force and federal courts,
(16:32):
that are working on behalf of the global public,with salaries that will be funded by global taxes,
and enforcing rules that will be writtenby representatives of the whole of humanity,
in the federal world parliament.
A full circle of global democracy.
And as long as we don’t have a global democratic system,but we do have a global market system,
(16:57):
we might be the lucky citizens of a country that is democratic on the national level,
but as consumers of global goods, or shareholders of global companies,
mainly through our pension or insurance or saving funds,
we actively create the financial incentive for the oppression of people in other countries,
(17:18):
in what should be understoodas a sophisticated system of global oligarchy. That is the truth.
And the liberal story of‘we don’t intervene in other people’s lives’
is just a thin sugar coating overthis horrible global reality that we are all part of.
And then you have those who try to say‘Oh, but if we don’t buy all that stuff from them
(17:43):
they will lose their only source of incomeand livelihood, their cute little children will go hungry,
let’s rush to the nearby shopping mall to help them’.Huh! What nonsense!
In Germany if the management of a factory exploits the workers, pays salaries far below the minimum wage,
(18:04):
don’t allow the workers to take a break, or form a union, and so on,
you don’t hear German people saying‘Oh how awful! Let’s buy the products of that factory to support its workers”
No! It's the state authorities who come to supervise. They investigate and prosecute on behalf of the German citizens.
(18:24):
This is how you make sure thatchildren don’t go hungry in Germany.
With democratic rule of law on the one hand, and a mechanism of a welfare state on the other.
And the fact that on the global levelwe still don’t have such authorities of justice and welfare
is the only reason for why we still havechildren in the world who die just because of poverty.
(18:47):
Blaming the people in undemocratic countries that they don’t want democracy,
while you pay those who oppress them,that’s not logic, that is inhumane.
What we have is a system of global injusticethat we need to change.
And we will not be able to change it if we don’tfirst understand what’s the real problem with it,
(19:08):
and that there is an alternative.
Global democracy,a government of humanity, by humanity and for humanity,
is the alternative to the existing system of global injustice.
It's simple.
So now we can move on to the third objection,or maybe it’s more accurate to call them just ‘excuses.’
(19:29):
So the third excuse for why that alternative supposedly cannot work.
This one argues that democracy can work well only on a small scale,where you personally know all the members of the community,
or where at least you can easily access and speak with your representatives in the parliament or government
when you need them to do something for you.And therefore, on the global level,
(19:53):
due to the scale of the earth and the size of humanity, both of those things will be impossible,
and so the voice of the individual citizenwill be surely just get lost in the masses,
and stay unheard and neglected. Right?
I told you, at first glance it sounds like pristine logic,but let’s take a closer look.
(20:15):
First of all, let’s not idealize small communities too muchas places of peace and harmony and good relations.
Sadly, all too often it’s precisely there,in small tight communities,
where everyone knows each otherand have the same culture, even families,
that you find the greatest hatred and the most bitter conflicts.
(20:36):
And if you know anything about the statistics of violence and abuse,
you will know that it’s oftenthe larger circle of community like the state
that protects individuals from violence or abusein the smaller social units.
So smaller is not necessarily better,
but having a good balance between all the different levels,that’s the key that we ought to look for.
(20:58):
Secondly, while it’s true that you can find examples of small countriesthat are internally more democratic than larger ones,
it's also true that if you make a proper studycounting all the countries,
you will find many more small countriesthat are far less democratic than the greater ones.
Contrary to what many might think, there is no empirical correlationbetween the size of a country and the quality of its democracy.
(21:26):
And why is that? Here are three reasons.
The first is that the federal modelthat you find in many large countries,
in the right conditions and if done correctly,it can enable even on a very large scale a good balance
between the benefits of centralizationand those of de-centralization of power,
(21:47):
between the advantages of uniformityand those of diversity.
And what people need to realize with regard to a world federation,
that alongside some measure of centralization and uniformity,
it will also have plenty of room for diversity between communities and regions and individuals.
Only with regard to things that concern everyone,like global warming or global taxes,
(22:12):
these will have to be decided at the federal level,that includes everyone’s voices.
The second reason that democracycan be successful on a very large scale
has to do with the fact that larger societies are inevitably more diverse.
And while diversity can be a challenge for democracy,it can also be a serious advantage,
(22:34):
as it incentives the creation of a more tolerant political space,
where people are more open towards each other’s differences.
Think of it, in a relatively homogeneous society,
like a nation state that has a very clear majorityof just one ethnic or religious group,
a politician can easily gain cheap popularitysimply by enflaming hatred towards the minority.
(22:58):
But in a very diverse society,that is made up of multiple groups with none being a majority,
politicians are incentivized to appeal to a much more diverse crowd,
and to form coalitions of diverse communities.And that is a very big advantage.
Now, in today’s world,where we are all divided into ‘nation states’,
(23:20):
many people are obsessed withpreserving the demographic superiority
of their respective majority groupsagainst the ‘threat’ of minority groups and immigrants.
But in a federation of the whole world,if you take humanity in all of its diversity,
you’ll be happy to find that no ethnic or religious groupeven comes close to being a majority.
(23:43):
And that fact, in a world federal system,will incentivise politicians to appeal to diverse crowds,
to form coalitions,to emphasize what is common in our human identity,
and work for our shared interests on this planet.
And that will be so, so much better than today's politics!
(24:04):
The third and final reason that democracy can work well even on a very large scale,
has to do with the fact that the democratic mechanism of elections, (again, if done properly)
creates a powerful incentivefor politicians and parties to find out what the voters care for,
even without having to holdprivate conversations with every individual voter.
(24:28):
Because, when we think of the type of problemsthat we want someone in government to do something about them,
they are almost never somethingthat bothers only one individual voter. No.
Take for example a big crack in the streetwhere you live that needs to be fixed.
It bothers not only yourself, but all your neighborsand everyone that passes in that street,
(24:52):
and therefore a local politician that wants to be electedin your neighbourhood better say and do something about it, right?
And the politician doesn’t need to hear about it from every single voter again and again and again.
It’s really not necessary fora successful functioning of democracy.
And just as the mechanism of electionscreates that incentive for politicians on the local level
(25:14):
to listen and find what the voters care about, it could work also on the global level.
And you know what, as an example,despite the clear and huge differences
between democratic states and commercial corporations,
I think it’s really useful to draw herea very simple analogy between those two.
(25:35):
In the corporate world, the management of the corporationis “elected” by the global constituency of the shareholders,
which entrusts the elected managementto do what is needed to increase their profits, right?
If the shareholders aren’t happy with their revenue,they will elect another management,
or buy the shares of another company.And it works.
(25:58):
The flourishing of corporations in today’s world,their power and might and impact,
testify that the system of electing representatives to work for youworks in the corporate world on the global level.
In fact, it works so well, that local states find it increasingly hard to restrain the power of those corporations.
(26:19):
To tax them, to regulate them, to prohibit themfrom harming workers, consumers and the environment.
Which raises the super-important question:
Why should it be, that electing representatives for global management
works so well on the corporate world, but couldn’t work on the political world?
Why is it, that the one system that has the formal abilityto tax and regulate and restrain the market powers, which is the state,
(26:49):
why can’t that system also worksimilarly well if applied at the global level?
To me it’s clear that it can, but it’s just extremely usefulfor the corporations that so many people believe that it can’t.
And that brings me nicely to the final point, the fourth objection,which is the most powerful and most stupid of them all.
(27:11):
And this one goes like this:
‘In a world federation the governmentwill quickly centralize all the power in its hands,
and we would end up living in a tyrannical dystopia,enslaved with nowhere to hide, forever.
And if there is even one chance in a billionthat this nightmare would happen,
(27:33):
then we better just reject the whole ideaand not waste our time on useless and dangerous hopes.
’Hooo… Logical, eh?
Let’s look from up close at this bogeyman,see if it’s real or just a scarecrow, and what is it really protecting anyway?
The first question that we needin order to deflate this scary ghost is to ask it, 'why?'
(27:57):
Why in a democratic federation of the world the government will become tyrannical? Ah?
Is it because our tribal human nature cannot affiliatewith a social circle that includes the whole of humanity,
and therefore only a tyrannical governmentwill be able to maintain power above the different factions?
Ahm… we answered that, right?We can care for different social levels at the same time.
(28:21):
It doesn’t require that we will loveor agree with everyone in those circles.
And if we only had a welfare state at the global level,it’s very likely that people would love it.
So is it because, eh, some cultures don’t want democracy?Done that one as well.
A. How do we know what they want?
and B, how can they make up their minds about it when the oligarchies that educate them are funded from outside?
(28:47):
When you think of this point from a global perspective,
the democracy that you find todayonly in some countries of the world,
is similar, in a sense, to the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece.
Why? Because back then,from the narrow perspective of the Athenian citizens,
it was a very nice democracy.But the citizens were only men, who had land, and lived in Athens.
(29:11):
From the wider perspective,of the women of Athens, and the landless peasants,
and the slaves,, and all the people who livedin lands that were occupied by the Athenian Empire,
all of whom didn’t have a vote in the Athenian democracy,
for them it was one big oligarchy, the rule of the few.
And this is very much how the world is set up today,democracy and freedom and riches for the few,
(29:37):
and an oligarchy and oppression and poverty for the many.
It’s not right, and it doesn’t have to be this way.
A real, inclusive democracy, is possible. Why not?
Is it because democracy just can’t work on large scale?
Of course it can!
Especially when we remember how corporations flourishwhen they play on the global field, across borders, and cultures.
(30:02):
And so there is no reason that the one institutionthat could restrain them, which is the state,
should remain divided into 200 competing units,a perfect prey for the ‘divide and rule’ strategy of those corporations.
They are indeed afraid that in a world federation there will no longer be for them anywhere to hide away their profits.
(30:27):
With a global federal tax system,the global rich and powerful will finally pay their fair share,
which will raise trillions to enable the rest of us,the 99%, to live with dignity.
Today, it’s only powerful corporations and rich individuals,
that they can freely cross borders,set up their factories in countries whose governments
(30:49):
are too weak to stand up to the corporationsand protect their citizens.
The poor citizens, they don’t havea place to hide from that monstrosity,
from the harsh hand that their governmentsuse against them in the service of the corporations.
They cannot hide from the pollution,from the exploitation, from the poverty.
(31:11):
They cannot cross the border when they want to,get a visa, or citizenship in another country.
For them, there is nowhere to hide.
So what else is there? What other reason is there for the government of the world federation to become tyrannical?
Because they would want to centralizemore power in their hands? Of course they would want to.
(31:33):
This is what governments want to do and this is why we divide themin democratic constitutions, so that we can rule them.
We divide them into branches of governmentthat check and balance the power of each other.
We divide them horizontally between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
We divide them further vertically between the central levels and the regional and local levels.
(31:56):
Because we fundamentallydon’t trust anyone in power,
and this is why we keep the final sovereigntyto decide who will be in government in our hands.
That’s democracy. Nothing new.
But the division of state power between 200 states,that is the one type of division that is not helpful for us.
(32:16):
It’s helpful for the corporations.It’s helpful for the 1%.
It’s dividing us, first and foremost,and it’s time we stopped this silly madness.
People look at the few successes of local governments and say:
‘this is because they are local,and it couldn’t possibly work on the global scale’.
And other people look at the many failuresof local governments and say that
(32:40):
‘if it can’t work at the local level,then even more so it won’t work on the global level’.
And it’s exactly the other way around.
People need to see the successes of local governments, and say,
‘Yeah, if governments can do that despite their unfavourable condition vis-à-vis the global corporations,
imagine just how much more we could achieve togetherif our government system was global?
(33:06):
And people need also to look the many failures of the local governments and realize:
“this is because they are just local,how could we have ever seriously expected them
to be successful in standing up to the global powers of the market?”
That’s the way to think of that.
And the argument that if there is one chance in a billionthat a world federation would fail, we shouldn’t go for it…
(33:29):
Give me a break! There are no risk-free futures on offer, OK?And don’t let anyone tell you that there are.
Are we safe in a warming worldthat has no one in charge of dealing with this problem?
Are we safe in the face of global pandemics?Inequality, injustice and wars that no one is responsible for addressing?
Are the islands of democracysafe against the impact of the global 1%? Nonsense!
(33:55):
It’s time for people to know thatanother world is possible.
A democratic world federation is the alternative that we need.
And we need people to take this idea and push it forward.
And when some critical mass will gather behind it,
suddenly and finally it will seem easy and obvious to everyone.
(34:16):
And then it will happen.
So now we need to stand up to the objections,
expose and debunk the myths that they are built on,
and share the hope about global democracy
in order that it will become a reality.
Thank you!
As humanity is increasingly facing global problemsthat, by definition, are beyond the scale of any nation state,
you know, global warming, inequality, pandemics and so on,
an increasing number of peopleare daring to ask a very simple question:
‘wouldn’t it be so much betterif instead of having 200 legally separate governments,
(00:31):
all in competition with each otherand looking out only for their own interests,
we would also have a federal levelof democratic state above all of them,
that will be at the right size to address those global problems?
But when they share that thought with others,they often get a cold shower of objections
(00:51):
that tell them, ‘No, no, no!'That’s just a naïve utopia, it goes against the nature of humans,
and could may well end up in a dystopia of a global tyranny.
So forget that idea, and focus on realistic solutions’.
Yeah right. This type of objectioncan come even from rather educated people,
(01:14):
and yet I would argue that they reflecta profound ignorance about what’s really going on in the world,
and a complete failure of imagination of how different it could be.
So here I will take a close lookinto these objections and answer them, one by one,
which is not only important and interesting, but also easy and fun.
(01:36):
And as I will do that I want you to notice a patternthat will repeat over and over again of A, B & C.
A. At first glance, each objection to the ideaof global democracy seems to stand on solid rational logic.
B. But upon a closer look,we quickly begin to see that this logic is not solid at all.
(01:59):
Which then gets us to the tricky part of C,
that as soon as you just begin exposing the weakness of the first objection,
another objection will quickly pop its head outfrom another direction, saying ‘but what about me?!?’
It’s as if all of the objections are connectedin some underground mental system of mutual support.
(02:21):
Now, that new objectionwill also be standing only on seemingly solid logic,
but if you are not carefuland get distracted to start exposing its own weakness,
without first making sure that you have properly destroyed the first objection,
later down the line that first onecould just rise up again to help the other objections
(02:44):
And this is why I will take the time to properly dismantlethe foundation of each objection so that it cannot rise again.
So let’s begin with the classic‘Objection number 1’, which goes like this:
“People will never agree to live in a federation of the world because their nature is egoistic and tribal.
(03:04):
They can’t affiliate emotionallywith something so remote and as big as the whole world,
just as they can’t identify with a groupso large and so diverse as the whole of humanity.”
Sounds familiar? How do you answer that?
At first glance it looks like it’s standing on the solid logic that naturally,
(03:26):
every one of us cares more for the close circles of family and friends
than to the more remote circles,so surely we couldn’t care for the entire world, right?
Well, while indeed, human naturehas plenty of egoism and tribalism in it,
it’s important to notice the tension between those two things.
(03:46):
For example, going to the armyand maybe to battle to protect one’s own tribe or country
is in tension with one’s egoistic tendencyto protect oneself as an individual.
Which only means that we humans are complex,and by our nature we can hold multiple allegiances
to different social circles and levels of social circles,that are all in some tension with one another.
(04:10):
Think of the different levels of family and friends,the commitment for work versus one’s own hobbies.
It’s surely not easy to find the perfect balancebetween all the social circles and communities that we are member of.
But we, humans, have the basic ability to do that.
And so, having some measure of affiliationto the very largest circle, of the world as a whole,
(04:34):
alongside all the other circles or layers, and naturally,with some tension with them,
is certainly not beyond our human nature.
This is why it’s easy for us to imagine,for example, that if only we had some serious external threat,
like aliens from space,or an asteroid coming our way,
(04:54):
we would quickly put aside all our differences and disagreements
and come together to protect our shared homeland, our planet.
Think of it, just as many people todayindeed care, and strongly,
for their respective national or religious communities,
who can be groups of millionsor hundreds of millions or people,
they can also have some level of care for a group as large as humanity.
(05:18):
The very fact that we havesome affiliation with any group,
doesn’t mean that we personally know, or love, or agree with everyone in that group.
Of course not!So the same can go for humanity.
And on this point we can see the greatest thingabout democracy, that it creates for us a framework
in which we can passionately disagree with each other, but in a non-violent manner.
(05:42):
Are you aware of any rule of human naturethat determines that we can’t have that also at the global level?
Indeed, to have that, we needto have some core of shared identity and interests. Yes.
Well, but guess what?
We are all one species, we are vulnerable to the same diseases,
we live on the very same planet,
(06:03):
so if someone is wrecking the climateby pumping greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere
but just on the other side of Earth,it’s very much our business.
So we do have a very tangible basisof identity and shared interests to build upon.
These things are far more real, far more important,may I say, than many national differences,
(06:25):
or cultural symbols that people rally around today.
And just before any other objection pops its head from anywhere else,
and to make sure that this one will not rise again later,let’s just look at another variant of it.
This version of the argumentis built on a simple and unrefutable observation,
that the vast majority of the borderlinesthat divide today between the nation states of the world
(06:49):
have been relatively stable for many decades,
and haven’t changed roughly sincethe previous mid-century, after World War Two.
And when people try to explain what looks likea success of the current division of humanity into nation states,
many of them point to the strongnational sentiments that people have for their own countries.
In other words, they say that it’s thanksto the strong care that people have for their nation-state,
(07:15):
that the nation state exists and functions and succeeds to do whatever it does.
And hence the fact that we don’t yet havea federal state of the earth reflects, ostensibly,
the fact that humans just don’t care enough for the world and for humanity as a whole.
But what’s missing in this pictureis that it also goes the other way around,
(07:38):
that just as national sentimentsdo create and strengthen nation states,
the existence and action of nation statescreates and strengthens national sentiments.
And that makes a very big differencewith regard to the proposed idea of a world federation.
Because today, the simple fact is thatit’s only within nation states that we can see
(08:01):
examples of somewhat functional systemsof large-scale social justice and solidarity.
Like some taxation of the richer and redistribution to all,
or the rule of law that protects civil rights and liberties, and democracy.
So naturally, people who care for all those extremely important things,
(08:22):
care strongly for the political frameworkthat enables them, which today is only the nation state.
Which then makes you think of it also the other way around – that if so many people already today
profess such a great care for the earthas a whole and for our shared identity as humans,
even before we have any of those state-systems of justice and solidarity and democracy at the global level,
(08:49):
then how many more peoplewould have these sentiments of care and solidarity,
and how much more strongly they would feel them, if we had those state-mechanisms up and running globally?
Global democracy, in which people will have a framework to disagree with each other
in a non-violent and politically constructive way,
(09:11):
has a huge potential as a possible alternative to the existing system.
So now we can move on to the next objection,'number 2’, also a very common one, that says the following:
‘Global Democracy is impossible because a very significantportion of the world’s population simply doesn’t want democracy.
(09:32):
Democracy is this western and liberal idea
that is alien to the traditions of so many other cultures,who prefer a clear system of social hierarchy.
One could hope that maybe, one day,they will also develop a liking for democracy,
but surely it’s not up to us to intervene in any way in their decisions about that!’
(09:55):
Right. I can see the logic here as well, but have just small question about it.
How do we know?
How can we be so sure that the reasonthat so many countries around the world are undemocratic,
and I leave it up to you to say which ones they are,
is because the people there just don’t want democracy?
Is it because it’s clearly shown in the resultsof the free and fair elections that are held there? Or surveys? or something?
(10:23):
And are the people there really given a free and fairchance to make up their minds about it?
And you know, with all my heart I alsowarmly embrace the liberal principle of tolerance,
that we should keep outof other peoples’ business, and mind our own.
The only problem is, that whenever we do businesswith those who themselves are intolerant and exploit and harm others,
(10:47):
we end up going in practiceagainst our own noble principle.
Let’s take, for example, a stereotypical liberal guy from Germanywho would proudly tell anyone, including himself,
that he strongly believesin democracy and the values of democracy.
But to warm up his home in winter, he uses gas that arrives in pipes all the way from Russia.
(11:12):
That gas is really good,but the democracy in Russia… Ehh., a little less so, right?
And while he might like to tell himself that the things are not connected,
the simple fact of life is that a portionof the price that he pays for the gas every month,
covers the taxes and fees and bribes and other payments that the gas company, that is pumping it in Russia,
(11:35):
had to pay to the Russian governmentfor the right to pump this gas.
So while in principle, our German guyjust minds his own business, right?
And surely doesn’t support any form of oligarchy(that's the rule of the un-elected few),
in practice he does, and not with mere words,not at all - but with his money.
(11:56):
And it is this very money that allowsthe Russian tyrannical government
to pay for the guns and the prisonswith which they oppress the Russian people,
to pay salaries to their collaborators there,and to fund the media that tells the Russian citizens
that they live in the best countryand how all the others are so bad, and so on and so on.
(12:19):
And so the fact is that the decision ofwhat kind of government the Russians should have
is in practice not just a businessbetween the Russian people and their government,
but there are millions of people outside of Russia,that put down their money on the side of the Russian oligarchy
and against the Russian people and democracy.
(12:41):
And Russia is just one example.It’s true in so many other cases around the world.
And don’t let anyone take you down the rhetorical road of‘Oh, this German guy he’s just the small consumer, what can he do?
Life is so complicated and you expect himto somehow investigate on each product that he considers buying,
(13:03):
how it was produced,who did what to whom in the process etc. It’s crazy!’
No, no, no, no, no…When I say that market players like consumers, or shareholders,
have some undemocratic power over people in other countries,
it doesn’t mean that they can and should restrain themselves.
(13:24):
No. The whole idea of democracy is to have a systemwhere those with any power to govern others
should be restrained by those who are governed.A full circle.
For example, imagine that our guy in Germany is a truck driver, taking, let’s say,
apples that are grown in the countryside to the big city markets.Why is he doing that job?
(13:49):
Mainly because consumers who are interested in those apples incentivise him, financially,
to get up in the morning and hit the road, right?
But at the same time, they create also a similaror even greater financial incentive for another guy,
who doesn’t have a truck, but has a gun,to stop the truck driver on a small side road, get the driver out,
(14:12):
and then the robber himselfcan drive to the market to sell the stolen apples,
and the truck,to the local vendors at a cheap price.
And in such a case, do we expect then the consumers in the market to start investigating
whether the apples are fine or stolen?Of course not!
Do we expect the truck driver to somehow find the robberand then fight with him to take back his truck?
(14:38):
Maybe in the movies or in placeswhere there is no government. But in Germany?
All the driver needs to do is pick up a phoneand call the police and tell them what happened,
and they have the means and authorityto investigate and bring the robber to the court of justice, right?
And notice, the German policeand the German courts work on behalf of the German public.
(15:02):
Not only that their salaries are paidby the German public taxes,
but the rules that they enforce are writtenby representatives of the German public in the German parliament,
which is super important because it creates within Germany this nice democratic circle on the national level.
The police and the courts that have power to govern,are governed by the public.
(15:27):
But when it comes to the global market,when those who buy and those who sell are located in separate countries,
under completely different and independent systemsof laws and justice and politics, that circle is broken.
So, if it’s not a truck, but a whole countrythat is somehow taken over by a group
(15:47):
of basically armed robbersthat dispose of democracy and establish an oligarchy,
those robbers should not be allowed to export the oil and gas or other natural resources of that country
and keep the money to themselvesin private bank accounts abroad.
They shouldn't be allowed to buy from abroad new gunsto continue to oppress the local population, and so on.
(16:11):
And of course, it cannot and shouldn’t be the role of the consumers anywhere to do that enforcement!
That should be precisely the role of democratic government agencies that work on the same level of the market.
There should be on the global level a democratic justice system,with a federal police force and federal courts,
(16:32):
that are working on behalf of the global public,with salaries that will be funded by global taxes,
and enforcing rules that will be writtenby representatives of the whole of humanity,
in the federal world parliament.
A full circle of global democracy.
And as long as we don’t have a global democratic system,but we do have a global market system,
(16:57):
we might be the lucky citizens of a country that is democratic on the national level,
but as consumers of global goods, or shareholders of global companies,
mainly through our pension or insurance or saving funds,
we actively create the financial incentive for the oppression of people in other countries,
(17:18):
in what should be understoodas a sophisticated system of global oligarchy. That is the truth.
And the liberal story of‘we don’t intervene in other people’s lives’
is just a thin sugar coating overthis horrible global reality that we are all part of.
And then you have those who try to say‘Oh, but if we don’t buy all that stuff from them
(17:43):
they will lose their only source of incomeand livelihood, their cute little children will go hungry,
let’s rush to the nearby shopping mall to help them’.Huh! What nonsense!
In Germany if the management of a factory exploits the workers, pays salaries far below the minimum wage,
(18:04):
don’t allow the workers to take a break, or form a union, and so on,
you don’t hear German people saying‘Oh how awful! Let’s buy the products of that factory to support its workers”
No! It's the state authorities who come to supervise. They investigate and prosecute on behalf of the German citizens.
(18:24):
This is how you make sure thatchildren don’t go hungry in Germany.
With democratic rule of law on the one hand, and a mechanism of a welfare state on the other.
And the fact that on the global levelwe still don’t have such authorities of justice and welfare
is the only reason for why we still havechildren in the world who die just because of poverty.
(18:47):
Blaming the people in undemocratic countries that they don’t want democracy,
while you pay those who oppress them,that’s not logic, that is inhumane.
What we have is a system of global injusticethat we need to change.
And we will not be able to change it if we don’tfirst understand what’s the real problem with it,
(19:08):
and that there is an alternative.
Global democracy,a government of humanity, by humanity and for humanity,
is the alternative to the existing system of global injustice.
It's simple.
So now we can move on to the third objection,or maybe it’s more accurate to call them just ‘excuses.’
(19:29):
So the third excuse for why that alternative supposedly cannot work.
This one argues that democracy can work well only on a small scale,where you personally know all the members of the community,
or where at least you can easily access and speak with your representatives in the parliament or government
when you need them to do something for you.And therefore, on the global level,
(19:53):
due to the scale of the earth and the size of humanity, both of those things will be impossible,
and so the voice of the individual citizenwill be surely just get lost in the masses,
and stay unheard and neglected. Right?
I told you, at first glance it sounds like pristine logic,but let’s take a closer look.
(20:15):
First of all, let’s not idealize small communities too muchas places of peace and harmony and good relations.
Sadly, all too often it’s precisely there,in small tight communities,
where everyone knows each otherand have the same culture, even families,
that you find the greatest hatred and the most bitter conflicts.
(20:36):
And if you know anything about the statistics of violence and abuse,
you will know that it’s oftenthe larger circle of community like the state
that protects individuals from violence or abusein the smaller social units.
So smaller is not necessarily better,
but having a good balance between all the different levels,that’s the key that we ought to look for.
(20:58):
Secondly, while it’s true that you can find examples of small countriesthat are internally more democratic than larger ones,
it's also true that if you make a proper studycounting all the countries,
you will find many more small countriesthat are far less democratic than the greater ones.
Contrary to what many might think, there is no empirical correlationbetween the size of a country and the quality of its democracy.
(21:26):
And why is that? Here are three reasons.
The first is that the federal modelthat you find in many large countries,
in the right conditions and if done correctly,it can enable even on a very large scale a good balance
between the benefits of centralizationand those of de-centralization of power,
(21:47):
between the advantages of uniformityand those of diversity.
And what people need to realize with regard to a world federation,
that alongside some measure of centralization and uniformity,
it will also have plenty of room for diversity between communities and regions and individuals.
Only with regard to things that concern everyone,like global warming or global taxes,
(22:12):
these will have to be decided at the federal level,that includes everyone’s voices.
The second reason that democracycan be successful on a very large scale
has to do with the fact that larger societies are inevitably more diverse.
And while diversity can be a challenge for democracy,it can also be a serious advantage,
(22:34):
as it incentives the creation of a more tolerant political space,
where people are more open towards each other’s differences.
Think of it, in a relatively homogeneous society,
like a nation state that has a very clear majorityof just one ethnic or religious group,
a politician can easily gain cheap popularitysimply by enflaming hatred towards the minority.
(22:58):
But in a very diverse society,that is made up of multiple groups with none being a majority,
politicians are incentivized to appeal to a much more diverse crowd,
and to form coalitions of diverse communities.And that is a very big advantage.
Now, in today’s world,where we are all divided into ‘nation states’,
(23:20):
many people are obsessed withpreserving the demographic superiority
of their respective majority groupsagainst the ‘threat’ of minority groups and immigrants.
But in a federation of the whole world,if you take humanity in all of its diversity,
you’ll be happy to find that no ethnic or religious groupeven comes close to being a majority.
(23:43):
And that fact, in a world federal system,will incentivise politicians to appeal to diverse crowds,
to form coalitions,to emphasize what is common in our human identity,
and work for our shared interests on this planet.
And that will be so, so much better than today's politics!
(24:04):
The third and final reason that democracy can work well even on a very large scale,
has to do with the fact that the democratic mechanism of elections, (again, if done properly)
creates a powerful incentivefor politicians and parties to find out what the voters care for,
even without having to holdprivate conversations with every individual voter.
(24:28):
Because, when we think of the type of problemsthat we want someone in government to do something about them,
they are almost never somethingthat bothers only one individual voter. No.
Take for example a big crack in the streetwhere you live that needs to be fixed.
It bothers not only yourself, but all your neighborsand everyone that passes in that street,
(24:52):
and therefore a local politician that wants to be electedin your neighbourhood better say and do something about it, right?
And the politician doesn’t need to hear about it from every single voter again and again and again.
It’s really not necessary fora successful functioning of democracy.
And just as the mechanism of electionscreates that incentive for politicians on the local level
(25:14):
to listen and find what the voters care about, it could work also on the global level.
And you know what, as an example,despite the clear and huge differences
between democratic states and commercial corporations,
I think it’s really useful to draw herea very simple analogy between those two.
(25:35):
In the corporate world, the management of the corporationis “elected” by the global constituency of the shareholders,
which entrusts the elected managementto do what is needed to increase their profits, right?
If the shareholders aren’t happy with their revenue,they will elect another management,
or buy the shares of another company.And it works.
(25:58):
The flourishing of corporations in today’s world,their power and might and impact,
testify that the system of electing representatives to work for youworks in the corporate world on the global level.
In fact, it works so well, that local states find it increasingly hard to restrain the power of those corporations.
(26:19):
To tax them, to regulate them, to prohibit themfrom harming workers, consumers and the environment.
Which raises the super-important question:
Why should it be, that electing representatives for global management
works so well on the corporate world, but couldn’t work on the political world?
Why is it, that the one system that has the formal abilityto tax and regulate and restrain the market powers, which is the state,
(26:49):
why can’t that system also worksimilarly well if applied at the global level?
To me it’s clear that it can, but it’s just extremely usefulfor the corporations that so many people believe that it can’t.
And that brings me nicely to the final point, the fourth objection,which is the most powerful and most stupid of them all.
(27:11):
And this one goes like this:
‘In a world federation the governmentwill quickly centralize all the power in its hands,
and we would end up living in a tyrannical dystopia,enslaved with nowhere to hide, forever.
And if there is even one chance in a billionthat this nightmare would happen,
(27:33):
then we better just reject the whole ideaand not waste our time on useless and dangerous hopes.
’Hooo… Logical, eh?
Let’s look from up close at this bogeyman,see if it’s real or just a scarecrow, and what is it really protecting anyway?
The first question that we needin order to deflate this scary ghost is to ask it, 'why?'
(27:57):
Why in a democratic federation of the world the government will become tyrannical? Ah?
Is it because our tribal human nature cannot affiliatewith a social circle that includes the whole of humanity,
and therefore only a tyrannical governmentwill be able to maintain power above the different factions?
Ahm… we answered that, right?We can care for different social levels at the same time.
(28:21):
It doesn’t require that we will loveor agree with everyone in those circles.
And if we only had a welfare state at the global level,it’s very likely that people would love it.
So is it because, eh, some cultures don’t want democracy?Done that one as well.
A. How do we know what they want?
and B, how can they make up their minds about it when the oligarchies that educate them are funded from outside?
(28:47):
When you think of this point from a global perspective,
the democracy that you find todayonly in some countries of the world,
is similar, in a sense, to the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece.
Why? Because back then,from the narrow perspective of the Athenian citizens,
it was a very nice democracy.But the citizens were only men, who had land, and lived in Athens.
(29:11):
From the wider perspective,of the women of Athens, and the landless peasants,
and the slaves,, and all the people who livedin lands that were occupied by the Athenian Empire,
all of whom didn’t have a vote in the Athenian democracy,
for them it was one big oligarchy, the rule of the few.
And this is very much how the world is set up today,democracy and freedom and riches for the few,
(29:37):
and an oligarchy and oppression and poverty for the many.
It’s not right, and it doesn’t have to be this way.
A real, inclusive democracy, is possible. Why not?
Is it because democracy just can’t work on large scale?
Of course it can!
Especially when we remember how corporations flourishwhen they play on the global field, across borders, and cultures.
(30:02):
And so there is no reason that the one institutionthat could restrain them, which is the state,
should remain divided into 200 competing units,a perfect prey for the ‘divide and rule’ strategy of those corporations.
They are indeed afraid that in a world federation there will no longer be for them anywhere to hide away their profits.
(30:27):
With a global federal tax system,the global rich and powerful will finally pay their fair share,
which will raise trillions to enable the rest of us,the 99%, to live with dignity.
Today, it’s only powerful corporations and rich individuals,
that they can freely cross borders,set up their factories in countries whose governments
(30:49):
are too weak to stand up to the corporationsand protect their citizens.
The poor citizens, they don’t havea place to hide from that monstrosity,
from the harsh hand that their governmentsuse against them in the service of the corporations.
They cannot hide from the pollution,from the exploitation, from the poverty.
(31:11):
They cannot cross the border when they want to,get a visa, or citizenship in another country.
For them, there is nowhere to hide.
So what else is there? What other reason is there for the government of the world federation to become tyrannical?
Because they would want to centralizemore power in their hands? Of course they would want to.
(31:33):
This is what governments want to do and this is why we divide themin democratic constitutions, so that we can rule them.
We divide them into branches of governmentthat check and balance the power of each other.
We divide them horizontally between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
We divide them further vertically between the central levels and the regional and local levels.
(31:56):
Because we fundamentallydon’t trust anyone in power,
and this is why we keep the final sovereigntyto decide who will be in government in our hands.
That’s democracy. Nothing new.
But the division of state power between 200 states,that is the one type of division that is not helpful for us.
(32:16):
It’s helpful for the corporations.It’s helpful for the 1%.
It’s dividing us, first and foremost,and it’s time we stopped this silly madness.
People look at the few successes of local governments and say:
‘this is because they are local,and it couldn’t possibly work on the global scale’.
And other people look at the many failuresof local governments and say that
(32:40):
‘if it can’t work at the local level,then even more so it won’t work on the global level’.
And it’s exactly the other way around.
People need to see the successes of local governments, and say,
‘Yeah, if governments can do that despite their unfavourable condition vis-à-vis the global corporations,
imagine just how much more we could achieve togetherif our government system was global?
(33:06):
And people need also to look the many failures of the local governments and realize:
“this is because they are just local,how could we have ever seriously expected them
to be successful in standing up to the global powers of the market?”
That’s the way to think of that.
And the argument that if there is one chance in a billionthat a world federation would fail, we shouldn’t go for it…
(33:29):
Give me a break! There are no risk-free futures on offer, OK?And don’t let anyone tell you that there are.
Are we safe in a warming worldthat has no one in charge of dealing with this problem?
Are we safe in the face of global pandemics?Inequality, injustice and wars that no one is responsible for addressing?
Are the islands of democracysafe against the impact of the global 1%? Nonsense!
(33:55):
It’s time for people to know thatanother world is possible.
A democratic world federation is the alternative that we need.
And we need people to take this idea and push it forward.
And when some critical mass will gather behind it,
suddenly and finally it will seem easy and obvious to everyone.
(34:16):
And then it will happen.
So now we need to stand up to the objections,
expose and debunk the myths that they are built on,
and share the hope about global democracy
in order that it will become a reality.
Thank you!
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.