The UN Is Impotent

[alxian]

what if the UN was more like so much sci-fi... like the fifth element, a black world leader (no doubt ex-military)? in that it commands a force so specialized and powerful no nation on earth or in space could oppose it. both army and peacekeeper/humanitarian aid provider all at once? demanding delegates from some nations to help others?

 

 

what if the UN had teeth, balls and a helping hand?

 

consider STEALTH, the talon are mere man coupled to ultra hightech machines.

 

what if the talon pilots grew into something more formidable, genegineered super soldiers able to infiltrate any country at anytime to restore/enforce a world standard of order.

 

the UN then could become a NEW WORLD ORDER, type governemt, able to set and enforce basic human rights, but more importantly control world and interplanetary trade.

 

also keeping an "big brother" type eye on everything in real time, with spies and satelites everywhere. with a need to know clearance allowing it to know how many sheets remained on every roll of toilet paper in every toilet stall anywhere.

 

would make for good sci-fi i think. since some countries would undoubtedly pre-program a satelite to fall to earth onto the world governments headquarters... just happens it was packing a nuclear warhead..

 

but seriously, i think it would be in everyones best interest to have a global overgovernment able to interveen to stop local regimes for stepping far out of line, (quelling ethnic cleasing type conflicts) or able to overturn local governments decisions to attack corporations. world trade of course requires competition and all but occassionally those decisions are still nationalistic and don't reflect the good of the world. giant corporations fighting against each other need a fair and impartial arbiter, one able to gut them should they decide to take it outside.

 

who'd sponsor them? who would pay for it? the people, a tiny tax for living in a world at peace with itself. also those major multinational corporations whom the global government would be protecting against local governments and their crippling taxes. best to pay their dues to only one master than several (best for consumers).

 

of course once the tables have turned and we (the individual citizen) realize that the global government offers much more than our local governments could possibly offer... how long would it be before we swear our allegiance to them alone? allowing the NWO to sweep in and behead our local governemt and establish a representative of their own. one of them?

 

they being nearly a different species entirely, engineered for perfect governance.

 

corporations would be allowed to fight of course that would be a boring. but with an artistic style of conbat, kanly, written up for wars to be fought with as little collateral as possible, kinda like low loss of life robots wars with machine not humans fighting with each other, each side keeping a running tally of the cost of war factoring it into the need to continue fighting, the bottom line would force a decision before attrition and loss of real lives would force the global government to step in and spank both nations.

 

what about nations dead set against a world governement? like the US, who'd wish to be that world conscience or suppress anyone opposing them (the blind leading the blind if the US ruled the world..). would be quite a fight though...

 

could the world survive under one non-competitive government? (well unless our trading partners on the moon and mars have their own over governments and thousands of subbordinate officials (democratically ellected nationals...aka local government)) in which case "we" compete with "them" and the multinationals and multiplanetaries with each other(thus keeping the species motivated, but most importantly civil).

[IrishEyes]

One world government, huh? It's an interesting, and very frightening (to me), thought.

While I agree that the UN is impotent, I'm not sure a 'new world order' would actually solve things. The people that run it have to come from some place, don't they? What's to stop them from helping out their own 'home' countries?

Every country has to send people? How many? Is it a set number, or is it proportional to their population?

And you want the local governments to add yet another tax to their citizens, to support this NWO? Can every person in every country afford this tax? Will it also be proportional to what each country, each citizen, can afford? Or will bigger, more prosperous, countries foot the bill?

I read about something like that happening. And frankly, it scares the heck out of me, but that's a personal thing, I guess.

Nice thought put into the idea though.

[Qfwfq]

What you describe doesn't sound like the idea of "United Nations" at all, it sounds like something very dire and verging onto global despotism. How would democracy be guaranteed by such a thing? Technology is something to watch out for as it is, we need institutions to guard us against abuse of it, not to wield it as power. Trouble is, that is happening, it's the military and the secret services that do it and they can get out of hand.

 

I would auspicate the UN developing toward a greater authority and not just what it is. Especially, banning of veto power. The UN's shortcoming IMHO is that of being merely diplomatic and not a true institution of international political power.

[UncleAl]

The United Nations (not called the UN for nothing, or rather, it is), as with NASA, is a exercise in political redirection. Money goes in and favors come out. Standard operating procedure is invisiblity. This is peppered with crises as expedient. The UN exists for nothing beyond that.

 

John Bolton is a terrible UN ambassador for the US because he has a straight line history of accomplishing goals despite his superiors' orders. What could he possibly plan for his UN tenure? It would be like having a Customer Service window at the Department of Motor Vehicles. That isn't what the organization is about.

 

The Congressional Record is a fabricated document - a lie. Little of what it so voluminously, punctiliously documents ever transpired. Laws passed by Congress are piffle. The real meat of political oppression is the Code of Federal Regulations. More than 10,000 bureaucrats with word processors are hammering away each day creating a brave new world. Anything published in CFR that is not protested within 90 days takes on the full force of legislated law - arrest, fines, criminal prosecution, imprisonment, confiscation, Federal armed intervention. So easy...

 

The UN is satisfied being a gilt-edged money launderette. They'd rather not stick their heads (further) up (and could do nothing more if they did).

[Southtown]

It is ignorant to think that those in power somehow magically possess character more noble than the rest of humanity.

 

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

 

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.”

 

So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”

— I Samuel 8:4-18 nkjv

[C1ay]

I'm kind of glad it is impotent. Imagine how dangerous it would be with the authority to enforce it's corrupt ideology.

[Tormod]

All forms of government have some sort of corruption at some level - I think it is inevitable. Not because of structure but because of people.

 

But the UN does play an important role in many aspects - most of all the role of unification.

 

I am not going to argue that it is a perfect organisation, but I do think it is an important one.

[IrishEyes]

Important for what? What is the purpose? And does it meet those goals?

I know we've discussed this one before, and you thought I was some crack-pot for suggesting the US pull out, but I really can't seem to figure out what the point of the organization is anymore.

Can someone help me here?

[infamous]

All forms of government have some sort of corruption at some level - I think it is inevitable. Not because of structure but because of people.

Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

But the UN does play an important role in many aspects - most of all the role of unification.

This is very true but only if unification is the result!!

 

I am not going to argue that it is a perfect organisation, but I do think it is an important one.

Absolutely Tormod, the UN could be very effective if the membership could reach a majority consensus. But without an affirmed standard with which to act, they are completely ineffective. In fact, without a consensus to act upon, the UN is a thorn in the side of reasonable gobal progress.

[Buffy]

As Winston Churchill once said "Jaw Jaw is better than War War". Its all about communication: if people have a place where they're forced to talk to each other in a civilized manner, they're less likely to try to annihilate each other. Its not perfect, but it is useful.

 

We'll see how Bolton does in this situation...

 

Its interesting to note that conservatives are on both sides of what Bush I labeled (admiringly!) the "New World Order"...Its not just for liberals! The idea that it will become a "world government" is getting an interesting trial run with what's going on with the European Union and many countries now deciding *not* to approve its more centralized power structure. Americans are not following this, but they should...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[damocles]

Again no comment.(Still don't know enough.)

 

Questions;

1. How difficult is it for 198+ nations to agree on;

a. contracts?

b. money?

d. weights and measures?

e. jurisprudence?

f. power distribution in the political and electrical senses both?

2. What common interests, besides self preservation, binds nations to a UN?

3. If the EU is a current measure of international non co-operation; how much cultural impedence must be overcome to make even the limited corrupt structure the present UN represents work for its current members?

 

Damocles

[alxian]

As Winston Churchill once said "Jaw Jaw is better than War War". Its all about communication: if people have a place where they're forced to talk to each other in a civilized manner, they're less likely to try to annihilate each other. Its not perfect, but it is useful.

 

i wholeheartedly agree that peaceful resolution to conflicts by mediation would solve many problems.

 

problems.. as i see them

 

hunger

 

lack of technological advancement

 

most nations feel powerless in the face of bigger nations and their corporations.

 

lack of trained workforce

 

encroachment by stronger neighbors up smaller nations

 

polution from those larger more technologically advanced nations poisoning themselves and other nations

--

how do you settle such conflicts with talk? such conflicts demand immediate action for swift decisive resolution

--

war isn't the answer as it adds to the problem. what else can you do then when talk and war fails? those nations thus feel impotent.. they turn to desparation tactics, terrorism and even worse genocides.

--

 

those nations that fight dirty, the nations that spawn terrorists (the US included) are nations that find that even open war is not the answer. open war is an absolute meant to end a conflict at all costs. terrorism is a bandaid solution that solves problems temporarily, in a way terrorism seems to be more humane than war.

 

what i'm saying is that if we are able to bring together an impartial, resource and technologically rich state to govern the world (think vatican city of technology governance and corporations), immune to bribes, immune to the problems of the nations that begate them upon the world (i never liked the idea of "nations" anyway, who cares where you are born or if you die where you are buried?, in the middle the entire world should be you playpen). we could finally create a government state able not only to listen to the little guy, but help them.

 

in answer to the question of taxation. yes some nations would be unable to pay into the tax required to be covered under the protective mantle of a world government, even i am not that much an idealist to believe that a society such as that which i describe could be created spontaneously from nothing. however, should that world government start by shielding those small nations, gathering them up into a cohesive organization (by sucking up resources for the effort like a piece of fresh bread the remainder of a thin soup barely covering the bottom of a shallow bowl..) yes a time of transition woould be painful. no moreso though than the continuance of stupid pointless wars.

 

i think that if they took the chance, knowing that post 911 and post IRAQ that larger nations can attack them without UN sanction, they would not gladly support a world government but would see the necessity. that the world is no longer safe under the pretence of the UN and its ability to chastize the more aggressive nations, they would consider it much to their best interest to create a world government. of course you'll say the weak would jump at the chance. (what was it... the meek shall inherit the earth?)

 

once larger nations and corporations start buying into the idea, those little nations would find some of the aid they require to develop in the form of out-sourced technical work, education, beefed up infrastructure to accomodate new industries (services and technical) and most importantly money and food influx to repay the initial investment.

 

we see it already, corporations (which the developed world see only as 'evil incarnate') oppose capitalism and the greed of the western world. how can i say this? well they outsource labour to places in the world where people can be easily trained to do the work much more cheaply. thus in a sense they do good by the greed of the small group of rich people who head them bring more international aid to countries that need it.

 

however good that model is though most corporations don't bother with the truely needy nations. which is where the system fails a bit. how do you bring aid to nations so desparate they run around killing each other basically for sport*? (*of the countries that arm them)

 

do you let them fall by the wayside? i'd say no. put them to work making food for the world. up until recently i thought this was possible almost anywhere in the world to just grow the basic staples. however after some research i've found we lack suffcient technology and arable surface area to actually grow enough food. even GM food might not be the whole answer. it would be a start though.

 

so. what would get pathetic 3rd world nations to stop the senseless slaughter and become the cornerstone to a world government instead of the cancer that eats away it its seams? food, jobs infrastructure and protection. all things that a large multinational corporation could provide. i wonder what corporation would jump at the chance to develop GM foods in a third world nation for pennies on the dollar and what nations would buy those cheap nutritious foods and ignore the stupid warnings that they aren't safe? like modified DNA can be ingested and make you sick or something. the foods would be hardier thus pest resistant, they'd be more nutricious since they would be designed to suck up more resources from the ground, and would even be better for you if those nutrients were more easily preserved in the foods during processing and cooking.

 

if it came down to that i would sooner buy a dozen huge pulpy GM oranges grown in the congo over pesticide filled under sized floridian oranges. it would be like growing them naturally but with the added benefit of GM giving them even more advantages.

 

further, if meat was sourced abroad, and was much better for you (as long as you don't mind that the animals dna was created in a lab) and the animal was treated much more humanely than in conventional slaughterhouses (they would be designed to fall unconscious before slaughter, or could be designed to painlessly like sheep who shed their pelt, to shed meat (they could shed full meaty limbs like a salamander then grow them back as fast as bamboo, as long as they they had clean water to drink and food to eat)).

 

the question would arise: "fine, where do you find food for such miracle animals? and water for them to drink?". they don't have to eat special food, like herberts sligs they could be designed to eat garbage... i'm serious.. ok ok wait for it.

 

like herberst sligs, they would metabolize garbage. that garbage could be blimped in for profit (to the third world nations) for many "developed" nations around the would. put it on piles of biomass (such as fast growing seaborn kelp, also blimped in from the ocean) and toss in specially grown bacteria that reduce the piles to sludge. the bacteria would take care of the more toxic stuff, reducing them to their chemical constituants or sequestering them to be drawn off and recycled or stored eslewhere, while the biosludge could be used as fertilizer to grow simple agrostock for GM grazsers (grasses)(wheat).

 

http://www.thingsthatdontexist.com search sharkoceros and hippobronccolus, i go into some detail.

 

so you'd have something like china japan Russia the EU and S/NA paying 3rd world nations to take care of their garbage. those nations then convert that garbage cheaply to fertilizer and feed for GM animals that are humanely turned into food. nutritious food both for those growing 3rd world nations and for the rest of the developed world.

 

the piles of garbage could also produce gases, methane, that could be reduced into hydrogen, which when used in a fuel cell creates water, meaning a hydrogen economy would be abundant in fresh water... mineral deficient but water non the less.

 

moreover methane hydrate deposits exist in vaste desposits below the ocean. if we ever manage to tap into them the hydrogen economy could begin overnight.

 

from there those little nations accrue enough wealth to grow their populations and educate themselves. no more desparate starving selfslaughtering nations they. once they have enough people then they could begin paying in earnest into the world government and corporations that sponsored them in the first place. the developed world would become dependant upon them. of course eventually everyone [in the developed world] would be able to take care of themselves but by then enough will have been done for the bottom most nations that they would have enough power to fend for themselves. the hope would be that they would now be self sufficient members of the global economy would continue to pledge their fealty to the world government.

[Qfwfq]

The idea that it will become a "world government" is getting an interesting trial run with what's going on with the European Union and many countries now deciding *not* to approve its more centralized power structure.

If by any chance you mean the European Consitution being voted against, I say there are good reasons to vote against it. Quite simply it isn't a constitution. This does not mean I'm against Europe becoming more of a federation, I disagree with many aspects of how it has been done.

 

Americans are not following this, but they should...

Why? Surely you're not wanting the 50 states to break up the federation?

 

The US Constitution was made all too simply, and perhaps this was part of the reason it was so quickly effective. The several states have certainly become more of a single country than a collection of countries.

[alxian]

Again no comment.(Still don't know enough.)

 

Questions;

1. How difficult is it for 198+ nations to agree on;

a. contracts?

b. money?

d. weights and measures?

e. jurisprudence?

f. power distribution in the political and electrical senses both?

2. What common interests, besides self preservation, binds nations to a UN?

3. If the EU is a current measure of international non co-operation; how much cultural impedence must be overcome to make even the limited corrupt structure the present UN represents work for its current members?

 

Damocles

 

 

thank you

 

excellent post

 

what would happen if that world government was designed as the metric system was? for the purposes of math science and business not idiotic royal i-say-so-and-thus-so-it-shall-be BS.

 

a world government thus would require

 

a. LAW, one world constitution, that participating nations would mold to support every human regardless of nation religion or other belief system. every man and woman living on this planet has rights. even if they aren't part of the world government they fall under its edicts so any nation that fails to uphold the most basic standard of the world government becomes must answer to it.

 

i think though you'll need to expand the meaning of contracts, as in work contracts? contracts between the national governments and the world government? contracts between corporations? land owner and tenant?

 

b. i'm not silly enough to demand a world dollar. thats basically the mark of the beast. however a world monetary fund like organization within the world government would at all times keep tabs on world currencies to avoid hyperinflation type situations.

 

c. (?) language. of course they'd need a special world language. one representative of business and technology. english isn't the most spoken language, but arguably its the most powerful. however. it has its failings. again if i may plug herbert. gallach and many other fictional languages of sci-fi are standard, but each nation maintains its own languages. a few generations later children forced to learn the language of majority slowly refuse to learn older languages. i speak two myself and understand a few and would love to see a future rich with languages. english though would be prevelent. all delegates though must speak the languages of majority in the world. all of them. they'd have to by multilingual so that language is not a barrier to business.

 

d. metrics, no question.

 

e. the lowest common denominator of law (think ten commandments but rewritten for modern times), a no quibbling system of basic laws that are uncontestable by any country. the world government would need proof of fault. once prompted to action it would be swift and decisive but bloodless if possible. the topic was started by stating the UN is impotent, the US walked all over IRAQ and Afghanistan. such things should not be tolerated. the world should not be living in fear of large nations and large corporations (either of overt attack or subtly like pollution)

 

f. power..

 

a.until wind microwave solar and pebble bed nuclear reactors are sent into the wild to fend for themselves then its hard to tell how the question of electrical and hydrogen power is going to be solved.

 

i'm partial to solar satelites beaming microwave energy to earth, those satelites could power a lightcraft (between nations and to space) or skycraft (an ion propulsion version of http://www.moller.com to suppliment personal raprid transit) like infrastructure by dropping extra eletrical power from the sky. the only problem there being ionnized exhaust is carcinogenic.

 

b.political power would be one world government with delegates from all supporting nations. each of those nations would have their own governments, probably with less overhead, the world government would do most of the policy setting and enforcement through its delegates, meaning all national governments would be placeholders in a cookie cutter system designed by the world government. it would be like a world senate supervising the governments of the world. they would all have someone to answer to.

 

who then does the world government answer to? the people of earth, it was asked how will democracy be maintained? 5 year term democracy? should they have ministers and a senate? should those ministers and senate be lasting positions like the chairman fo the world government? no, no government official should have tenure, its ridiculous. if anything a world government should be like a popcorn machine, delegates all nations throw their best into a hot frying pan burn them out and then once they come home after 5 years take up lasting positions. only policy should have tenure and even then policy changes and evolves with time.

 

all nations covered by the world government would thus vote for members each member for available positions needs to be adequately trained for the position (meaning from the get go larger nations have an advantage) but once a nation can put forth a candidate of unquestioned merit then you get a vote in by peers, for higher ranking positions the vote gets wider. for the top positions you have world wide elections (fun stuff.. i'd hate to be on the organizing commity). what if i don't like the ministers? they couldn't be any favoritism about who is elected and from what country. if it happens that all members are from one country then the system wouldn't work.

 

furthermore you'd have to pledge under penalty of death (or something as terrifying) to uphold the world constitutions edicts.. some nations would rather their delegates swear only to them and not the world governemt... they wouldn't be banned but they'd have no voice as their delegates would be rejected by the nations that do accept the world government as the ultimate authority.

[damocles]

First of all, thank you for the kind answers to my questions.

Second of all, thank you for the new avenues of study that I need to investigate

 

a. I'm no fan of beamed microwave energy. [Low powered microwave transmission is probably extremely safe to large animals but I don't know if that is true for small ones. I know that HPM weapons are extremely dangerous.]

 

b. The idea of pebble bed nuclear reactors is new to me. I need to educate myself urgently on the topic.(I knew of it vaguely in some form as a thorium decay reactor.)

 

c. My mstake. I thought that I included language under c.

 

d. By contrracts I see that I failed to define specifically enough. I meant to include everything from the rights of the workers to corporate rights to use in common(Law of the Sea for example) to treaty law, each bounded and established in its "step" of governance.

 

e. Politically, I'm a federalist. I like government in stages(steps) with as much power and responsibility(and autonomy) as possible distributed locally. I don't trust buireaucracies at all.(Having worked in one for too many years.) andf I firmly believe that local means easily accountable.

 

Again thank you for the education. I have much to ponder.

 

Damocles

[alxian]

i also like the federal government more than my provincial government. their regulations are more broad and sweeping. where the provincial is more national (to france rather than canada). while not at all what you meant i figure thats part of your meaning.

 

 

yes i assumed you would have included language as C, but somehow through revision it was ommited.

 

 

and contract, tort, family law would fall under those sweeping constitutionally guaranteed rights freedoms and basic laws that all humans must live by. given that a world government would need to be the lowest common denominator leaving enough room for national governments to have their own different laws then some aspects of the world governments law will have to seem vague and muddy. (yet infallible and unquestionable.. hmmm sounds like the ten commandments again.)

 

what happens though when (if) a world government is established that from the get go forces all nations to revise their laws to meet the basic human rights and freedoms granted by the world government.. should they be forced to comply? what would be used to force them without spoiling the world outlook on an altruistic government? they couldn't march in and behead the gov'ts that refused to comply neither would trade sanctions be effective.

[damocles]

what happens though when (if) a world government is established that from the get go forces all nations to revise their laws to meet the basic human rights and freedoms granted by the world government.. should they be forced to comply? what would be used to force them without spoiling the world outlook on an altruistic government? they couldn't march in and behead the gov'ts that refused to comply neither would trade sanctions be effective.

 

alxian

 

 

We, then, are left with choosing either Locke or Mao?

 

Social compact by peaceful consent or the power of force?

 

I don't like the concept of "subject". I preferthe idea of "citizen".

 

A citizen can participate and is not subject to the whims of a "power elite".

 

I guess you can tell that I don't like professional "political classes".

 

In fact I don't like elites at all. I'd rather distribute power(Knowledge is power. I'm just full of cliches{insert frown here}) among as broad a base as possible to prevent the kind of abuse to which elites succumb.

 

For a better idea of my political philosophy, I'm an ardent student of James Madison, not so fond of Alexander Hamilton.

 

Damocles