World Peace through Egalitarianism

EqualTo achieve world peace, one has to focus on international, national, local, and personal issues. The three most important goals in achieving world peace are egalitarianism, ecological wisdom, and emotional maturity. Participatory and consensus democracy and the reduction of hierarchy in government and in the workplace are integral components in attaining egalitarianism.

Considering the rapid growth of world population, environmental degradation, the vast disparity between the rich and poor nations, the dangers of nuclear energy and weapons, and the effects of corporatocracy — it is necessary to view the world as one organism, even if that is not what it is. Take the healthy human body. The heart, lungs, brain, and kidneys do not compete. They cooperate.

The ecosystem is being overloaded by unsustainable growth, species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate, drilling for oil easily is reaching its peak, and global injustice and inequality are on the increase. Ross Jackson in his book Occupy World Street: A Global Roadmap for Radical Economic and Political Reform presents evidence that the planet is under siege and our civilization is already in the middle of a global collapse. Though he does not recommend a democratic world government based on instant run-off voting or a system of proportional representation as I do, his solutions are worth exploring. But any workable solution will be a hard sell to the millionaires who have invested in transnational corporations. Therefore, we the people must become empowered to save the world and the planet before it’s too late.

Through imperialism, the imposition of slavery, advanced military technology, and sheer greed, some nations have forged ahead of others. But that certainly does not make them morally superior. Why can’t the unique resources of each nation be harnessed for the betterment of all? With the proper support, most nations could become largely self-sufficient in the production of organic food.

Egalitarianism could mean that no individual earns more than five times what the lowest paid individual makes. If there is back-breaking, monotonous, repetitious, or undesirable work that must be done, why not give the people who do those jobs a living wage. The so-called free market has never been free or fair in deciding what a decent wage is. Try buying health insurance when you make today’s minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

To reduce hierarchy, a public school, for example, can be controlled by the neighbors who live within the geographic boundaries of that particular school. Neighbors would then be forced to work together to achieve common dreams. The expense and control by federal, state, county, and township educational bureaucracies would be greatly reduced. Each school could have its own school board. Using the funds allotted to the particular school based on the number of students, the school board might choose to hire residents who live in the school district to work as teaching assistants or tutors.

Regarding health care, Medicare could be extended to cover all citizens, not just the elderly. Another option could be Single Payer Health Care. The federal government would be the single payer, and it would eliminate the enormous profits and expenses of the many private insurance companies. Health care should be a not-for-profit endeavor.

With so many private banks and rich bankers, why not eliminate them and promote local public credit unions, so that the local investments can enrich the local community? And if the Federal Reserve has no reserves and is controlled by private bankers, then why not eliminate it and give Congress that responsibility as stipulated in the US Constitution? Why should the Federal Reserve be allowed to create so much fiat money, money created out of thin air, which pumps more money into the system, which then causes the prices of goods and services to be inflated? Banks should only lend money if they actually have it.

The annual budgets of Congress should be balanced with no deficit spending. With a progressive income tax up to 90%, the national debt can be paid off in 10 years, after military spending is reduced 70%.

If a small business grows and starts employing 7 or more individuals, workplace democracy should become a requirement. At that point, the employees and owner would vote to elect the board of directors. Corporate charters granted by a state government would need the county government’s endorsement as well.

It is okay if people take a certain amount of pride in their country, but considering the security and ecology of the planet, it is necessary, now more than ever, to have a global or international focus. If we the people do not do it, then the world’s richest individuals and the world’s most powerful corporations will do it for us, and they will create their own version of a New World Order.

But if a democratic world government is achieved, it must be built from the bottom-up, not from the top-down, from the voluntary neighborhood block club, to the precinct, the township, the county, the state, the nation, and ultimately the world council. Though built from the bottom-up, higher governing bodies could overrule the decisions of lower governing bodies. But local self-determination can be maximized, whenever possible, and representatives from lower governing units should be able to recall or remove the representative they send to a higher governing unit, if at any time there is a 60% vote of no confidence.

Regarding the organization of state governments in the United States, there is a way to make democracy more participatory. Each precinct (which might consist of about 600 adult voters) could elect a representative to serve on the township board. Through democratic decision making, each township board could vote among the township board members to send a representative to the county board. The township board members could also replace her at any time, if she stopped representing the interests of that township. Through face-to-face decision making, each county board could vote among county board members to send a representative to the state governing board, which could replace the current senate and house representatives of bicameral state legislatures.

The legislators from the county and state governments could be responsible for selecting trained individuals for executive and judicial functions in their jurisdictions. This seems wiser than having citizens vote a straight ticket for 30 different local offices for people they know nothing about. However, if a particular legislator emerged to a higher government position from a particular precinct, township, or county–then any of the lower governing bodies from which she emerged could vote her out at any time with a 60% vote of no confidence.

At the national level, there only needs to be a unicameral body of legislators, and it should be based on a system of proportional representation. To achieve this, it would take a new Twenty-Eighth Amendment that shows how we can have a constitutional convention in a fair, safe, and orderly way to totally rewrite the US Constitution. I have written such an amendment and the Third Constitution of the United States which shows one way how our current constitution can be updated and improved. Federal and state constitutions should be much easier to amend and to abolish. Jefferson believed each new generation should have a new constitution.

With proportional representation, voters in the United States would vote for a national political party. Hypothetically, the unicameral national legislature could consist of the following: Republican Party, 25%; Democratic Party, 25%; Libertarian Party, 15%; Green Party, 15%; Socialist Party, 10%; Communist Party, 5%; and Constitution Party, 5%.

The world map could be divided into 500 rectangles based on equal population, and a democratic world government could be achieved using the instant run-off voting method for each district. The world council could prevent the imperialistic designs of any nation, and it could prevent environmental destruction by corporations and countries. International law and the International Bill of Rights would be respected. While maximizing the self-determination of localities, whenever possible, there could be more diversity in the world, and there could be unity in diversity–justice and peace on Earth.

With instant run-off voting, voters could rank 9 candidates from the 9 largest political parties. If no candidate gets a 51% majority, then the 9th candidate, who got the fewest number of votes, is dropped from the list before a second round of voting begins. If during the second round of voting, no candidate gets a 51% majority, then the 8th candidate, who got the fewest number of votes, is dropped from the list before the 3rd round of voting takes place. This process of eliminating the candidate who got the fewest number of votes before the next round of voting occurs continues until a candidate eventually receives a 51% majority. Once new political parties develop international worldviews, an international system of proportional representation could also be considered. The world council of legislators would select judicial and executive officials.

Global warming or climate change may be considered a hoax by some in the United States, especially those who have become rich from fossil fuels, and who are able to pay corrupt politicians to do their bidding. But the rest of the world largely considers climate change a serious problem. Through community decision making, solar energy and other alternative fuels could be given financial incentives, while the use of nuclear and fossil fuels could be greatly reduced or eliminated for the betterment of all.

Today factory farming, genetically-modified and irradiated foods, foods grown with excessive artificial chemicals, and the exorbitant consumption of beef (which requires large quantities of water)—are destroying our health and the sustainability of the planet.

In the United States, large corporations control the mainstream media and the government. Many people believe, as a result, that if they can just buy more and own more, they will be happier. In the mainstream media, there is a very limited range of political ideas that they will tolerate. All radical ideas are marginalized and made to look stupid by the talk show pundits. Money should not be allowed to influence political decision-making in any way.

Increased worker productivity has not been commensurate with increased worker pay in the last 30 years because desperate workers have been exploited by owners, managers, and CEOs. When not exhausted from stress and dehumanization in the workplace, Americans, are preoccupied with sports, electronic gadgets, TV shows, movies, and restaurants. They are not very interested in philosophical or intellectual discussions. But if we give all third parties an equal voice and take all money out of politics, then civics will become more important than consumerism to the American people.

It is not important whether a person adheres to Eastern or Western religions, atheism, agnosticism, humanism, or existentialism. What is needed is more people who are emotionally mature. To be mature, individuals must be self-aware of ego-defense mechanisms (like projection, rationalization, and denial), and they must have good coping skills. Mature people are assertive, not passive or aggressive. They are patient, kind, and long-suffering when dealing with other people who are less mature. They can admit mistakes and are capable of asking for forgiveness. They are humble, not full of false pride.

Mature people work to achieve reconciliation, not their own adversarial aggrandizement. They are selfless rather than selfish. They play fair. They are open, honest, vulnerable, and even transparent, for the good of all. They think globally and act locally. Choosing a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity, they live simply, so others can simply live. What they are on the inside is more important than what they have on the outside. They love words, ideas, and people more than they love things. But according to psychologist Maslow’s hierarchy, lower, physical needs must be met first before people can develop their highest and fullest intellectual potentials, skills, and aptitudes. It is then that they become self-actualized or self -fulfilled people.

Throughout history, kingdoms, empires, and nations commanded and unified large geographical areas to guard against revolution from within and rapacious attack from outside the region. But order was accomplished through bureaucratic, top-down control and chains of command. Those same elements of hierarchy are still with us today in the military, the government, in the public schools, and in the workplace. With more face-to face, consensus decision-making among equals in the workplace and in government, a nonhierarchical society can develop. Hierarchy has characterized human civilizations over the last 5,000 years, but it is not irrevocably entrenched in our human nature. Hierarchy may be better than anarchy, but it is not better than democracy among well-informed citizens.

In the United States, the rich are getting richer, as the middle class is being utterly wiped out, since the implementation of Reagonomics. Without a strong middle class, democracy cannot exist. But the ideal is to not only empower the middle class, but to create a classless, egalitarian society and world. It can be achieved without violence, if more people have emotional maturity and moral decency, and they are brave enough to share the vision.

Roger Copple retired from teaching third grade in a public school in Indianapolis in May 2010, at the age of 60. He currently lives in Sarasota. Interested in political theory, he has tried to integrate the best of Libertarian, Green, Socialist, and Anarchist viewpoints.

Roger Copple

Roger Copple retired at age 60 from teaching third grade in a public school in Indianapolis in May, 2010.He has been trying to integrate the best elements of Libertarianism, Socialism, Green politics, and Anarchism into a new US Constitution and government brought about through a Constitutional Convention.Because Article V of the Constitution only addresses how to propose and ratify amendments that would be added to our current Constitution, Roger has proposed a new Twenty-Eighth Amendment that could be added to our current constitution that tells how we can have a Constitutional Convention in a fair, safe, and orderly way in order to bring about an entirely new US Constitution and government.

15 Comments on "World Peace through Egalitarianism"

  1. TheFuriousFounder | Apr 6, 2012 at 10:33 am |

    This sounds like some UN Agenda 21 bullshit. “But the ideal is to not only empower the middle class, but to create a classless, egalitarian society and world.”   Did you got to your local Communist Party Headquarters and get a pamphlet before you wrote this?  This is nothing but a pipe dream and is impossible to achieve in anyway.  It actually is more delusional than anything else.  I also like how you said that mature, unself-centered people would believe this.  This is the same us against them, we know more than you thinking you are trying to preach about in this article. Pathetic piece of writing on an even more pathetic topic.  Too bad McCarthy is no longer around….

    • While I don’t agree with much of what Mr. Copple has written here, I suspect that he deserves a more dignified response than the one you provided.

      I concur that it’s a pipe dream and not even a pipe full of my preferred poison. Even if you feel the same way, that hardly justifies your vitriol.

      Maybe you could provide some specific, technical criticisms of the material? I think that would really help move the discussion forward.

      If you notice the byline (which I’m assuming is true), you’ll see that the guy retired from teaching elementary school. You can say what you want about American education, but very few people would argue that classroom teachers are ill-intentioned people.

      • Hipsterhippo14 | Apr 6, 2012 at 11:43 am |

        I must say I do not feel he deserves any such respect as this is nothing more than a call for a NWO and a One World Government.  This whole article is preposterous and frankly is very unnerving to me that someone who is an educator could think in these ways, that fact alone is more frightening than anything.  Specifically it calls for:

        -end to all national sovereignty
        -unequal representation in legislature (combined 30% to socialist/communist)
        -Mob rule mentality with majority 51% deciding outcomes
        -rewriting Constitution
        -installing International Bill of Rights
        -Redistribution of wealth
        -Take over of private and small businesses with “workplace democracy”
        -environment superior to all mentality

        In short this is UN Agenda 21 ideology and a very maniacal and dangerous way of thinking.  He actually stated than no one should make 5x more than the lowest earning person makes.  He also calls for businesses with 7 or more employees to be governed by those employees on a board.  These two things alone eliminate any incentive to start your own business.  This whole article would be hilarious if the author were not so sincere.

        In short the author should not be coddled or shown any sort of deference that they could construe as support for their ideas.  This person should be discredited at every avenue as these ideas are both radical and frankly, outright delusional. 

        • I don’t entirely disagree with you.

          But here he is trying to talk it out, and you’re lobbing insults instead of participating in a constructive exchange of ideas.

          Shouting someone down isn’t winning the debate. Shouting someone down doesn’t help “improve” their ideas or thinking or yours. Shouting someone down just shuts off communication and the free flow of ideas.

          That’s when people start getting violent.

          So, I’m interested in hearing what you have to say about the specific concepts, not the guy.

          Are there any problems in the world that even need to be addressed?
          If so, what are they and what ways do you see as the best way to address them.
          In what ways are your ideas superior?

        • RemsPoolhaas | Apr 6, 2012 at 12:09 pm |

          This article contains a profound theme which should resonate for you; An idea that emotional maturity (i.e. the ability to humbly think past your own biases and respond thoughtfully) is one facet in the social realm which ought to be considered before any of the other ideas mentioned.  

          Although you are absolutely entitled to your own opinions, the fact remains that your tone alone is enough to halt conversation instead of methodically and carefully engage in constructive criticism.  

          The author’s ideas are not new and not radical.  Furthermore, to say that someone who expressed a certain ideology should be discredited is outright cruel and unusual, especially if that ideology deserves further discussion and consideration.

          I believe that the author’s arguments and ideas hold some merit and I also believe that the idea of actively engaging in your society through philanthropy or civics is the way things ought to be.

        • What’s wrong with an International Bill of Rights?  I’m dismayed that the U.S.’s don’t seem to apply any more.

        • Mr Willow | Apr 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm |

          UN Agenda/NWO conspiracy theories notwithstanding. . .

          -end to all national sovereignty

          The only sovereignty that should exist, in my opinion, is individual sovereignty, pertaining to one’s body and mind, in that it should not be dominated by another. . . without consent (you know, if you’re into that sort of thing).

          Nationalism is far more dangerous as it has provided justification for everything from the deification of historical figures (Founding Fathers) and xenophobia (those people shouldn’t be here, cause they don’t look American) to imperialism, war, and genocide (ambitious Adolf seeking to make a German world)—incidentally, NWO in the opposite manner of the UN, where instead of uniting different nations, the goal was to expand the German border until it consumed the world. 

          -unequal representation in legislature (combined 30% to socialist/communist)

          a) Where do you get 30%? I see Socialist 10%, Communist 5%. 10+5=15%

          b) What is presented are simply representations of potential representation. Note the word ‘Hypothetically’ at the beginning of the sentence. 

          c) Even if your 30% were accurate, that would leave a whopping 70% ostensibly holding opposing views and representation

          d) Going by your argument, there is currently unequal representation in the legislature, in that there is ZERO representation for socialists, communists, and generally anyone who isn’t a corporate shill or (if you make a distinction) otherwise a ‘free-market’/deregulation is always good/taxes are always bad/drill-baby-drill capitalist. (well, unless you count Bernie Sanders)

          -Mob rule mentality with majority 51% deciding outcomes 


          Are we aware of our obligations to a mob? It is the mob that labour in your fields and serve in your houses—that man your navy, and recruit your army—that have enabled you to defy the world, and can also defy you when neglect and calamity have driven them to despair. You may call the people a mob; but do not forget that a mob too often speaks the sentiments of the people.

          –Lord (George Gordon Noel) Byron 1812

          It should be noted that he was speaking, to the House of Lords, of the Luddites—workers replaced by machines, who, outraged and forced into poverty, came in to their former places of work and smashed the machines—in another empire: Great Britain. 

          -rewriting Constitution

          *heavy sigh* 

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Saftey and Happiness.

          –Declaration of Independence 

          And I should point out an aversion to altering what amounts to the idea(l)s of a few dozen men written 200 years ago—good though they may be—is indicative of nationalism, and goes beyond any sort of national pride, veering into ‘divine inspiration’ territory. 

          -installing International Bill of Rights 

          I defer to Andrew. 

          -Redistribution of wealth

          No, a more equitable distribution of wealth in the first place, so that salaries would be sufficient to cover living expenses without the need to work two, three, or four dead-end jobs just to pay rent and afford groceries. 

          -Take over of private and small businesses with “workplace democracy” 

          Exactly, because the workplace of today (with little exception) functions the same as a dictatorship. 

          You work for your boss, not for yourself, and what your boss says goes. . . always. Your boss is God. There is no room for collaboration, no coöperation, no room to have these grand ‘innovative, out of the box ideas’ that are supposed to eventually solve our problems, because all the boss is concerned with is if you are doing what they told you to do. You are his slave. 

          If you start mucking with the system the boss ten guys up the line came up with with silly little questions and ideas, then they’ll get someone who will do his job and shut up. 

          It is the collective effort of the entire company that a company functions; therefore, every individual within that company should have an equal say in the direction of the company, and how it is managed. 

          -environment superior to all mentality

          In short, if your environment dies, so do you. It would, then, be quite pertinent to make it an imperative to protect and preserve it. 

          And that goes both for the natural environment as well as your societal environment. Destruction of one leads to chemicals in your water supply and conditions similar to the Dust Bowl, destruction of the other leads to your friends/neighbours/colleagues not wanting to associate with you and (in the extreme) the selfish clamouring for resources to the point that they eventually eat each other. 

          As RemsPoolhaas says below, none of the ideas presented are terribly new, and are only radical by the yardstick American pundits use to measure Obama as some ‘radical leftist’, when he’s to the right of Ronald Reagan.

    • Mr Willow | Apr 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

      This is nothing but a pipe dream and is impossible to achieve in anyway.

      Sometimes I wonder if it really is a pipe-dream, or if people like yourself dismiss it as a pipe-dream to avoid putting in the effort necessary to make such a world possible.

  2. This whole article is bogus because it only presents patch work and theory. The problem is human thinking and the vast ideologies which we have created from thought. All our systems have failed and are failing so everything we have built based on our thinking capacities is headed for disaster. There is nothing that can be done and there is nothing that anybody is going to do or be willing to do as evinced by the comments of TheFuriousFounder.

  3. Mr Willow | Apr 6, 2012 at 3:43 pm |

    Two things: 

    I still contend that if we are to have any sort of representational body, that it should be selected through sortition, and that what we vote on are the ideas that body puts forth—along with having the ability to propose ideas of our own. 

    And, a minor (perhaps even semantic) quibble: 

    Hierarchy may be better than anarchy, but it is not better than democracy among well-informed citizens. 

    Society without hierarchy is anarchy. It is what anarchists seek to achieve, ultimately, and I consider it the purest form of democracy as it is each person self-determining their fate, but interacting with everyone around them to build society through collaboration and coöperation. Without submitting to the will of a constant authority telling them how they should behave, it is us determining amongst ourselves the best and/or proper method to behave. 

    Good article otherwise.

  4. Jesus Borg | Apr 7, 2012 at 11:32 am |

    I think there are people who are basically egalitarian and anti-authoritarian by their very nature, and sharing the planet with us are two other types of people who fit hand and glove: Social Dominators and the authoritarian personality types.

    I think maybe the best strategy is some type of seperate existence, where all the Egalitarians can get together and form our own nations and then all the other dipshits can get together and vote in dictators to enslave them and then everyone will be happy. Some people like being dictators and others like being dictated to. So lets get out of their way and do our own thing.That’s my pipe dream.

  5. Response to Mr. Willow: We use Sortition in the selection of jurors.  I would choose sortition over a system in which only millionaires can get elected.  Ideally our political decisions should be based on a study of history, political science, economics, sociology, etc.
    Response to Bob: Bob, you seem really pessimistic about the world.  If there is really nothing to be done, what are you doing with your life?
    Response to The Furious Founders:  Nation-states that have the greatest ability to improve the world are dominated by corporate powers that control the mainstream media.  The media can demonize words like “the UN” or “socialism” which creates knee-jerk reactions in many people.  Take socialism.  There are many varieties of it.  The former Soviet Union was totalitarian and certainly did not represent   democratic socialism. 
    Response to Zenc: Thank you for your call for more rationality in the discussion.
    Response to The Furious Founders:  How we balance individual freedom with communal and global responsibility will always be the issue.  Clinton Callahan said, “Like a parasite, the paradigm of empire is killing the host.”  In pursuing our private and national gain, we have to think about the needs of the community and the planet.
    Response to Mr. Willows: The reason there are so few third party members of Congress is that we have a two-party system that makes it extremely difficult for third parties to have an equal voice.  Instant runoff voting requires the winner to get at least a  51% majority.  With our current electoral college system, a majority of the popular vote is not even required.  A Republican could conceivably get elected with only 31% of the popular voter over a Democrat candidate who got 30%, and an Independent who got 29%.   I support the Bill of Rights in our Constitution as well as the International Bill of Rights. 
    Response to RemsPoolhaas:  Thank you for your support. 

    Roger Copple, author of the above article  

  6. Duane_eddys_gretch | Apr 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm |

    >To achieve world peace, one has to focus on CAPITALISM AND INDIVIDUALISM.


    As R.J Rummell’s research has established, capitalist nations with relatively strong protection of individual rights don’t go to war with each other. The biggest mass murderers in modern history — Hitler, Stalin and Mao — were all vehemently anti-capitalist and anti-individualist.

    >In the United States, the rich are getting richer, as the middle class is
    being utterly wiped out, since the implementation of Reagonomics

    About 80% of Americans don’t balance their checkbooks or use budgets to track spending and set long-term financial goals. The evil 1% are not to blame for the stupidity and laziness of the majority of Americans who neglect their finances.

    The remainder of the essay hardly merits comment due to its alarmist tone, utopian cliches and unsupported claims.

Comments are closed.