Topic: Do you support a United Nations parliament?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #4,968
Wikipedia page.
Right now each country gets a single ambassador chosen by their government. The state holds a lot of influence (vs. the people), and certain countries (US) can push their agenda. Not all countries have an equal say in all matters (The security council is the winners of WW2), and countries with smaller populations get a higher per capita representation than larger countries as each gets vote no matter what.
This fixes a lot of problems with the running of the UN, and doesn't expand it's power. I like the idea.
Right now each country gets a single ambassador chosen by their government. The state holds a lot of influence (vs. the people), and certain countries (US) can push their agenda. Not all countries have an equal say in all matters (The security council is the winners of WW2), and countries with smaller populations get a higher per capita representation than larger countries as each gets vote no matter what.
This fixes a lot of problems with the running of the UN, and doesn't expand it's power. I like the idea.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. | 6 | 46% | |
| No. | 7 | 54% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #88,051
No. I wouldn't want all nations to have an equal say. Most nations are backwards, morally bankrupt and corrupt to the bone. It's bad enough that China and Russia get to be part of the Security council.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,052
@previous (B)
> Implying all countries aren't corrupt
10/10 I lol'd
Hmmm let me guess.... you're American?
Americas way isn't the only way of doing things you know.
> Implying all countries aren't corrupt
10/10 I lol'd
Hmmm let me guess.... you're American?
Americas way isn't the only way of doing things you know.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,053
@88,051 (B)
I think you're confused.
The way it is now, is that all nations get an equal say (vote).
With a parliament all the people would get an equal say, regardless of nationality.
I think you're confused.
The way it is now, is that all nations get an equal say (vote).
With a parliament all the people would get an equal say, regardless of nationality.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,054
@88,051 (B)
Plus also the cost of running elections would be enormous. The UN already costs way too much for the little good that it does; imagine if the industrialised nations had to pay for 4 or 5 billion people to vote (and it would be the industrialised nations paying).
Plus also the cost of running elections would be enormous. The UN already costs way too much for the little good that it does; imagine if the industrialised nations had to pay for 4 or 5 billion people to vote (and it would be the industrialised nations paying).
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,055
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,056
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,057
@88,054 (B)
Most nations already have a system set up to hold elections, this could use that. The nations could hold the elections themselves, at the same time as a regularly scheduled election. Perhaps you would end up voting for your UN rep after you select your senator/president.
Most nations already have a system set up to hold elections, this could use that. The nations could hold the elections themselves, at the same time as a regularly scheduled election. Perhaps you would end up voting for your UN rep after you select your senator/president.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,058
@88,055 (D)
The people in China and India have a diverse range of political views just like anybody else. They will vote left, right, and all places in between.
The people in China and India have a diverse range of political views just like anybody else. They will vote left, right, and all places in between.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,059
@previous (A)
Yes, I'm sure they do. I totally trust the Chinese government to run fair elections to decide world issues as well.
Yes, I'm sure they do. I totally trust the Chinese government to run fair elections to decide world issues as well.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,060
The argument is pointless anyway, since most nations would oppose the idea and wouldn't allow democratic elections on their soil.
We're better off leaving the UN as a mostly-useless diplomatic tool.
We're better off leaving the UN as a mostly-useless diplomatic tool.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,061
@88,056 (E)
> Implying
Where did you pull that map? Wikipedia? God you're a fucking idiot.
Anyway this system is a load Of horseshit, I don't want any 3rd world niggers telling me how to run my country!
> Implying
Where did you pull that map? Wikipedia? God you're a fucking idiot.
Anyway this system is a load Of horseshit, I don't want any 3rd world niggers telling me how to run my country!
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,062
@previous (C)
> Where did you pull that map? Wikipedia? God you're a fucking idiot.
Needs more rational argument.
> Where did you pull that map? Wikipedia? God you're a fucking idiot.
Needs more rational argument.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,066
@88,061 (C)
> I don't want any 3rd world niggers telling me how to run my country!
The UN doesn't tell people how to run their countries, that is left up to the country. The UN is a forum for all nations to give input on potential conflicts. It puts off conflicts until the nations of the world can agree to support it.
NATO waited until the UN approved before enforcing the No-fly zone. Things like this mean war only when it's necessary to save lives.
The UN doesn't involve itself in internal politics, or tell people what laws they can have. It's there to prevent mass state-sponsored murder, and to insure that corrupt leaders can't escape their country and fly to somewhere else to spend the money they stole from their people.
The UN never told the Libyans they had to get rid of their leader, but when the Libyans chose that for themselves the UN supported them and member states froze his foreign accounts and gave the money back to the people. He can't just fly off and find haven somewhere else either, because that country will cooperate and hand him back over to Libya.
> I don't want any 3rd world niggers telling me how to run my country!
The UN doesn't tell people how to run their countries, that is left up to the country. The UN is a forum for all nations to give input on potential conflicts. It puts off conflicts until the nations of the world can agree to support it.
NATO waited until the UN approved before enforcing the No-fly zone. Things like this mean war only when it's necessary to save lives.
The UN doesn't involve itself in internal politics, or tell people what laws they can have. It's there to prevent mass state-sponsored murder, and to insure that corrupt leaders can't escape their country and fly to somewhere else to spend the money they stole from their people.
The UN never told the Libyans they had to get rid of their leader, but when the Libyans chose that for themselves the UN supported them and member states froze his foreign accounts and gave the money back to the people. He can't just fly off and find haven somewhere else either, because that country will cooperate and hand him back over to Libya.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,067
@previous (A)
> It puts off conflicts until the nations of the world can agree to support it.
That's what it was supposed to do. Not what it does.
Turns out you can still do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't piss off people more powerful than you.
> It puts off conflicts until the nations of the world can agree to support it.
That's what it was supposed to do. Not what it does.
Turns out you can still do whatever the fuck you want as long as you don't piss off people more powerful than you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,068
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,069
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #88,071
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #88,072
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #88,073
@88,069 (E)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions_concerning_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441
Iraq is an expensive waste of time, but we are not fighting Iraqi soldiers, we are fighting a force there that feels it should be in control regardless of the people's opinion.
The war was handled wrong, but it is hardly "us doing anything we wanted".
There are rules in this war, it's a coalition effort to secure the area, in conjunction with the Iraqi forces.
I wish it would end- it's expensive and not accomplishing much- but it's not what you make it out to be.
There was a time when countries actually did invade other countries, enslaved the people, stole their land, and made their own rules.
Now if you want to enter another country you present it before all countries, and rely on their approval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions_concerning_Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441
Iraq is an expensive waste of time, but we are not fighting Iraqi soldiers, we are fighting a force there that feels it should be in control regardless of the people's opinion.
The war was handled wrong, but it is hardly "us doing anything we wanted".
There are rules in this war, it's a coalition effort to secure the area, in conjunction with the Iraqi forces.
I wish it would end- it's expensive and not accomplishing much- but it's not what you make it out to be.
There was a time when countries actually did invade other countries, enslaved the people, stole their land, and made their own rules.
Now if you want to enter another country you present it before all countries, and rely on their approval.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #88,075
@previous (A)
Not saying there aren't rules, just saying, the UN didn't support the Iraq war. And even if it was put to the UN, it wouldn't have passed. It didn't stand a chance in the UN, basically. But because the US wanted to invade, and because no one had (or has) the fire power to stop the US invading, it went ahead anyway.
I think the US would have liked the UN backing - it would have made the whole thing look a lot more authoritative, and given the US other people to blame if things went bad - but they didn't need it. As long as there's no one with the desire and (more importantly) the power to stop you, you can do what you want.
Not saying there aren't rules, just saying, the UN didn't support the Iraq war. And even if it was put to the UN, it wouldn't have passed. It didn't stand a chance in the UN, basically. But because the US wanted to invade, and because no one had (or has) the fire power to stop the US invading, it went ahead anyway.
I think the US would have liked the UN backing - it would have made the whole thing look a lot more authoritative, and given the US other people to blame if things went bad - but they didn't need it. As long as there's no one with the desire and (more importantly) the power to stop you, you can do what you want.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
psychopath !PAHVpsycho joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #88,076
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,079
@88,062 (E)
Rational? Just because a country looks more corrupt than your country doesn't mean it is. Are you seriously trying to tell me that America is one of the least corrupt countries in the world? What the fuck are you smoking?
> The UN doesn't tell people how to run their countries, that is left up to the country.
Ya that's exactly what they said about the European Union.
@88,075 (E)
^This.^
Rational? Just because a country looks more corrupt than your country doesn't mean it is. Are you seriously trying to tell me that America is one of the least corrupt countries in the world? What the fuck are you smoking?
> The UN doesn't tell people how to run their countries, that is left up to the country.
Ya that's exactly what they said about the European Union.
@88,075 (E)
^This.^
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,084
@previous (C)
> Rational? Just because a country looks more corrupt than your country doesn't mean it is. Are you seriously trying to tell me that America is one of the least corrupt countries in the world? What the fuck are you smoking?
Where are you from? Just curious, because you seem to be pretty ignorant of either America or the rest of the world. I've yet to be extorted by customs officers when entering America, but I can more or less count on it when entering Indonesia.
Incidentally, perceptions are the only thing we have to go by, since people don't generally like to keep open and accurate records of their corrupt behaviour.
> Rational? Just because a country looks more corrupt than your country doesn't mean it is. Are you seriously trying to tell me that America is one of the least corrupt countries in the world? What the fuck are you smoking?
Where are you from? Just curious, because you seem to be pretty ignorant of either America or the rest of the world. I've yet to be extorted by customs officers when entering America, but I can more or less count on it when entering Indonesia.
Incidentally, perceptions are the only thing we have to go by, since people don't generally like to keep open and accurate records of their corrupt behaviour.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 43 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,086
@OP
No, we already have that in the EU.
No, we already have that in the EU.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,091
@88,084 (E)
Western Europe. I've been to and lived in America on several occasions if it makes any difference.
> I've yet to be extorted by customs officers when entering America, but I can more or less count on it when entering Indonesia.
I take it you have been to Indonesia? I'm not talking about some small time corruption bullshit, that happens everywhere. I'm talking about big American based multinational companies and the American government. Take for example how American civilians were fooled by the American government into believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It had nothing to do about the vast amounts of oil Iraq is sitting on!
Western Europe. I've been to and lived in America on several occasions if it makes any difference.
> I've yet to be extorted by customs officers when entering America, but I can more or less count on it when entering Indonesia.
I take it you have been to Indonesia? I'm not talking about some small time corruption bullshit, that happens everywhere. I'm talking about big American based multinational companies and the American government. Take for example how American civilians were fooled by the American government into believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It had nothing to do about the vast amounts of oil Iraq is sitting on!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,259
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,260
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,266
@88,051 (B)
This. The UN shouldn't have any real say in what countries do, because it erodes the sovereignty of each country when unelected officials have a say in how the world is run. I'm opposed to world government, let alone unelected world government. I don't want countries like China and Cuba having a say in how the rest of the world should be run.
This. The UN shouldn't have any real say in what countries do, because it erodes the sovereignty of each country when unelected officials have a say in how the world is run. I'm opposed to world government, let alone unelected world government. I don't want countries like China and Cuba having a say in how the rest of the world should be run.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,267
> I'm opposed to world government
why
why
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,270
@88,052 (C)
> Americas way isn't the only way of doing things you know.
True, but nobody's saying that the rest of the world needs to be like America. We're just saying that the rest of world has no business telling America what to do or how to live. Especially when countries like China have a say.
> Americas way isn't the only way of doing things you know.
True, but nobody's saying that the rest of the world needs to be like America. We're just saying that the rest of world has no business telling America what to do or how to live. Especially when countries like China have a say.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,275
@88,267 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
Because democracy is bullshit. It leads to tyranny by the majority. I believe in Republics where certain rights are guaranteed and cannot be swayed by the majority. Even if we could have a world government where it was such a republic, it would have too much power and could become corrupted and changed too easily. It also doesn't make sense for people in China to have a say in how people in the U.S. live and visa versa. It's bad enough as it is in the United States where people in Indiana have a say in how people in California live, etc. The closer you keep the power to the individual, the better. I'm in favor of the federal government having less power and more power being moved to the states so that the power is closer to the individual, and we don't issues of opinions of one state being forced to another state, or money from rich states being shifted to poor states through taxes, etc. A world government would be a step in the wrong direction, and if they become corrupt or pass a law you don't like, or pass taxes you can't handle, there's no where to escape, because they'd run the fucking world. Taxes are another issue, where world government would lead to world taxes, and they could use it to enforce socialism on a global level, and take money away from the U.S. and then give it to whatever countries they want. Fuck that.
Because democracy is bullshit. It leads to tyranny by the majority. I believe in Republics where certain rights are guaranteed and cannot be swayed by the majority. Even if we could have a world government where it was such a republic, it would have too much power and could become corrupted and changed too easily. It also doesn't make sense for people in China to have a say in how people in the U.S. live and visa versa. It's bad enough as it is in the United States where people in Indiana have a say in how people in California live, etc. The closer you keep the power to the individual, the better. I'm in favor of the federal government having less power and more power being moved to the states so that the power is closer to the individual, and we don't issues of opinions of one state being forced to another state, or money from rich states being shifted to poor states through taxes, etc. A world government would be a step in the wrong direction, and if they become corrupt or pass a law you don't like, or pass taxes you can't handle, there's no where to escape, because they'd run the fucking world. Taxes are another issue, where world government would lead to world taxes, and they could use it to enforce socialism on a global level, and take money away from the U.S. and then give it to whatever countries they want. Fuck that.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,286
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,350
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
I had a lot of text written out explaining why that's a bad thing, and then the site went down when I tried to post it. I don't want to get into a big debate right now anyway, but I will say this: socialism on a smaller community scale, state/city level at the largest can be a good thing. Socialism forced at the global level would be bad.
I had a lot of text written out explaining why that's a bad thing, and then the site went down when I tried to post it. I don't want to get into a big debate right now anyway, but I will say this: socialism on a smaller community scale, state/city level at the largest can be a good thing. Socialism forced at the global level would be bad.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,364
@88,270 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It all the same, China tells us what to do, America tells us what to do, any country with a nuclear missile tells us what to do. You could learn a few lessons from China, it's far from perfect, but I would prefer to live there than in America.
It all the same, China tells us what to do, America tells us what to do, any country with a nuclear missile tells us what to do. You could learn a few lessons from China, it's far from perfect, but I would prefer to live there than in America.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,502
@previous (C)
> You could learn a few lessons from China, it's far from perfect, but I would prefer to live there than in America.
As a laowai, a wealthy businessman, or bureaucrat I would, because these people get treated extremely well. As a labourer or a peasant (which is what most Chinamen are), there's no way in hell I would.
> You could learn a few lessons from China, it's far from perfect, but I would prefer to live there than in America.
As a laowai, a wealthy businessman, or bureaucrat I would, because these people get treated extremely well. As a labourer or a peasant (which is what most Chinamen are), there's no way in hell I would.
Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,503
@88,091 (C)
> I'm not talking about some small time corruption bullshit, that happens everywhere.
What? No it doesn't. Are you trolling or are you just an idiot?
> I'm not talking about some small time corruption bullshit, that happens everywhere.
What? No it doesn't. Are you trolling or are you just an idiot?
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #88,520
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,628
@88,503 (J)
Breaking_news.jpg
I know a drug dealer down the road who pays the local police to turn a blind eye. We are all subject to a little corruption, believe it or not.
@88,502 (J)
No freedom is better than a false freedom.
Breaking_news.jpg
I know a drug dealer down the road who pays the local police to turn a blind eye. We are all subject to a little corruption, believe it or not.
@88,502 (J)
No freedom is better than a false freedom.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,651
The UN is evil, if you don't believe me then just wait until the new world order comes into full effect and the UN troops roll into your town and take over.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,652
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,655
@previous (G)
Sure thing, keep avoiding the truth. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
The facts are there that this is happening, but your media is teaching you to ignore it.
Sure thing, keep avoiding the truth. Ignorance is bliss I guess.
The facts are there that this is happening, but your media is teaching you to ignore it.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,656
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,657
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,917
@88,651 (K)
Again, whether or not you approve of the UN, this just makes them more democratic and gives them no additional powers.
Again, whether or not you approve of the UN, this just makes them more democratic and gives them no additional powers.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,929
@previous (A)
If they don't have any real power, why make them democratic. The decisions the UN makes should be based on logic and reason and not the whim of the majority.
If they don't have any real power, why make them democratic. The decisions the UN makes should be based on logic and reason and not the whim of the majority.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,934
@previous (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> If they don't have any real power
Are you an idiot? They do have real power.
> If they don't have any real power
Are you an idiot? They do have real power.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,942
@previous (A)
I was referring to the "gives them no additional powers" clause of your statement, though I worded that poorly. My point is, they shouldn't have any power that would affect the sovereignty of any country, and decisions they make should not be based on democracy because there is no way they can fairly represent a world majority anyway, and even if they could, the whim of the majority should not affect their decisions. Any decisions they pass should be based on what logic and reason tell us is right, not what China or Cuba or whoever thinks is best. You can start the whole relativism argument for how we need democracy because no one can say what is truly right, but that is exactly why I am against any world government, or at least any world government with real power behind it. My answer is still a resounding "no" and I stand by my previous posts in this thread stating why I believe in minimal government, keeping the power with the individual or as close to the individual as possible, and so forth.
I was referring to the "gives them no additional powers" clause of your statement, though I worded that poorly. My point is, they shouldn't have any power that would affect the sovereignty of any country, and decisions they make should not be based on democracy because there is no way they can fairly represent a world majority anyway, and even if they could, the whim of the majority should not affect their decisions. Any decisions they pass should be based on what logic and reason tell us is right, not what China or Cuba or whoever thinks is best. You can start the whole relativism argument for how we need democracy because no one can say what is truly right, but that is exactly why I am against any world government, or at least any world government with real power behind it. My answer is still a resounding "no" and I stand by my previous posts in this thread stating why I believe in minimal government, keeping the power with the individual or as close to the individual as possible, and so forth.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,949
@previous (WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Ok, I see your point. What do they do then, if the UN isn't getting more powers?
The UN is an influential forum, if a majority of humanity believes something needs to change, that at least deserves some attention.
Of course it would need to be a very large majority, and even then it should not get involved in matters that do not extend past a countries own issues.
But the Kyoto protocol, for example. This is a global issue, not just a national one.
The majority of humanity will agree on very few things, which prevents a very large UN. The only global laws will be a few mandates that have to go through a parliament that wouldn't pass much anyway.
Ok, I see your point. What do they do then, if the UN isn't getting more powers?
The UN is an influential forum, if a majority of humanity believes something needs to change, that at least deserves some attention.
Of course it would need to be a very large majority, and even then it should not get involved in matters that do not extend past a countries own issues.
But the Kyoto protocol, for example. This is a global issue, not just a national one.
The majority of humanity will agree on very few things, which prevents a very large UN. The only global laws will be a few mandates that have to go through a parliament that wouldn't pass much anyway.
WALLOFTEXT !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #88,952
@previous (A)
> The UN is an influential forum, if a majority of humanity believes something needs to change, that at least deserves some attention.
I can agree with that. I have no problem with the UN having a strong influence, as long as they don't have power that could undermine the sovereignty of a nation. If there's any sort of issue where 90% of humanity agrees, chances are the individual countries are going to cooperate in a way that doesn't undermine their sovereignty anyway. There are some issues though, where 90% of the population can still be wrong, or 90% of the population can take advantage of the other 10%. That's why I support the UN being a forum, where the world's best leaders and philosophers and scientists can discuss the facts and what's really right without allowing the whims of emotions and voting to come into play, and leave the actual voting up to each individual nation. It's not a perfect system, but there will never be any perfect system of power or politics. The more power you try to give to the people, the more you can have tyranny by the majority and the majority is not always right, and the more power you try to transfer to people who you trust to make the right decision, the more problems there are with corruption and power struggles.
The Kyoto protocol, for example. Although it is a global issue, there is still lots of debate about climate change, and lots of debate about what the best policies are to deal with it, and lots of debate about how much people should have to change their rights and lifestyles over the issue. Even though it affects everyone on the planet, there is too much relativism and differing philosophies among everyone on the planet to say that just because it affects everyone, everyone needs to follow whatever rules the majority says.
> The UN is an influential forum, if a majority of humanity believes something needs to change, that at least deserves some attention.
I can agree with that. I have no problem with the UN having a strong influence, as long as they don't have power that could undermine the sovereignty of a nation. If there's any sort of issue where 90% of humanity agrees, chances are the individual countries are going to cooperate in a way that doesn't undermine their sovereignty anyway. There are some issues though, where 90% of the population can still be wrong, or 90% of the population can take advantage of the other 10%. That's why I support the UN being a forum, where the world's best leaders and philosophers and scientists can discuss the facts and what's really right without allowing the whims of emotions and voting to come into play, and leave the actual voting up to each individual nation. It's not a perfect system, but there will never be any perfect system of power or politics. The more power you try to give to the people, the more you can have tyranny by the majority and the majority is not always right, and the more power you try to transfer to people who you trust to make the right decision, the more problems there are with corruption and power struggles.
The Kyoto protocol, for example. Although it is a global issue, there is still lots of debate about climate change, and lots of debate about what the best policies are to deal with it, and lots of debate about how much people should have to change their rights and lifestyles over the issue. Even though it affects everyone on the planet, there is too much relativism and differing philosophies among everyone on the planet to say that just because it affects everyone, everyone needs to follow whatever rules the majority says.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)