RE: On the Moral Supremacy of Autonomy
The mere pursuit to unify all human beings is a negation of the idea that human beings must be coerced into doing right. Unless of course the absence of being unified is what is coercing us to unify ourselves. The separation between one human and another both grows large and diminishes as they both learn to see that they're both pursuing the same thing, albeit through different means. Is the ultimate challenge to overcome, one of violence? By abstaining violence it puts the challenge of the aggressor to decide if violence is right or wrong. Not until one of the two submits to not use violence will the other consider non-violence as the better alternative.
Secondly, global government does not necessarily require a small or large group of people to be in charge. With the internet and a way to represent each and every one individual vote the globe itself could be one unified democracy. The most common argument against this idea is that people are dumb, and well, I think it's more dumb to alleviate oneself of responsibility to another human being, or group of humans. I do however understand the necessity of it throughout human history because there had/have been no previous way of working together. We're starting to see a change in that.
Thirdly, because people are corruptable, it does make sense to put the actual government in code. This code is made by humans, maintained by humans and can be altered by humans. Just like the book of laws in your respective nations, yet this will be supervised by the entire global population.
Yes, to distributing power to the masses.
I'm not sure I understood your first argument. Your other two are compelling. I'm not sure that the following is completely contrarian, but isn't exactly complimentary, either. 😅
I agree that coming together in equitability with my fellow humans is a laudable, worthwhile goal—perhaps even an inevitable stop on the path of the evolution of consciousness. My concern is those who would collect humanity together in order to rule over us. Some people have the mentality that human beings are so foolish and shortsighted that we require a small forward-thinking ruling class. In my opinion this is the pinnacle of egoism—a tempting but flawed system of thinking. For those with this service-to-self mentality "acceptable losses" can toll in the billions.
Regarding your second argument, certainly every human could represent themselves with one equal vote. However, not everyone is going to have the interest to learn about every single subject. Through free association, though, individuals participate in that which interests them, ensuring that the groups people do participate in are more educated in their particular fields. For a better understanding of my perspective on this see my first article, Decentralized Collectivism, particularly the concluding paragraph.
Assuming a governmental model such as you have described, your third argument is on point. I suppose my assumption when writing this article was that those who seek global government seek to increase plutocratic power. Assuming instead that this government were decentralized, valued free association, and allowed for opt-in regulation such as I have described in Decentralized Collectivism, then I have to concede—it could actually work.
The new question then becomes, what is the proportional threshold at which the collective has the right to coerce its opposition through executive action? If 60% of humanity agrees to something, does that give them the right to force the other 40% to obey?
Trying to re-read my first argument and decode it, I think what I was saying was that no matter the attempts to separate human union, the people will never stop trying to unify.
Your concern, is as mine. No person is on a different level of ethics and morals than anyone else. Noone is entitled to say what is right or what is wrong to you or to anyone else.
Look at all writings of fiction, the only 'acceptable loss' is the self. If that is not the case, then the love of the self is greater than the love for others.
Yes, rather than having every person voting on every subject ever, it would be executed in a similar manner to say, Steemit. Just as you would subscribe to a topic or a writer, you could subscribe to a specific branch of governing or issue, maybe subscribe to your favorite person who engages in the system completely.
How would marketing, advertising and such play a role in this system? People, and I include myself, are easily influenced by commercials and popular opinion. Will this affect people's judgements?
On one hand, popular opinion will always serve to bring important votes to the media. On the other hand, it allows for the same corruption of words we receive from current politicians.
Thirdly, is centralized coverage on 'the news' a legitimate practice under such a system?
I'm glad you also find this system plausible and worth looking into further. Your way of proposing small groups of co-opting to an interest is a great way to quietly slip away from the grasps of plutocracy.
In regards to the question proposed whether any one percent of the populus has the right to coerce the other into something they do not agree with I think it would make sense to ask the question why this situation would arise at all.
If there ever was a vote which put two groups of people opposed to each other I would like to believe negotiation trumps flat out declination of an agreement.