Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Everyone who wants more democracy in the world, go to

www.uno-komitee.de

and sign the petition.

The KDUN is a young NGO acting internationally. A huge media campaign will start worldwide on April 23.

Subscribers are Boutros Ghali, G?nter Grass, Felicia Langer, Ricardo Dietz-Hochleitner and over 1000 more VIPs of international culture and politics.

Join the Revolution! Vote for worldwide democracy!

there are already a lot of work being done since the Annan's report of 2002 to re-evaluate Un's processes and strength

i dont think we need a "revolution" or a  Parliamentary Assembly. not yet.

i do agree the new secretary general is kinda stupid.

It's a long term process.
As said, the approach will start this year.

First goal is to achieve a parlamentary assemply as a new body of the UN to strengthen the legitimization through the citicens of every country. This will be realised via Art. 22 of the UN charter. The veto powers will have no chance to stop it, since they will not be able to act a veto.

The long term goal is a parlamentary world assemby and strenghtened international laws as well as human rights represented by worldwide free elections.

Before anyone asks: Yes, I'm a member of the group and I'm involved in the media process.

By the way: Kofi Annan has let us know that our Strategy Paper "Developing International Democracy" is the best he has read on the matter so far. He also signed the petition.

to bad im a communist

Oh, we have members of the Socialist International aswell  ;)

so as " a long term goal " i with you.

but will have to wait for the fall of the United States of Terrorism first ;)

PEACE!

That's okay, you're still part of the big circle of politics! Take a tiny leftwards step and you'll have completed the circuit, Do pass go, do collect your "New American Century" membership card.

The U.N. can't find their own ass! They have no chance in bringing world democracy. The U.N. is just another corrupt organization filled with incompetent, greedy assholes. To hell with the U.N.!  :rant:

That's a bit harsh, but the core of what you're saying is the reason for our effort - to create legitimated and effectively working UN, composed of free elected parlamentarians, not a group of people doing everything they are getting told by their governments.

Get the point?

I am for a hard working, trust worthy, and effective U.N.

I just have a hard time of believing it will ever happen.

Doesn't mean one shouldn't even try, right?

For those who are interested - here are the core points of our strategy paper:

1. Mankind faces the task of ensuring the survival and well-being of future generations as well as the preservation of the natural foundations of life on Earth. The inclusion of the people into the institutional structure and into the decision-making mechanisms of the international system thereby has essential importance.

2. The populations of the UN member states have to be better and more directly included into the activities of the United Nations and its international organizations. They must be allowed to participate in order to prevent growing discontent, to secure acceptance and legitimacy of the United Nations and international co-operation as well as to strengthen the United Nation?s capacity to act. The Committee for a Democratic UN (KDUN) conceives the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) as a decisive step towards the introduction of a new quality, a new impetus and a stronger representation of citizens into the international system.

3. A Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations would not simply be a new institution. As the voice of citizens, taking a global view in the common international interest, the Assembly would be the manifestation and vehicle of a changed consciousness and understanding of international politics. To bring about such a change is of major importance in coping with the existential challenges facing humanity.

4. The UNPA is to be regarded and designed as a parliamentary umbrella and parliamentary focal point of international cooperation. The commissions of the UNPA should regularly include national parliamentarians, who are not members of the UNPA, but are experts belonging to the respective commissions of their national parliaments. Delegations of the UNPA should be directly admitted to international governmental conferences.

5. Addressing the possibilities and concepts for reforming the United Nations and the UN system should be one of the thematic main tasks of the United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. As a unique and institutionalized hinge between parliaments, civil society, the United Nations and governments, the UNPA could become a political catalyst for further development of the international system and of international law.

6. As a first step, the Committee for a Democratic UN recommends the creation of a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations as new institution which is established as consultative, semi-autonomous secondary body to the UN General Assembly through a vote of the General Assembly under Article 22 of the UN Charter. Alternatively to that, as far as the Inter-Parliamentary Union is ready and fulfills the preconditions, the Inter-Parliamentary Union could be transformed into a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly in form of a secondary body or alternatively a special organization on the basis of a decision under Article 22 or on the basis of a cooperation agreement on the mutual relations with the United Nations. Both options are open for development.

7. The Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations should be open to all member states of the United Nations which are provided with a constitutionally embodied parliament.

8. The Committee for a Democratic UN recommends that in the first development stage, the delegates of the Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations are uniformly elected from the midst of the parliaments of the participating countries.

9. The determination of the number of delegates per country in the UNPA should be left to the political negotiations of the governments during the preparatory process. Basis of the negotiations should be a commitment to a graduation oriented according to population size, corresponding, in principle, to existing parliamentary assemblies. Before entering into the negotiations on the actual distribution it is recommended that an upper limit for the total number of delegates be defined. This number probably lies between 700 and 900.

10. The actual financial need for the first step can only be quantified if it is clear how the UNPA is to be designed, for example composition, voting procedure, participating states and legal basis. A first rough total estimate on the basis of the conclusions of the Committee for a Democratic UN comes to 100 to 120 million Euro per year. This figure is based on the assumption that all UN member states participate which possess a constitutionally elected parliament.

11. According to the example of the European Parliament, the initially only consulting Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations should, within further stages of development, step by step be provided with genuine rights of information, participation and control.

12. The establishment of a directly elected world parliament with political competences is the most far-reaching concept of global democracy. The Committee for a Democratic UN supports the idea of such a world parliament. Efforts for a democratisation of the international system, however, are inextricably linked with comprehensive questions of human development. The Committee for a Democratic UN explicitly supports the initiative of the Global Marshall Plan for a world-wide eco-social market economy, since it identifies in the surmounting of extreme poverty and of the prosperity gap in the world one of the conditions for a far-reaching democratisation of international relations.

13. Under existing conditions, a world parliament cannot be realized from one day to the other. There is need for realistic and pragmatic alternatives which, however, are open for further development. In order to achieve the vision of a world parliament, a long-term development strategy has to be striven for. Manifestation and vehicle of this strategy is the UNPA.

I refuse to ever allow another nation dictate the terms of my domestic policy.  I'll be damned if some 3rd world country has a say in what is acceptable in America.  I swear to God I will use every resource available to me to make sure the UN and its leaders never have a say in my country.

Just in time for the party!!!

Yippy!!!

(You guys never let me down.)   :hihi:

So I'm a bad guy because I don't want a one world government?  What ever happened to autonomy?  Most of these countries couldn't spell human rights if their lives depended on it.  I don't want my country being controlled by some Fanatical Muslim with Socialist and discriminatory views having any control over my country.  The first thing this World Govt.  would do is outlaw firearms, then depend primarily on the US Military to enforce its laws.  Fuck that and fuck anyone who condones it.  I say again, any resource available to me will be used to prevent this from happening. (this of course assumes it will get real attention and not the remain the fantasy of some idealist with nothing to lose)

Downtime in Baghdad?

Why waste your time posting when you could just call me instead?

I'm sure you sleuthed down my phone number somewhere along the line.




I'll lend you my tinfoil hat dude....it's ok.

No sleuthing is required.  You posted your web address which is public information.  I'm not Flagg, and your lawsuit probably never came to fruition - because it was all bullshit.  Rather than focus on what someone says, you attack them.  Just you exaggerated what Flagg did by calling the topic Mother's Maiden name and Social Security.  Flagg called you your real name, nothing more, nothing less.  Lie and Victimize yourself as much as you want, you seem to be good at it.

I never pursued a lawsuit, never called my lawyer. I have bigger fish to fry then some loser like Flagg.

I guess you have plenty of tinfoil at home. Don't say I never offered to help.

WE HAVE A WINNER !!!!


i love trolls ;)

send a couple pairs of your freedom thongs too ;D

I'm gonna ignore the troll. If anyone has real questions or constructive comments to make ... don't bother.

Just one comment to the troll: The planned UNPA does not want to have any influence on your country. And if you read our points, you would have realised that only countries with a constitutional parliament will be in there. The UNPA only will make sure that noone will a?start another war out of oeconomic and natinal interests.

And from your comments about islamic countries I read out of it that you have never been to one nor been in contact to people who live there... Nothing against good arguments ... but, trolls, please shut up. If you have nothing to add to the topic, please stay calm.

Thank you!

what about the security council ?

what is the point of involving the "people" if in the end the 6 decides.

i'd rather have the "poor countries" in the SecurityCouncil.

A good point. A lot of our subscribers are parlamentarians from African countries. It is obvious that they supprt a stronger UN.

The security council will be involved. The first step, a UNPA as a new body of the UN will be involved in all decision making processes, along with the security council.

In long terms, the veto powers will be disabeled to secure a 100% democratic decision process. If the goal of a parlamentary world assembly will be achieved, the UNPA will have the last say on all resolutions. The most positive side is, that the members will include opposition members of the different countries. The demoxcratic unfluence on non democratic countries would be bigger than ever, since everyone who does not have a constitutional democratic parliament will have less or no influence at all.

This could be a way to spread democracy WITHOUT WEAPONS - and, by the way, the past few years have shown that spreading democracy with weapons is an illusion. It's simply not possible, it only strenghthens the hate. 

Sounds good on paper.
i would agree.

But, many poor countries are represented in the UN right now, altho they don't have democratic system, ruled by "dictators" that will not let power go "just to get a voice in the UN".
trading voice against quick democracy will lead these countries into chaos ( iraq ...)

Democracy is not a miracle you lay upon uneducated countries. we don't even know if it's the best option, it's just *our* option.
and frankly, we don't really live in a democracy.
neither in France, USA or Germany. so we need a reality check.

Then, do you really think China, France, Russia, the UK and the United States will get rid of their permanent seats ?

In some way my views on the UN is that it needs to go *above* countries.
we cannot have a worldwide economy without rules, huge companies that have NO nationality and still try to get everybody's vote to change something.

USA says no all the time.
France says no when it needs to.


i think spreading Democracy in a world that is ruled by money, competition and greed is an illusion.

We need to take capitalism down first ;)


(ps: sorry if i shocked some the sensible americans souls here ....)

And replace it with what?

Capitalism isn't the problem. In fact it's the best way to exploit our human instincts into growth. The principle is great, but our system running it isn't. Big monopolies needs to go, secret ownership needs to go, lobbying definitely needs to go, the media needs to become free again and most of all we need to stop letting ourselves be ruled by voters that don't know shit.

Making health, media, politics and eduction into profit enterprises is the biggest mistake of man kind.

I agree with you in most points.

I think you got the idea of a world parliament. And, of course, a lot of non-democrat countries (and I count Germany, USA, France and others as semi-emocratic, not full democracies) will not be willing to letz their national power go. There is where our idea counts in to realise free elections for the members of the UNPA. Most opposition members of non-democratic countries are counting on real democracy, That is why we have so many subscribers from non-democratic countries. Our guess is, that most countries, who are not "real" democracies" will be represented in the UNPA in the first time via their opposition members. They would gather more influence on resolutions to realise more democracy.

For our own countries - the idea includes "one" world of humans, not divided by their governments and / or national / economic interests. Every country will still have its own government. But on the inernational
 ground, the UNPA would have the last say, which would be absolutely fair to everyone, since its members will be elected parlamentarians from every country.

Also we are planning to grive minorities a say. To give everyone a say.

polluxlm, I agree with you completely. Capitalism isn't the problem , just our current system of running it. A social capitalism could be a great fortune.

i have to go read and sleep but i still do think capitalism is the problem. and many of the issues people put ahead "blaming the system" but not "capitalism" (what is the difference?) are actually a consequence of capitalism.

Big monopolies? ... so you want the State to rule over companies ... how wait ??!!!

Media needs to be free ?
Well, in a capitalistic world, with my money i can build a Media Empire and as i have money i can eat my enemies and do what i want, then Politicians will need my help ... and then .... oh wait ?!!!

i predict the world will be a very violent place soon. nothing we've seen before.
and you'll have have to be VERY rich to continue owning hot jeans and cool cars.


good night all.

Agreed in most points. As you can think - another reason for our actions. Wy try to use the existing system to make things better, since we know that pouring down the system would be an attempt to suicide.

No, in this world you can do all those things. The capitalism we got today is more communism than it is real free trade. It's just a front for the rich elite to get even more wealth and control.

What we need to do is cut all ties. Say to all of our corrupt politicians, judges and interest organizations that they can fuck of and do something else. We don't want their dirty little fingers messing up justice anymore. And the corporations and sugar daddys can also fuck off. We don't want their 'contributions' and neither should they be allowed to make them. Hell, if I see a rich guy walking the halls of justice or having lunch with a politician I want that guy and the one he's meeting jailed, for life.

Our government should only do a few things:

Set up a defencive military. And under no circumstance should that military be used for anything other than defence. No pre-emptive or secret ops. Defence, end of story. The contracts should be issued under the competitive principle, and all aspects of the selection should be open to the public. If one contractor gets a suspiscious amount of deals it should be investigated. And under no circumstance should too much responsibility be layed on one corporation, it needs to be spread out.

Health, for all, free of charge. The payment for these services should be funded by what people expose themselves to. You want to smoke cigarettes? Fine, the tax you pay on those will go to potential future treatment. What remains will be covered by other taxes. No insurance, no indirect control over your life. Live it as you wish and we will do what we can to help you, irregardless.

Education, also free. And no government control over what your kid shall learn. You as parent will pick it, and when the kid is old enough he can too. Schools also need to focus on social, spiritual (not religious, no religion in school, none) and creative learning.

No income tax. Direct taxation of your body is slavery. The government can collect it's taxes on the products and services you buy.

No Federal Reserve and National Debt. A country can and should print their own money. There's no need for bankers with shady intentions.

One might ad a few more things, but those are the basics. No more interfering on what you eat, smoke, inject, read, drive, learn, watch, listen to, where to work, where to attend school, the freedom to open a business or take a loan.


And of course, I don't have the answers to how we should do these things. I'm merely going from a philosophical point of view. We need to let our intelligent and knowledgeable take care of it. The ordinary guy in the street is not smart enough to know what is good for society.

You don't have a domestic policy, you are one man. You let the Federal and State government dictate what is acceptable in your society - if you were part of, say for example, a global society wouldn't it be equally appropriate for a global body to govern it?

The U.S. isn't forced to have any involvement in the UN. Apparently your Federal government chooses to participate. If a UNPA ever became reality your government could always opt out, which would be pretty amusing in and of itself.

He don't, but as it is now he could always move if he don't like it. When the whole world is under one rule and that rule becomes corrupt (it will) then what are you going to do?

I'll already be long dead, I won't do a thing.

Theoretically, a corruption of leadership is more difficult if the leadership is comprised of a large field of people of equal station if only because the ambition and authority of the many ought to prevent the consolidation of power among a smaller group within those ranks. Obviously, a quick perusal of the current UN and its "Security Council" suggests the opposite but the existence of an exclusive body with veto power like the Security Council also disproves the notion that all current members of the UN hold equal station.

Frankly, a global government in effect creates a global principality and its composition and distribution of power will dictate its problems. In all probability the real obstacle would not be the corruption of government, which is both inevitable and irrelevant, but the combining of a world of different peoples with different customs, beliefs, and languages into a cohesive whole. Or an at least an obedient one.

I'm for global cooperation, but no way in hell are we ready for a one world rule. We'd be back in the dark ages if one man were to gain control of us all, and that will happen if there's a system governing us all. A place to start is a global government with very limited powers, like upholding disarment and free trade. But in no way do I want someting like that in control of policing, culture, education etc.

I think we already have that, I think it's called the UN. And since it's not in control of anything more than upholding lofty principles, it's relatively powerless.

I suppose that you could say that the good reason behind a legitimate global government is the fact that "global co-operation" doesn't work. Unless an individual nation has something tangible to gain there's no reason to co-operate with anyone. Which is why the UN has been so very marginally "successful" in channeling the resources and good-will of major nations to help the poorer ones. I'm of the opinion that global equality is probably not something you can organize from a clubhouse, you do need a seat of power to force the world into doing good things.

Would I support  a UNPA, world government type of idea? Not really. I don't think that we really believe in the ideals that we so love to parrot; Libert?, Equalit?, Fraternit?! Just words, feel-good nonsense on par with "don't worry, be happy!"  I largely believe that people should be left to their own devices and allowed to live as they choose, and let their children pay the price. That, I think, is fair.

Well that would be the idea, to give that government a limited amount of indisputed powers. The UN doesn't have any powers.

But anyway, who cares. This won't happen in our lifetime or the next. It's just sports to feed an ego. Our system sucks, but as long as I got the ability to make money I really don't care what happens to the less fortunate.

Surely the question should be "why should the less fortunate seek to imitate or become a part of our system, a system which serves only to benefit itself at the cost of those less fortunate?"

There will always be "those less fortunate" than ourselves, which can only be a good thing for the proponents of equality because what value has equality if there is no inequality to rectify? Like many virtues (or vices) equality is a meaningless idea if everyone is equally virtuous. If an idea isn't self-sustaining, isn't it a silly thing to base a philosophy on? Same goes for an idea which is inherently flawed; what value has equality if all men are equal but some men  are more equal than others? If I can't suggest or vote for the ethics of the society in which I live, but can only vote for a small group of people to suggest and vote for our ethics, how am I equal to them? And what sort of democracy is that anyway? And does it matter if that system is local or global?

And a small point before I forget again; If the UN is "given" any sort of power by the member states, that power is conditional upon the continued support of those states. Meaning that either the UN would have to use that power in agreement with the wishes of those who granted it or risk losing it by angering those who granted it. Such "power" is clearly not worth having.

Rather than call me a troll and reply only to those who support your cause, try to answer the real questions that you'll be forced to answer before anyone takes this idea seriously.? Why should a soverign and strong Nation like the US (UK, France, China, Japan etc..) submit to a government where weak nations like Nigeria, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Poland have an input on their economies and social systems?? Weak and poor nations will support this idea because they'll be able to profit off the 1st world nations.? If you fools think for a second any of the major nations in the world would subscribe to this bullshit you have another thing coming.? This is some fantasy by an individual with no real understanding of the world and certainly nothing invested to put at risk.? There is a reason why only college students and poor countries support this shit - none of them have anything to lose.

Edit:  Organizations like the Un can pass resolutions until they're blue in the face, but how will they enforce it?  They require US money and might to run most things now.  Do you think that the US would ever let a bunch of 3rd world dictators pass a law that would turn the US own power against itself.  The same can be applied with any other 1st world nation.  They have nothing to gain from this and won't sign.

lastroots:

I have some questions I'd like to have answered:

1.) According to the strategy paper, "The Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations should be open to all member states of the United Nations which are provided with a constitutionally embodied parliament." 
---My question here is one of semantics.  To have a parliamentary form of government generally means to have a representative legislature, out of which a prime minister is chosen.  I contrast this with a presidential form of government, where the executive and legislature are separately elected.  Does this paper mean "constitutionally embodied parliament" as I am interpreting them, or does it mean, more generally, any representative form of government? 

2.) You mentioned that you consider many countries "semi-democratic."  Are you contrasting these with any fully democratic countries, or just commenting that "true" democracy has yet to be realized? 

 

Any major nation with ambition and intelligence ought to jump at an opportunity to corrupt such a system and mold developing nations in their own image. If a large group of minor nations, still ripe for much financial exploitation, are willing to leap into this without looking we'd all be fools not to take advantage of it. Even better, if many other major nations are put off by the idea then a single nation with enough financial and military power could politically annex a huge portion of the globe. Imagine Russia, for example,  having all of Europe and half of Asia at its beck and call.

Think of it in terms of the principalities of Europe 500 years ago, the potential is evident.

Your IP says shithole. What gives?

You obviously didn't pay any attention to the points of the Strategy Paper I posted above. Maybe you realised that some people here are clearly not supporting me, but still I talk to them since they add to the discussion in a constructive way.

1. We are cleary aiming at "constitutionally embodied parliaments". Out of the 197 current members of the UN, 117 are democracies based on such a parliamentary system. And since the people within the UNPA will be freely elected by the citicens of their countries, it will not only include government members but also opposition members. This will guarantee that the UNPA members are not just on line with their home governments but can act on their own principles.

2. Yes, I wanted to say that, in my opinion, "real democracy" has yet to be realised. I live in Germany, and we are free to elect our parliament, but that's not a real democracy. A demmocracy would be a government trying to do the best it is able to do for my country. They don't. Most of the time they spread lies, just to look goog in the media and to keep their power through the next elections. Just one example. And as far as I can see it is nearly the same in all other "democratic" countries.

No, a Democracy would be a government of randomly selected private citizens with a one-year term limit and the possibility of being elected again by random lot. The popular vote would be used to outcast, for a decade, those who have served poorly, rather than to select a representative out of a handful of selected candidates. That would be a democracy, as developed by the Athenians*. Anything else is a two-bit knock-off.


(*I should point out that I refer specifically to the Council of 500 as they were the real, full-time government of Athens who set the agenda for the Assembly.)

25, you have a point there.

But you must take into conclusion that that wasn't a real democracy either. In fact, women, immigrants and slaves were not allowed to participate in the elections. Second is that these democratic system was always used to rule just one city, so only for a rather small group of citizens. And last, a lot of things changed since back then. A parliament of today has to solve way more problems and is in need of more experts on different topics, etc. The world has become far more complex. In fact our current idea of democracy is a developed update of the democratic philosophy of Athens.

Democracy has become, along the years, a sacred word.
I dont think it's is that big of deal.
Democracy does NOT mean freedom or happiness.
Democracy does NOT mean "governement trying its best for the country"

It's only the voice of the people.
Unfortunalty, we are in a world where people are easily manipulated by money, the medias, pressure groups, lobbying ...

what's the deal with democracy if people do not really know or choose who they're voting for?

KingCobra > if they have nothing to lose they're stronger than you.

You're right to some degree.

The big problem is that a lot of people (the majority in the so-called western world) don't even really think about it anymore. That's one thing we want to change, for example by doing the media campaign starting on April 23. We want people to realize that they in fact have the chance to change things and to make things better. The existance of this chance alone is democracy.

You are completely right when it comes to manipulation. That is a huge problem and I am totally aware of the danger of a corrupted UNPA. That is clearly not what we want. The plus is that there will be so many countries, so many people together in the UNPA that it will be hard to corrupt them all at once. We are currently working on strategies, doing our best to strenghten the system against corruption and manipulation. I don't know if we will succeed. But we are doing the best we can. And we have strong supporters in doing so, which you all will be able to see as soon as the list of subscribers and supporters gets released. 

"Our current idea of democracy" is not a revision, it's an entirely different system. To call it an "update" is akin to a computer an update of the abacus.
And your understanding of Athenian Democracy seems limited. The problems they faced, their use of "experts," were by all accounts similar to ours, with the exception that they sought to solve problems rather than paper over them and their experts were actually listened to rather than "consulted." It's a common misconception that, because the common man was involved at all stages of the proceedings, the original democracy was some sort of dumbed-down clusterfuck of opinion. The reality being that people were allowed to speak who knew whereof they spoke, waffling  partisans were, at best, ignored. Sounds a little more effective and logical than the current system, doesn't it?

The world is much less complex today than it was one or two thousand years ago, not more complex. The problems are much the same but the numbers are fewer and bigger. You'd think that would make them easier to identify and fix, no? Perhaps the very idea of small groups of men ruling populations of hundreds of millions is flawed, and the human race isn't capable of organization on such a scale? Doesn't bode well for any global system of government, if you ask me. 



I apologize for the aggressive and pompous tone of this post, I'm just trying to keep it simple and direct.

Isn't it easier to corrupt a large group of people more quickly than a small group of people with differing opinions? Isn't herd mentality a concern as an organization expands?

As much as we can debate

These kind of project must be supported. In some ways. Economics and politics have gone global, and companies are now transcending nations and countries. Soon enough, decisions will have to be made globally and wolrdwide, with the voice of the "weak poor countries" - as some can say -. My fear is that we will just "copy paste" our western societies system knowing that it's not really working internally ....

I don't think so. Look at the European Parliament. It's huge. From time to time we have people there who get corrupted, but never the whole system. If things go wrong, you have always people speaking their minds and fighting against it.

For your first post - it's ok to be direct, speak your mind. I just don't share your opinion that the world has become less complex. But I'm completely with your argument that our governments should act instead of talk everything to death. That's a big problem with all the bureaucracy we have in Germany currently. A bunch of good ideas to reform our systems came up during the last years, but they were so talked to death that the now realised outcome is just bollocks.

You're right with that fear. But the plan is to involve these countries. It must be clear from the first moment that the copy & paste strategy will never come to fruition.

How about this kind of project; A "League of developing nations," made up of and run by the democratic governments of upcoming countries to look after the interests of their people and commodities? A united front for the smaller nations. Something like that, executed correctly, would be of more value than an assembly in which smaller nations must compete or comply with larger ones.

Interesting, but that would not comply with our plan to move global politics closer to the citizens. As explained in the strategy paper, our goal is to give everyone in the world a democratic say. We're all humans. No one has the right to raise his voice over others. Everyone has got to have the same influence in a democratic world.

Well, that peaks my interest. If everyone should have a say, no-one having the right to raise their voice over another, isn't the fact that current "democratic" governments are exclusive clubs in which the politicians are separate and secluded from their own people - and the people in general are excluded, financially, from effective participation - an obstacle preventing you from reaching your goal in any more than a superficial way?

No. The democratic idea here is to give everyone the same right to participate. Every voice of every citicen has the same weight, and everyone is free to join a party and participate actively in politics. People choose those who they trust the most and elect them to support their interests - that's democracy.

A government that is elected does not stand above the people (or, at least, it should not), since it would not be there if the people would not have chosen and elected it.

Oh, btw, we have a FAQ-paper pdf. If anyone is interested to read it, maybe to answer some of your question at once, just pm me with your email adress and I'll send it to you.

But if a political system, even one in which the representatives are freely elected, is clearly deeply corrupted by financial interests; where the representatives are selected by their own parties before being offered to the public; where to campaign for a position within the system you must have access to an incredible amount of money; where lobbyists have such influence that they literally get to write legislation; isn't the system clearly exclusionary? If so,  isn't a free and equal parliament comprised of many of those governments actually an elite collective in which the elites are equal only among each other, while the people they represent are still excluded? Regardless of the intent, isn't that a likely outcome?

It is a danger, correct. It is a point that we are still working on, as I said in an earlier post.

If you want to have a deeper insight in such points, I really suggest you our FAQ, which will show you how far the ideas are developed yet.

I'll be off now for some time, since I have work to do. But I'll return later to answer more questions.

Is it the same faq which is available on the website? Because that one seems to ask many questions without providing many answers. It's a little unnerving actually, because it suggests that the approach to many of the difficulties involved is "we'll figure it out as we go along."

Yes, it is.
If you look clearly, it has some accurate answers, some points that are still being worked on, and others that deal with the idea of a long term process - these questions can hardly be answered before the process has started. But we're optimistic that the strategies will become better and better and closer to real circumstances as we're moving forward.

Our new website is online:

www.unpacampaign.org