What If the World Was One?

Dramatic change does not occur except through extraordinary pain. If you look at history, you will see events unfold in this pattern. We are adaptive creatures. We are not very proactive. Just look at climate change. We haven't suffered enough pain to want to adapt. I'd like to make a prediction. There will be a WW3. The cost of that war will be so horrific that the world will pay any price to avoid a repeat of that event. I don't want there to be a WW3, but all indications seem to be pointing us in that direction. 

The elites of each nation take us to war. Mostly it is the lower and middle class who pay the greatest price in the name of nationalism. We need to understand that the more elites of each nation fear each other, the closer we are to war. The elites don't necessarily want a war unless they known they will win. And that is impossible to know right now. What we do know is that fear breeds irrational behaviour quite often. 

If we are to suffer the pain of a 3rd world war then I hope from it's ashes the following might arise. A world government will evolve. There were two earlier opportunities after WW1 and WW2. Both of which were missed. Hopefully the next opportunity won't be. It's purpose will be to stop any possibility of WW4 occurring. I don't mean a world government where everyone lives in a police state, where everyone is ruled by a few elites. I am talking about free and open societies in every part of the world with the rule of law, free and open democratic elections, and the whole system of transparent and accountable Government. This obviously includes the appropriate branches of Government with independence from each other and a separation of powers. It should also have some emergency actions possible if evidence exists that the erosion of those powers occurs. Something like a no-confidence vote in the leader. 

This must not only be on a national level, but also on an international level. Is this possible? Can it be done peacefully? Probably not. But I'd like to propose a way for a peaceful transition to a democratic rule of law for the entire world, which might come about. The clock is ticking as well. If robots and AI evolve quickly enough, then I believe people's ability to sell their labour will be limited to an ever-increasing extent. Initially, such intelligent robots will be expensive, so people in less developed countries will be able to compete on price with their cheap labour. This will only last for 5 to 10 years. Then, not even cheap third-world labour will survive. Labour will no longer be labour, but rather, a part of capital because smart robots will be completing nearly all labour tasks. This will not only cause polarization within countries but also between countries. You can't get international investment to your country if cheap labour is no longer a selling point. 

I propose that the United Nations, the IMF, or the World Bank create a cryptocurrency that is legally recognized and financially guaranteed by all members of the United Nations. The currency is guaranteed by all the mineral rights that exist on the planet. So the UN now owns all the mineral wealth and collects all royalties and taxes from minerals extracted anywhere on Earth. 

One benefit of all countries not having mineral rights is added security. You can't invade a mineral-rich country if that country doesn't own the mineral rights. And larger countries can't break apart, allowing the elites of a small breakaway state to gain from mineral rights, which they no longer have to share. Imagine if Russia collapsed. Many of the Republics within the Russian Federation are mineral-rich. Imagine the motivation to break away. Religion or politics will be used as a rallying cry. However, money will be in the minds of the new elite. Do you think tensions would be so high in the South China Sea if mineral rights were not up for grabs?

How do you get a country like Saudi Arabia to give up its mineral rights? They are already so wealthy. If there were less threat of invasion because the UN owned all the mineral rights, there would be less need for an expensive military. Also, I would disproportionately compensate the existing people of that country. I would only compensate the existing generation. I would calculate the estimate of income from the export of minerals from that country during that generation. I would pay that money out to the citizens of that country in the form of a boosted Universal Basic Income, less the cost of financing the Global Universal Basic Income. Many citizens will get much more for their entire lifetime. A few will get a great deal less. 

Every human being above the age of 18 on planet Earth is given a mobile phone. Every mobile phone on Earth has access to the internet, probably through Starlink or a Starlink-type operation for free. The UN pays a provider for the service or owns its own service. A Universal Planetary Basic Income, which is enough to feed people in the poorest countries, is paid via this cryptocurrency into this mobile phone across the planet. If you have dependents, an NGO will inform the paying institution of this fact, and extra money will be provided. Or the same money can be paid into a trust fund and paid over when the child reaches the age of 18 years.

For every dollar paid to a human being, another dollar should be paid into an environmental fund. That money is to be used for the benefit and health of the planet itself. The environment can thus be protected more vigorously. We are just starting to pay for the foolishness of ignoring the environment. Scientists who are not compromised are telling us things are going to get worse. Let's address this at a global level. 

In a poor country,  initially the Planetary UBI stops you from starving and puts some clothes on your back and a roof over your head. It also pays for basic health requirements, and basic transport requirements can be afforded with this money. You won't live a life of luxury, though maybe a certain amount of dignity will be afforded. Each year, this income increases by 1%. This continues until all people, no matter where they live on the planet, receive an income that affords them a dignified lifestyle. That may take 20 years or so of continual annual Planetary Basic Income price rises. 

If you live in a rich country, the initial money will just accumulate because it is not enough to spend. But you could convert it to any currency you wanted or buy goods with it. Also, it may reduce wage push inflation slightly. On top of this, if your population is on the decline and your government hasn't allowed for your retirement, then in many advanced countries where expectations are high and Government promises have been made, this Universal Planetary Basic Income might save some governments in 20 years. Think of China. Their demographic trend is extreme. The Chinese people might even loosen their purse strings and become better consumers for the CCP if they know that they will have a livable income in 20 years, thanks to the UN UBI. 

Any money earned from planetary mineral royalties in excess of money paid out to recipients accumulates in a planetary wealth fund. The interest earned from this fund pays for the running of the UN. Because of the UN's monopoly over mineral rights, enough money will be raised to satisfy all needs since they can charge the necessary price. In my humble opinion, Norwegian citizens should administer this fund. They have proven themselves capable when running their own sovereign wealth fund. They may be able to do a good job for the planet as well. 

There are conditions for getting this Universal Planetary Basic Income money. If you live in a country that is being run by criminal elites, to the degree you are receiving this income, you need to practice civil disobedience when certain people are being sanctioned by the UN. So if the elites had an illegal jadeite mine, you couldn't work for the criminal elites and receive the cryptocurrency. What you can do is trade with other people who have cryptocurrency for goods they may have that you want. If you do work for this criminal who is being sanctioned, then the income from the UN is cut off. That is, you receive a secondary sanction. Sanctions will occur for crimes that have implications across borders, such as drug smuggling, organised crime, and scam centers. 

Let's say the criminal elite forces you through some corrupt or violent process to give them your cryptocurrency. As soon as it leaves you and goes to him or her, the cryptocurrency is turned off. That money needs your biometrics to be spent legitimately through a blockchain program. It cannot be spent by the criminal elite because they don't have a biometric marker that the blockchain recognises. Or the program does recognise the biometric marker, but also recognises that that person is sanctioned. So the transaction needs to be between two "non-sanctioned" people. If there is any suspicion that you are dealing willingly or unwillingly with a sanctioned person, a video call to your phone occurs, asking you to show your immediate environment, and questions will be asked. Also, transactions with sanctioned individuals can be cancelled retrospectively and reversed to the point before the illegal transaction. Any innocents harmed by this action will be compensated by a special UN fund set up for this purpose. 

By a gradual process of civil disobedience, the elites might have the land and resources through violent means, but they can't work the land or extract the resources as easily. And now the resources belong to the UN. The people in that area are not desperate for food because they are receiving the P;anetary Universal Basic Income. So those resources the criminals stole are less valuable to them. The labor they need to work the land or mine, or factory, is to some extent denied to them, or it's much more expensive because they need to outbid the UN to obtain the labour to extract the resources they wish to sell. Those once willing workers are now creating and trading their own goods in their own economy using the UN digital income. 

In 20 years time, when smart robots replace labour, this might be more difficult. The UN is using the denial of labour to restrict criminal elite activity. In the future, the UN might have to pass a law saying it is illegal to sell smart robots that cannot be remotely turned off if found to be used by criminal elites for illegal purposes. 

If this planet is to thrive, it is essential that the UN becomes the preeminent Governing body. In an age of potential nuclear annihilation, individual countries doing what they like in their own backyards is outdated. I believe this idea came into being after the European Thirty Years War with the Treaty of Westphalia. We can see worrying trends in the world, suggesting that a new approach is desperately needed. Nuclear proliferation is a really bad idea. 

A Government without a proper separation of powers, full transparency, and full accountability to the people is asking for trouble. Leaders and elites, whether they be a commercial or political class of people, always seek more power to protect and enhance their positions. Their focus is on eliminating their potential opposition and blocking any future opposition. Promotion is by loyalty, not merit, encouraging fear and suspicion, mixed in with a huge amount of simmering resentment by the suppressed population. This leads to worse decision-making outcomes. If positive things occur in the economy along the way, it is often despite this parasitic class of people, not because of them. 

A planetary cryptocurrency seems a bit dystopian at first. But then I look at what we have in its place. Massive armies, huge navies, and nuclear missiles are ready to destroy our planet many times over at a moment's notice. As technology gets better and cheaper, war will become more and more lethal, and front lines will continue to melt away. In 20 years, when assets are making assets, and just a few people own all the assets, we will be in real trouble. All decisions regarding life and death will be made by those who control those assets. Many of those assets will be either killing machines or things that make killing machines. Countries already at war, like Russia and Ukraine, will get there first. Authoritarian countries will get there next, and democratic countries will be last to get to this point. 

If I had to choose between the two options, I'd take cryptocurrency and surveillance. I am not saying I like it. But to me, it is the better option. Battleships, fighter planes, bombs, drones, and killing robots won't unify the world. Money in vulnerable people's back pockets will. And the UN is all about universal rights for all mankind. Well, what gives someone rights?. Money! It just comes with certain obligations. The more desperate you are, the more you'll agree to abide by those obligations. After all, if you live in a poor country, it's probably because your Human Rights are already being trampled upon.

The more desperate you are, probably the more likely you are to have a gangster class running your country. So by its very nature, this Universal Planetary Basic Income targets bad actors in badly run countries first.  Instead of firing missiles into countries with bad actors and parasitic elite classes in certain countries, just smuggle smartphones in and hook them all up to Starlink for free. Give them free education, an income to spend anywhere on the planet, and temporary Planetary digital citizenship backed by the UN if they wish to temporarily renounce their birth citizenship because they are being persecuted. 

How can a planetary organization like the UN give rights and protection if it doesn't offer some form of citizenship? And as a first step towards a revitalized UN  and making it relevant for many years to come, I would suggest remodeling its framework. Get rid of the Security Council. Every member country gets a weighted vote in the General Assembly, which is a product of a country's economic output, population size, human rights score, and a responsible planetary citizen score. The UN General Assembly is now a planetary law-making body.

The Human Rights score is a ranking of the members of the UN from 1 to 194, or however many members exist. The score is a combination of aspects like free speech, transparency and accountability in government, proper separation of powers, an independent judiciary, lack of corruption, etc. And a free press that does not polarise or brainwash its population, but provides unbiased factual information and clearly states when it is providing an opinion. 

Another part of the human right score would include the share of wealth within an economy. If three people share 50% of the wealth of a single nation's economy, that is clearly a destabilising force within that economy. The polarising issues within that nation will spill over into other nations. A country's Human Rights score will lower if a person is more than 100 times wealthier than the poorest. Fix your national tax system. So the Gini coefficient needs to be kept under control to obtain a favourable Human Rights score. 

The Responsible Planetary Citizenship score is also important. Imagine a big, rich country with a poor Human Rights score buys your vote at the next UN General Assembly. That causes the Responsible Planetary Citizenship part of your weighted score at the UN General Assembly to drop. Stop buying votes at the UN General Assembly. Both parties to this illegal transaction will drop in this score. 

The Responsible Planetary Citizenship component also includes trade relationships between countries. If you go to the World Trade Organization and you lose, you can be penalized by dropping your ranking in the Human Rights weighted index. So if you think you will lose in court, better to settle out of court. A drop in that ranking will hurt. The WTO is part of the UN framework. Court cases need to be heard and finalised within 6 months. You can't block the courts up for long periods by throwing money at the problem. Also, any refusal to sign up to the International Criminal Court reduces your ranking. If you sign up to the International Criminal Court within 6 months of the establishment of the new format UN, then any prior criminal convictions will not be able to be heard in the ICC. Any attempted manipulation of international bodies like the World Health Organization will reduce your Responsible Planetary Citizenship weighted score. For instance, you can't obstruct an investigation into the cause of a pandemic. You can't tamper with a war crime scene. 

If you are a responsible planetary citizen, then your country will contribute forces to a combined UN force. In exchange for that contribution, no matter how big or small the country, as long as the contribution to the UN standing force is proportionate, the UN will defend your borders. By proportionate, I mean 2% of GDP. Any country that continues to fund a defence force diminishes its Responsible Planetary Citizenship score each year upon review. As nations donate all their defence forces to the UN, this figure can eventually reduce to 0.5% of GDP as any threat from individual nations diminishes. 

Those human rights scores should be checked by teams from across the planet who are randomly picked to audit each member country. Refusal to be audited or the limitations put on the audit results in lowering the Planetary Citizenship and human rights scores. If human rights are not seen to improve across the planet in any year, the weighting given to this measure as part of the UN vote goes up by 1%. 

The importance of a strongly weighted vote is that planetary laws are presented and voted on at the General Assembly. You only need 10% of the weighted vote of the Assembly to propose a new law to be voted upon. You need 66% of the weighted vote to pass a new planetary law. Obvious laws need to be passed first, like the abolition of slavery everywhere. Difficult but necessary laws need to be dealt with next, like a worldwide carbon trading scheme. Responsible and safe development of AI.

As a protest by interested countries, I would suggest that representatives to the UN from all democratic countries be elected by the citizens of that country. That representative needs to go to the electorate with a planetary agenda that has the interests of their own country as their focus. The arguments put forward in these elections will promote the UN as a planetary democracy. Even people in non-democratic countries will pay attention because they want to know who they must deal with. What you focus on grows. Just appointing representatives circumvents the promotion of a planetary human rights movement. Stop appointing representatives to the UN General Assembly. Send elected representatives with as much hype as possible. It sends a more appropriate message to the world. "This is what we stand for. This is what we believe. The leaders of your country might not believe in what we are saying, but many of your own people do. They are just too afraid to say it."

I am not saying that the person from each country elected to the position of UN representative doesn't collaborate with elected national members inside their respective countries. They do. But they also must have a planetary platform and bring meaning to our individual nations as part of a planetary community. A community that, through technology, is getting smaller and smaller each decade. None of this "America first" or "Middle Kingdom" rubbish, or whoever wants to promote themselves as the next superpower. Let's all learn to get along together and do so within a framework robust enough to handle the grievances of everyone on the planet. 

At present, there is no International governing body with teeth, in which all countries have an agreed stake. This encourages "strong man" politics where nationalist frenzy is used as a tool to gain power. If the power were with the citizens to pick their international representative, this would suppress the "strong man" nationalistic political tactics used in many countries. It's quite dangerous and must be stopped. Look at the disputes between India and Pakistan. Both are nuclear powers. 

China supports North Korea economically. North Korea is a gangster state. It is the test subject because it is so cut off. I would smuggle millions of smartphones into North Korea. I would offer the deal proposed above to all North Korean citizens. Free money is available on the condition that you don't share it with the sanctioned elite in your country and you don't work for them. I would, at the same time, sanction China for supporting the elites in North Korea, as they attempt to persecute the suppressed in North Korea. North Koreans know a world exists outside of their country. You need to convince those people that the cryptocurrency inside their phones has value all over the world. The elites in their country are not the only ones who can issue currency. 

This is a grey war. No bullets are being fired. Only ideas. Ideas are much more powerful and much more difficult to defend against. You can put a few North Korean families in jail. But you can't put an idea in jail. Money is the ultimate idea. It gives value to everything around us. If you can successfully weaponize that, where do parasitic elites go from there? They make a currency no one recognizes or wants to use. Currency needs to be backed by the trust of the people who use it. How do criminal elites pay their thugs?

With regards to nuclear weapons, I believe only the UN should have nuclear weapons. Any country that has nuclear weapons should be encouraged to hand them over to the UN. In exchange, the UN will commit to not allowing any nuclear strike on that country without a retaliation by the UN. The UN will launch nukes from space or international waters. They will base no nuclear weapons inside a recognised member state. If you won't relinquish your nukes to the UN, then each year your Human Rights and Responsible Planetary Citizen score diminishes. If a country invades another country in an unprovoked manner, then by a 2/3 vote at the General Assembly, the UN can nuke the aggressor country until the aggressor country retreats. Their vote at the UN is also immediately put on probation until the UN General Assembly can vote on unsuspending that member country's vote. The UN will attack the aggressor nation with the UN standing army until the leader of that aggressor country, most responsible for the attack on another country, is put on trial at the ICC. 

If ever this UN digital currency became a global currency, could you raise debt against it? I guess so. Because you know the next paycheck is coming through your phone. But there must be strict limitations on the creation of debt from this currency. People need to live off that money as a base. They shouldn't be allowed to sign the rights to it away for some shiny new toy now. That would destroy the purpose of the UN digital currency. Any financial contract guaranteed by this digital currency can be revoked by a UN court. Debt should only be created off the back of people's ability to earn income other than the Planetary Universal Basic Income. 

With spare funding from the Planetary Wealth fund, I would set up a free education system using an international language like Esperanto. The standards set and qualifications obtained must be recognized by all member countries. Facts and figures that need to be memorised can be taught by AI programs and tested and graded by the same program. Group learning and social interaction might be possible through virtual headsets. In poor countries, the headsets could be available at a local public school or library, or by NGOs. In wealthier countries, it's just another bit of kit like your laptop. But everyone needs to learn how to speak Esperanto to participate in the course. That's the sign-on fee. And anyone, anywhere, can sign on for free. Why Esperanto? It's such a structured language. Unlike English or Chinese, which may take two years to learn, Esperanto should only take six months to learn. And if we were to pick an established language, people might accuse the UN of bias. That's not a good start for a refurbished UN. 

If the above-mentioned structure does not come about, I can easily imagine more civil wars and proxy wars, and even global wars occurring. I can imagine greater pressure on democracies in the future. Mass immigration from countries affected by climate change, political unrest, and poverty will spread to more advanced economies. For the advanced economies, the system of Planetary Universal Basic Income not only stabilizes poorer countries, thereby reducing uncontrolled migration to advanced economies, but in the long term, it also stabilizes the advanced countries. Especially ones with unfunded pension schemes. 

You might think that these ideas will have no traction in a country like the USA or China. I beg to differ. Elites in all countries seek to keep accumulating power, so they will object to my ideas mentioned above. However, the usual voting public in America, or any country where they see no upside to war, only cost, will be in favour of these ideas. The fact that it hasn't come to fruition already is a mystery. Maybe because elites like to keep playing "the Great Game". And some people profit from war. However, one of the reasons the USA has a huge deficit is because of the many wars it feels compelled to engage in as the "world's policeman". If this idea were enacted after WW2, the USA would not owe $36 trillion to the rest of the world now. And if this world government that I am describing existed now, the Chinese people would not agree to harmony over individual human rights. And let's face it, there will be no harmony if they invade Taiwan. 

Who would want to stop the world from coming together as one? Those who benefit from the fractured international world we now live in. How can you hide your wealth if it can be tracked? How do you explain the amount of wealth you have? No..... a world which comes together as one would be very dangerous for so many of the true 1%. 

Ray Dalio describes econmoic cycles of destruction and rebuilding within all civilizations. He describes these cycles as seemingly inevitable. He says they have always happened and perhaps always will. From my perspective, these cycles come with great pain and waste. If we can avoid them, we should. I would suggest that the primary reason money was invented was to act as a means of exchange. It was not invented to make people who may never truly feel secure within themselves feel secure. It is not a psychological panacea. It is an economic instrument. When more money is in the hands of fewer people, money cannot act optimally as a means of exchange. 

To optimize the function of the Planetary Universal Basic Income, I would suggest that after this planetary currency has been fully introduced into society, no person can earn more than 100 times more than the lowest paid person. The money is taxed and transfer payments made.

The beauty of money is that it allows people all over the planet to act as one. It unlocks synergy. But money needs to be trusted in order to be an effective means of exchange. The more it's horded, the less synergy it facilitates. When that happens, class distinctions evolve, polarization of society occurs. Political opportunists weaponize the polarization of society and we see Ray Dalio's cycles play out. That's why automatic recycling of money must happen through taxes and transfer payments and common good expenditures. 

If I had to make one alteration to the Planetary UBI it would be to add some incentives for leadership back at home. There would be a 10% variation in the UBI from the highest ranked in terms of human rights and planetary citizenship to the lowest. This UBI varies with that nation's ranking. It's not enough to financially harm recipients of the UBI. But it's enough to tell all the recipients of that nation how well their nation's leaders are doing compared to the other nations in the UN. 

Finally, why have a Planetary UBI backed UN currency which is backed by all the mineral wealth in the world? Minerals on this planet are a gift from the Earth to it's inhabitants. They were not made or created. They were just dug up. It shouldn't matter where you were born on the planet, you should financially  benefit from their extraction and use. It shouldn't matter your connections or class, everyone should benefit equally from these mineral rights. And the earth itself, having given us this wealth, should receive at least half back in some positive financial form.