Individualism- which makes up the reality of normal people denies the long term co-existence of contradictory values by priority of importance (EG: if someone values freedom..but not as much a independence..and the other vice versa. The approach and goals of those two..despite similar entities dramatically change) this is the reason why markets tend to work and large oversight and organisation dosen't.

Markets cater to the normal person need for both independence to create new groups but also makes the groups based on: base needs(money/food/security) proximity (other humans that actually have an impact on their desires and goals) and personal desires (career goals, ambitions) while allowing those values to be expressed towards a project without using the negatives of those ideals on a state level, aka you can have aggressive, independent people without having to introduce military state or whatever. 


It's the same with countries, they all have base cultures and foundations but just with more baggage and people trying to change it from the inside. It's easy to get a country to work together in war because their base needs and ambitions and settled i the conclusion of it.

It's hard to do so out of war because once a country is stable and can offer food, goods and assurance again humans start focusing on their  more abstract needs and goals, like their own personal ambitions, ideals and rough values (order, support, idealism ectr) most people rough, over arching ideas can be reasonably toned down to those 3 rough concepts and how they are ordered. 


These big collective plans don't work because you have to go through so many filters: you have to get the national cultures values and ambitions to be put aside to work for your plan. Then the states, then the classes of people. Then the smaller independent groups like cooperation, movements, clubs even. Then finally the individual. It's the very reason you "can't please everyone" 

My suggestion: work towards your goals yourself. Find groups, form groups. Write letters. You'll get a lot more success executing something yourself an leading it because even if you do convince someone else that your idea is right the very nature they have different base main values (the 3 rough abstract: EG: freedom, independence, security or...order, support, security eg) but also those values can be at different levels priority to them means they'll always mangle your idea and put it in a direction you didn't want it to go.


Basically: everyone considers everyone else evil or idiots because they can't conceptualize that other people have immediate different philosophical needs for their own happiness and sanity but also different end goals and values of rough concepts. The hardest lesson we learn to respect what we cannot perceive and that diversity of needs exist, individually, as groups and even as nations.

It's the ground floor of the great contradiction: we need freedom because that is how individuals enact their own values and ambitions, for the better of themselves...and others. Yet we need order because the same driving force slowly tears us central union apart. 

If you're a bit confused what I'm arguing against here. Since I didn't go on your points but went on a rant. I'm not. I'm basically saying, the best approach to these problems is your own. Everyone else fixes will never be yours, it will always change something small but primordial to the plan and ambitions you have that will have big, long term effects.