so I have written two post on the subject. one focuses on the bitcoin community contribution #447304 while the other outlines some of the new rules guiding ongoing Global Elections #447172
... where I discuss the reasons this would be a non-starter. To address your question here, is certainly a conspiracy topic.
Who would be against world voting - freedom minded individuals, anti-war activists, privacy advocates, constitutionalists, property owners and those who believe in property rights, friends of small government, localists, the community minded, nationalists, people who value the unique such as artists, the 99%, anyone who wants sound money, free travel, freedom of choice...
Who would be for it? UN, WHO, WEF, Bilderberg, Trilateral, Big Banking, Big Pharma, friends of big government, lobbyists, political lawyers, existing politicians, existing powerplayers, wrongheaded billionaires or evil ones, dictators, authoritarians, aliens engaged in hostile takeover :D
maybe it would be just the other way around of how you expressed it. or it could be a mix with some being in favor while other in disagreement. so there is no constitution here yet. but it can't be a non-starter for at some point they all agree on a common thing and that is voting. so while they are funneling and channeling it through diverse systems one that would start with the freedom to express a vote beyond one's country borders would emphasize a greater freedom and as it's greatest goal to achieve global unity and stability which ensures economic prosperity and well-being. which are also on everyone's agenda. so again this thought experiment only tries to capture the power of the vote expressed at free-will by people all over the world. so maybe even aliens might be impressed on finding out how the earthlings did it beyond everything.
I don't mind the thought experiment, but it's a non-starter precisely because we are not on the same page on voting, nor on the same page about 'economic prosperity and well-being.' Many believe 51% votes are immoral to the 49%. Many think voting is the least worst way to solve things locally, but gets more and more worst as the problems, and people involved - gets bigger. 'economic prosperity' is not in the interest of those who currently hold power, only with those who don't have it. 'well-being' is more likely to be re-defined by hired propagandists to avoid revolt by the proles than to be embraced genuinely by decisionmakers.
yes. but I did stated that this new World Elections have a different voting system and those voted only show up on a list of voted for or against. and beside this since it's an unique thing those that vote are not from the same country as the one being voted. so for example I would choose to vote one day for Michael Saylor and against Jim Cramer. So I choose this two out of a very big list and expressed my sentiment. You know this kind of things happen all the time on daily basis but are not really captured.
Comment here: #447374
... where I discuss the reasons this would be a non-starter. To address your question here, is certainly a conspiracy topic.
Who would be against world voting - freedom minded individuals, anti-war activists, privacy advocates, constitutionalists, property owners and those who believe in property rights, friends of small government, localists, the community minded, nationalists, people who value the unique such as artists, the 99%, anyone who wants sound money, free travel, freedom of choice...
Who would be for it? UN, WHO, WEF, Bilderberg, Trilateral, Big Banking, Big Pharma, friends of big government, lobbyists, political lawyers, existing politicians, existing powerplayers, wrongheaded billionaires or evil ones, dictators, authoritarians, aliens engaged in hostile takeover :D
maybe it would be just the other way around of how you expressed it. or it could be a mix with some being in favor while other in disagreement. so there is no constitution here yet. but it can't be a non-starter for at some point they all agree on a common thing and that is voting. so while they are funneling and channeling it through diverse systems one that would start with the freedom to express a vote beyond one's country borders would emphasize a greater freedom and as it's greatest goal to achieve global unity and stability which ensures economic prosperity and well-being. which are also on everyone's agenda. so again this thought experiment only tries to capture the power of the vote expressed at free-will by people all over the world. so maybe even aliens might be impressed on finding out how the earthlings did it beyond everything.
I don't mind the thought experiment, but it's a non-starter precisely because we are not on the same page on voting, nor on the same page about 'economic prosperity and well-being.' Many believe 51% votes are immoral to the 49%. Many think voting is the least worst way to solve things locally, but gets more and more worst as the problems, and people involved - gets bigger. 'economic prosperity' is not in the interest of those who currently hold power, only with those who don't have it. 'well-being' is more likely to be re-defined by hired propagandists to avoid revolt by the proles than to be embraced genuinely by decisionmakers.
yes. but I did stated that this new World Elections have a different voting system and those voted only show up on a list of voted for or against. and beside this since it's an unique thing those that vote are not from the same country as the one being voted. so for example I would choose to vote one day for Michael Saylor and against Jim Cramer. So I choose this two out of a very big list and expressed my sentiment. You know this kind of things happen all the time on daily basis but are not really captured.