Suuure, just realize that armies are Dispute Resolution Organizations specializing in resource managment.
And i'll tell you another thing. Any Dispute Resolution Organization will need to be an army when dealing with resources like energy water and food on a global scale.
The fact alone that you propose multiple of these organizations is in itself problematic because who or what will resolve the diputes between them?
Armies are not DPOs. The free market (the people) will efficiently resolve disputes between them.
The free market cannot resolve energy imbalance or the imbalance of any other vital resource without an army. Armies are pretty damn effective dispute resolution organizations.
Maybe you can give an example.
Say you have a water dispute between two geographically close regions. Group A doesn't have enough water to give to its people and the only economically viable source is group B.
Group B has plenty of water and because of that, they also have plenty of food and are basically self sufficient.
Group C also has water but they live so far away that acquiring that water becomes financially impossible for group A.
Now group B decides not to deliver any water to group A. In fact, group B decides that since they don't want to waste their water on the infidels of group A they would much rather just wait untill they all die out.
We have a clear dispute.
Group A goes to your DPO. What do they ask of them?
How will the DPO make sure the resource needs of group A are met?
Or do you mean by free market that group A should indeed just die off because they were born in a location where water was scarce and noone realy cares about them? The free economy would not care about it. And if that is your idea of an ideal societal structure, why would i want to share anything with you in the first place?
A free market is nice if you live in the luxury of being able to get your basic stuff together but it becomes pretty inhumane when these basic needs are not met. It would be a devolutionary step in what we achieved as a society. We need these big structures and we need them to be able to rectify the abuse of the power gained on the way up. But at the same time we need to control these big structures so they serve society as a whole and i think that is what is going wrong in the current situation. Removing the structure is exposing yourself to the problems that called for this structure in the first place. You would be right back in germanic civilizations where people lived in small groups in villages and pillaged and raped other villages once in while to prove they are still there. All very ethically accepted in those days.
Meanwhile they didn't develop any of the institutions to be able to sustain a bigger operation and o properly settle down and make the place work for you. They could not assure they allways had permanent food and shelter and most problems grew from that. It was the ideas and technology taken from the roman empire that allowed the germanic tribes to organize on a bigger scale and to settle down in a more permanent way.
And even the egyptians made much more progress thousands of years before them. They were past these tribal rivalries over 6000 years ago and became organized under the rule of the pharaos.
But then again egypt was a harsher land requiring more planning to sustain a population in. It is only natural that to build a society the large structures would play a more vital role than in the rich forrests of central europe.
There is a way to make ethics rational. Read about universally preferable behavior.
The point can be made pretty hard.
Ethics is based on impulses from our genes. This is by now a medical fact. In the basis these impulses are selfish in a very direct way. They re there to protect the individual. But humans evolved as social animals and so parts of these genes had to start coding for impulses that lead to behaviour that is beneficial to the local society.
Social progress has allowed us to see these impulses from a bigger viewpoint so we can apply them to ever bigger structures.
So now you no longer just fight for the rights of yourself or your family, you fight for the rights of all woman, for the rights of all humans and even for the rights of animals.
That much has more or less been achieved on a social level on basis of these vague impulses from our genes.
What science allows us to do is to find rationale in our projections outward into the bigger system.
We have found enough rationale to be sure that many animals are capable of experiencing pain in a similar way as humans do. So then it becomes science that allows us to extend our ethics to other systems in a meaningfull way.
So the more we know about the universe the more we can extend our notions of what is a good balance of cooperation.
But they are human notions neverteless so your mileage may vary.
Anyway, i don't believe in mumbo jumbo like universally preferrable behaviour.
Anything truely universal will not touch our human condition. We, together with our ethics, are amazingly specific. If we had no sufficently developed brains there would be no ethics to think about. You would be worried about how to get food and about not being eaten. Which is the de facto situation for most of life on earth.
For any ethics to be defined you first would need to set a goal. For us, it's survival of the species and anything we want to extend that to. Calling any of it universal would be the paramount of human arrogance. But what could you expect from a book written by a radio show host, right?
I'm having a hard time following your logic. But it's okay if we have different views. As long as we both respect the non-aggression principle nobody gets hurt.
The logic is that science allows us to check the premises of our gut feelings of ethics.
It makes ethics more rational.