We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Would the last one out of the United Nations please turn off the lights? It appears the US is not the only nation fed up with the UN:
“The Australian government on Thursday branded multilateral forums such as the United Nations as “ineffective and unfocused” and said its future foreign policy would increasingly rely on “coalitions of the willing” like the one that waged war in Iraq.”
Strewth!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I actually live in Australia’s Foreign Minister Alexander Downer’s electorate (or constituancy, as they call them in the UK). Maybe he’s been reading the right blogs?
Good for you.
He sounds like a keeper.
Yeb, pretty much all our international institutions are cold var relics in urgent need of reform or more likely a complete rethink. That is naturally not going to happen as looking reality in the eye and acting accordingly would be much to painful and completely agains the instict for institutional selfpreservation . Can for example imagine a Security Council that accurately reflected world power. There would be precisely one veto for… guess who the USA!
It’s a mystery how the UN can continue to exist. It is most certainly NOT by demonstrating successes or accomplishments!
Wow lorenzo… what a cool idea! Maybe you can imagine a democracy where votes reflected *real* power too? The mafia & a few big industrialists would run the country…. great! More to the point, how long would it be before little guys like you & me got sick of it & started some kind of resistance.
It’s a matter of how you’d *like* the world to be run. It’s also a matter of not making the rest of the world feel like they’re at the mercy of the US electorate. Do you *want* the whole of the world to militarise up to US levels? Have a global arms race? niiice… i dig your vision of the future.
Not saying the UN doesn’t need reforming, but most of us ain’t very happy with the US running the world. And saying “well, aquire weapons and you can too” doesn’t cut it. The UN, or similar bodies, provide some feeling (whether it’s an illusion or not is up for debate) that other countries can influence the way the planet works; destroy this feeling at your peril.
And don’t come asking me why everyone hates you in 5 years’ time if this is the attitude your government adopts (but hey, the consolation is, they’ll probably hate me too, seeing as i live in the US’ biggest buddy country)
A_t
We’re probably neighbours since I also live in the US’s biggest buddy country. I was’nt actually suggesting that a single security council veto for the US was the outcome I desired. Rather I was suggesting that an objective analysis of who should have a veto given the SC’s role would lead to that outcome. Btw. the original role of the SC basically boiled down to arbriteur of collective action. In todays world collective action pretty much boils down to a coilition of the willing under US control.
Downer isn’t a very bright spark. This may be coming from somewhere in his department. Still, it’s interesting. Australia has traditionally been fairly pro-UN, although they obviously have taken the US side recently, and they basically had to act unilaterally in East Timor.
A_t: the trouble with a democracy that gives (theoretically) gives political power equally to all on the basis of one man one vote, is that it just encourages people to vote themselves other people’s money via having the state engage in redistributive proxy mugging. I am all in favour of democracy, just so long as it is bound hand and foot and cannot actually do much.
The notion of the UN as some form of global check on the USA is a fun one, particularly if all countries get one vote each… I can just see luminaries like Zimbabwe and Myanmar standing firm against those wicked Americans.
Would a lynch mob be a fair description of a democratic entity?.
After all it is majority driven, or are there some mystical rules that determine when democracy is good, and when it is bad, e.g. when it is used to bolster political ends – it is good, or when it is actually used to further the will of the majority, it is bad.
Just asking.
Perry, that’s precisely the reason i mentioned the *illusion* of power. In the past 15 years say, what has the UN prevented the US from doing? & more to the point, what was it capable of preventing the US from doing? Nothing, & we all know this.
However, discussing things, & seeming to acquiesce to some international ruling (as well as hopefully occasionally taking account of at least the countries they respect; i’m not talking about tinpot dictatorships here), keeps the rabble of the world in check, & at least fosters the illusion that the world is run on orderly lines, keeping some of the more unpleasant & disorderly leaders in check, & fostering less discontent among the people at large, which can lead to acts of terrorism etc. in reaction to a world which is seen as grossly unjust, & over which one can have no peaceful influence.
Is it healthy to foster the illusion that the world is run on orderly lines when, in fact, it is not? How has the UN kept, say, Mugabe in check? Is it good to give people a forum for blowing off steam without changing anything, when change is precisely what they need most?
Junior asks: “are there some mystical rules that determine when democracy is good, and when it is bad…”
Lord Acton said of liberty that it “is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.”
There is a pretty good recent article at Libertarian Alliance regarding the relationship between “democracy” and “liberty” that includes that great quote by Lord Acton (see above):
Liberty versus Democracy in Post-war Iraq: Winning British Hearts and Minds
A_t
This sentence shows your strange set of mind:
” In the past 15 years say, what has the UN prevented the US from doing?”
You are stating as a self evident fact that the US is doing all the toruble in the world, and the cardinal problem is stopping the vile US, while all other countires (Iraq, Iran, Korea, etc.) are exemplary members of the meek, lawful and civilized international community, arbitrarily thretened by the US bully.
I would put the question differently: what positive things has the UN done? ever ? Has it helped restore peace in the Balkans ? in Africa ? in the ME ? In Kashmir ? Has it promoted free trade or democracy? Has it helped free some countries from communism, or prevented genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda ? Has it ever done just _one_ good thing (apart from what the US did in it’s name, like saving South Korea from communism) ?
You ask: wouldn’t it be nice to have a world organization to keep some semblance of order ? In this you mix between your heart’s desire and what actually exists. The UN isn’t what you long for, despite pious declarations of intentions – it is in fact worse than an ineffective palavering and money wasting society, and employment agency for nephews of third world (and first world) kleptocrats.
The UN is a deparved institution, promoting unworthy goals, and unworthy people.
A_t
Have you considered the possibility that the UN in giving a forum and legitimacy to governments of otherwise questionable legitimacy, is in fact a part of the problem.
The founders of the UN tried to transfer a universal franchise one-person one-vote principle that sort-of-works in Western Democracies, to countries.
There is no a priori reason this should work, and my assessment is that as a practical matter it has failed.
Instititutions almost never voluntary dissolve themselves, because they no longer work or are no longer relevant. They drift into irrelevance and dissapear when their funding dries up.
Of course one can pick and choose. Swtizerland is outside the UN and joins in only those international organisations that suit it.
In the US in the 1960’s, we saw billboards by the side of the road saying: “Get the US out of the UN; and get the UN out of the US”
So, it’s not a new idea at al!
To me, nations on Earth in many ways recapitulate individuals in society. The rest of the U.N. opposing the U.S. is the best way found so far to dilute U.S. power. What is needed is a “philosopher” U.S.
I’m waiting.
Some nations want to be like the kid on the playground guarding the back of the King of the Hill.
“Switzerland is outside the UN and joins in only those international organisations that suit it.”
…. & recently voted to join the UN! for whatever that’s worth.
& Jacob… read my post again. I wasn’t in any way suggesting that the US caused all the trouble in the world; just that if the US sets it’s mind to something, neither the UN nor any individual nations can realistically do much to stop it. That’s a fact of life, & has been for some time.