The World Federalism movement came to be in the wake of World War II. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, daughter of Thomas Mann, helped draft a model world constitution at the University of Chicago in 1947. Her father, suspected by McCarthy of communist activity, had introduced Durant’s Declaration of Interdependence
Hi EscapeKey. Congrats for your deep and stubborn work, which I've compiled here https://cloud.rio20.net/index.php/s/AGoPoM2Be5WMYQ5 (PDF of 1gb), using some batch process in Linux to first compress the PDF, then merge all the individual PDF with self-generated bookmarks. This compilation is better to precisely search for specific contents, a function which is not really provided by Substack or other websites systems.
We have a similar name and yet we hold dissimilar worldviews.
This vexes me.
On a more serious note, I think this whole meta-problem emanates from both ulterior motives and the sorts of people who enter these fields. However, you are right in the event that even if everyone was incorruptible, and behaved puritanically in accordance to the 'roles' their work demands, we would still face risking poor decision-making as you so eloquently describe. You are also right in pointing out the shocking lack of consent obtained, which is your real ethical concern in this article, and not so much the surrounding baggage which you are almost forced to address.
My contention, however, is a much simpler rebuttal. At what level do we consider the demos as sovereign? Is it when each individual has total agency over themselves, or is it (to be fair to you) where consensus through a popular sovereign of self-binding peoples is reached? Guaranteeing democracy becomes harder the larger a civilisation becomes, and so if your view is that a national polity should decide who governs them, the democracy governing it will continue to dilute overtime as the national population grows.
In my view, we do not need to take an either/or approach. Through discourse and education, we can instead establish 'reason acceptabilities' through which truth is sufficiently accepted. Social change can come largely from convincing a broad number of people to believe in whatever it is we want to achieve. Meanwhile, democracy can be reformed into a far more direct, deliberative system which encourages participation. I believe I have found a strong balance, though I imagine you will completely disagree (https://escyberism.substack.com/publish/post/184135640). However, what you cannot fix, lest you want to overhaul the entire system, is the nature of private enterprise and how its authorities and influences commands far greater power compared to IGOs.
Though you acknowledged that the pro-establishment arguments are serious (and by no means am I pro-establishment), you also supplied ample examples of where the technocratic/bureaucratic systems backfire and make conditions worse. So, I have allotted one final paragraph to rebut that rebuttal. If we simply ignored the emerging environmental philosophy and environmental institutions during the 1970's, post-moon landings (this is not a coincidence), alongside the litany of other science-backed decision-making, would we not be in a worst position than we are currently in? Clearly, the global regulations over asbestos, leaded fuel and paints, chemical waste, carcinogens, etcetera, have improved the quality of life for us all. If it were instead up to national governments, then end result would be more disjointment. Of which, pollution is not exclusive for its proximity, and thus, is unjust.
Irrespective of our disagreements, I continue to subscribe to your page, because the best thing any 'intellectual' worthy of the title can do is to sincerely think about, and address other perspectives.
As there is no plausible mechanism for unpicking the legislation that is driving everything in one direction, a better tactic is to frustrate its intentions.
It seems to me that, in order to install totalitarian tyranny, the perpetrators must succeed in getting almost everyone to sign up for digital ID (or use it if assigned).
I’m more optimistic that a greater proportion of people will simply refuse to be transformed into a digital identity than the proportion who refused the pressure to get injected. And we don’t need anything close to that amount of refusal to cooperate in order to frustrate their plans.
It is true that the perpetrators can make life very difficult for us all. That’s not difficult for them. But that’s not very useful to them.
Everything points to the perpetrators having a very strong desire to install control at the level of the individual. Nothing less will do.
Only control at the level of the individual grants the perpetrators the opportunity to make the difficulties we would experience insanely personal.
Without it, we’re a very unhappy mass of people, struggling with the same problems as our neighbours. When you share common problems with those around you, you’re more likely to stand together against those imposing such problems on you all.
That’s why they MUST have totalitarian control at the level of the individual.
Let’s ensure that they cannot install it.
Every additional person you persuade to give this a hard swerve is one step closer to depriving the perpetrators of their evil desires.
“Thers is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death”
-Proverbs 14:12
Hi EscapeKey. Congrats for your deep and stubborn work, which I've compiled here https://cloud.rio20.net/index.php/s/AGoPoM2Be5WMYQ5 (PDF of 1gb), using some batch process in Linux to first compress the PDF, then merge all the individual PDF with self-generated bookmarks. This compilation is better to precisely search for specific contents, a function which is not really provided by Substack or other websites systems.
haha 9k+ pages, though much is formatting, and lots of images in especially the earlier essays...
Wow ! If I understand you correctly you have just contributed mightily to - unity.
We have a similar name and yet we hold dissimilar worldviews.
This vexes me.
On a more serious note, I think this whole meta-problem emanates from both ulterior motives and the sorts of people who enter these fields. However, you are right in the event that even if everyone was incorruptible, and behaved puritanically in accordance to the 'roles' their work demands, we would still face risking poor decision-making as you so eloquently describe. You are also right in pointing out the shocking lack of consent obtained, which is your real ethical concern in this article, and not so much the surrounding baggage which you are almost forced to address.
My contention, however, is a much simpler rebuttal. At what level do we consider the demos as sovereign? Is it when each individual has total agency over themselves, or is it (to be fair to you) where consensus through a popular sovereign of self-binding peoples is reached? Guaranteeing democracy becomes harder the larger a civilisation becomes, and so if your view is that a national polity should decide who governs them, the democracy governing it will continue to dilute overtime as the national population grows.
In my view, we do not need to take an either/or approach. Through discourse and education, we can instead establish 'reason acceptabilities' through which truth is sufficiently accepted. Social change can come largely from convincing a broad number of people to believe in whatever it is we want to achieve. Meanwhile, democracy can be reformed into a far more direct, deliberative system which encourages participation. I believe I have found a strong balance, though I imagine you will completely disagree (https://escyberism.substack.com/publish/post/184135640). However, what you cannot fix, lest you want to overhaul the entire system, is the nature of private enterprise and how its authorities and influences commands far greater power compared to IGOs.
Though you acknowledged that the pro-establishment arguments are serious (and by no means am I pro-establishment), you also supplied ample examples of where the technocratic/bureaucratic systems backfire and make conditions worse. So, I have allotted one final paragraph to rebut that rebuttal. If we simply ignored the emerging environmental philosophy and environmental institutions during the 1970's, post-moon landings (this is not a coincidence), alongside the litany of other science-backed decision-making, would we not be in a worst position than we are currently in? Clearly, the global regulations over asbestos, leaded fuel and paints, chemical waste, carcinogens, etcetera, have improved the quality of life for us all. If it were instead up to national governments, then end result would be more disjointment. Of which, pollution is not exclusive for its proximity, and thus, is unjust.
Irrespective of our disagreements, I continue to subscribe to your page, because the best thing any 'intellectual' worthy of the title can do is to sincerely think about, and address other perspectives.
As there is no plausible mechanism for unpicking the legislation that is driving everything in one direction, a better tactic is to frustrate its intentions.
It seems to me that, in order to install totalitarian tyranny, the perpetrators must succeed in getting almost everyone to sign up for digital ID (or use it if assigned).
I’m more optimistic that a greater proportion of people will simply refuse to be transformed into a digital identity than the proportion who refused the pressure to get injected. And we don’t need anything close to that amount of refusal to cooperate in order to frustrate their plans.
It is true that the perpetrators can make life very difficult for us all. That’s not difficult for them. But that’s not very useful to them.
Everything points to the perpetrators having a very strong desire to install control at the level of the individual. Nothing less will do.
Only control at the level of the individual grants the perpetrators the opportunity to make the difficulties we would experience insanely personal.
Without it, we’re a very unhappy mass of people, struggling with the same problems as our neighbours. When you share common problems with those around you, you’re more likely to stand together against those imposing such problems on you all.
That’s why they MUST have totalitarian control at the level of the individual.
Let’s ensure that they cannot install it.
Every additional person you persuade to give this a hard swerve is one step closer to depriving the perpetrators of their evil desires.
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.