Maybe this doesn't belong in the Religion forum, but there is a philosophical side to this one.
I believe that peace can be better achieved if we allow our neighbors to have a say about what is going on in our country. This applies to ALL countries; neighboring countries must be content about their neighbor.
To achieve this impossible task, the whole political system of every country would have to change. Getting this to happen may take more than starting the United Nations, but ...
Each country would have a say on "international" decisions that their neighbor makes. Consider a vote for anything to be made up of three distinct parts: local votes, neighbor votes, international votes. The local votes would be worth the most, while the value of both the neighbor and international votes are based on the population ratio.
For example, imagine a scenerio where Mexico is working on a trade law. Consider USA, Guatemala, Belize and Cuba as the primary neighbors - ALL other countries would be considered international neighbors. Now, the population of the USA is the largest of all of Mexico's neighbors; the USA vote would be large enough to have some impact. All of the countries would vote (internet voting for all people?? - this is another question). The votes from the neighbors would be calculated based on their population (relative to the country in question, or Mexico in this example) as would the international votes.
Imagine this scenerio effecting laws in a more unstable part of the world. As long as the process involved debate over the issue, the outcome must result in a more peaceful "neighborhood" if not a more peaceful world.
I call this antialiasing because of its simiilarity to computer graphics- where two different colors are separated by a area of blended color.
I believe that peace can be better achieved if we allow our neighbors to have a say about what is going on in our country. This applies to ALL countries; neighboring countries must be content about their neighbor.
To achieve this impossible task, the whole political system of every country would have to change. Getting this to happen may take more than starting the United Nations, but ...
Each country would have a say on "international" decisions that their neighbor makes. Consider a vote for anything to be made up of three distinct parts: local votes, neighbor votes, international votes. The local votes would be worth the most, while the value of both the neighbor and international votes are based on the population ratio.
For example, imagine a scenerio where Mexico is working on a trade law. Consider USA, Guatemala, Belize and Cuba as the primary neighbors - ALL other countries would be considered international neighbors. Now, the population of the USA is the largest of all of Mexico's neighbors; the USA vote would be large enough to have some impact. All of the countries would vote (internet voting for all people?? - this is another question). The votes from the neighbors would be calculated based on their population (relative to the country in question, or Mexico in this example) as would the international votes.
Imagine this scenerio effecting laws in a more unstable part of the world. As long as the process involved debate over the issue, the outcome must result in a more peaceful "neighborhood" if not a more peaceful world.
I call this antialiasing because of its simiilarity to computer graphics- where two different colors are separated by a area of blended color.
.