|
Hi FatFingers, >> Following the UN link, I find a curious diatribe for a Libertarian website (am
>> not being "more-pure", just curious). It claims the UN isn't democratic
>> enough. Democracy? What kind of statists run this place? ;-) I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that libertarianism is
superior to democracy (which results in semi-statism)? This is true, but if you are in favor of the establishment of a non-democratic
libertarian government then we have little in common. I will suggest that such
an experiment would go in the direction of Soviet Union, Republic of Cuba, The Peoples
Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea .. >> But this snippet interested me: "An alternative to the UN comprised of
>> democratic countries (who have to ask to join, and who can be expelled by the
>> others simply for not being democratic) would be a great improvement." >> I agree that the UN is indeed hardly a model of democracy, for many reasons. A
>> product of WWII, the Allies made sure they controlled it (ie the Security
>> Council). Their veto power is especially unjustified. I disagree. Their veto power is entirely justified - the UN can draw up
whatever silly rules they like - however 'democratic', 'undemocratic', or
'unjustified'. Just as I can set up a 'Club for Pseudo-Libertarians' and make
whatever silly rules I want. What I don't have the right to do is to enforce the decisions made by the
silly rules as 'International
Law'. They aren't. They are just the ranting of a silly bunch of whackers
jerking each other off with other people's money. >> The General Assembly (189 countries) seems more democratic, but it is only an
>> assembly of states, not people. As Strawman says, some of these states are not
>> democratic in themselves. But the greater problem is that it is one state-one
>> vote. Conceivably, the 95 smallest countries could vote for a resolution that
>> the 94 biggest vote against, and the small states would win while representing
>> only 4% of the global population. Agreed - total idiocy. >> So to be truly democratic, you need a World Assembly directly elected from the
>> people in proportion to population. And instead of kicking out non-democratic
>> countries, which would be very destabilising, every country agrees to UN
>> supervision of delegation elections or their vote in the Assembly is reduced to
>> one, regardless of how many delegates they would normally get. (Thanks to
>> Ernest Bevin and Peter Singer for those ideas) An even worse idea. Suffering the democratic whims of people
in these countries would be nearly as bad suffering under their dictatorships. >> In the end, a more democratic UN or equivalent would be an improvement, but it
>> would not serve the interests of the current powers that be, and would likely
>> increase aid. I think what you are saying as that a world government which was a
democracy would be a total disaster. Third world inhabitants would just vote
themselves first world assets, and the world economy would collapse. Most
people in the world do not understand the conditions required for wealth to be
created - that's one of the main reasons why most of them are poor. My main objection to the UN is that people call it 'democratic' when it is
clearly not even that. A majority of dictatorships does not constitute a
democracy. Thanks for reading.
| 
