Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 18:28 14-03-03 -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members (like the UNSC). Does one vote per country seem fair to you, when some countries, such as Brunei, with a total population about 70% of that of the *city* of Boston, would get the same representation and decisionmaking power as nations with populations hundreds of times larger? As you correctly pointed out, there will always be people who will be unhappy with the way things are broken down. However, I think the one country, one vote system is the second-best approach (I'll get to the best situation later). The problem with population-based voting is that it would give too much power to just a handful of countries (such US, Russia, PRC) The one country, one vote system also gives you the least amount of paperwork (all you really need is a list with the names of all countries) and prevents fraud. After all, either a country exists or it doesn't. If someone claims to represent the country of Jeroenistan (a country nobody has ever heard of), it can easily be established if it really exists: just let the esteemed representative show us where it is on the map. It's much easier to commit fraud with population figures. If country X claims to have 50 million inhabitants, we'll just have to take their word for it; nobody is going to send in an international team to count heads. How can you be sure that a country doesn't exaggerate its population figure, so that it can get *two* votes while its neighbours only get one vote? OTOH, I'm not sure a purely population-based voting power would be fair either. Perhaps some measure based on a combination of population, democratic representation, monetary dues paid I think that especially the payment of those monetary dues requires strict enforcement. A country that is behind on payments should have its voting right suspended; this is necessary to prevent countries from using payment of dues to blackmail the organisation (If you don't do what we want, we will not pay our dues). Now, onto the ideal situation. The ideal situation is in fact based on population. Ideally, all decisions concerning this planet should be made directly by the inhabitants of the planet -- everyone over a certain age (FREX, 18 years) votes electronically, and voting is mandatory. The problem here is in the cost of setting it up (the technology for it already exists): it would be extremely expensive to set up, especially in sparsely-populated regions. So, until we can afford to set up such a system, the one country, one vote system is the best one available. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
The one country, one vote system also gives you the least amount of paperwork After all, either a country exists or it doesn't. This is a very puzzling statement. What about northern Somalia? It collects taxes, pays civil servants and soldiers, and you can point to it on the map. From what I have heard, it is one of the better run countries in its part of Africa. What about northern Cyprus? Not only does it collect taxes, pays civil servants and soldiers, and exist on the map, but one applicant to the EU recognizes it. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
Earlier, I wrote,
What about northern Somalia? It collects taxes, pays civil
servants and soldiers, and you can point to it on the map. From
what I have heard, it is one of the better run countries in its
part of Africa.
By `northern Somalia' I meant the part of the country that has a port
on the Gulf of Aden, Berbera. Some say that the US navy wants to
construct a naval base there although the US government does not
recognize the northern Somalian government. As far as I know, the US
government considers the area to be in rebellion against Somalia
proper, with its capital in Mogadishu.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 23:39 12-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: BTW - Jeroen - a constitutional monarchy is a form of republican government How's that? Under a population-based system, China's population should be measured as being approximately 5,000. This is the number of people who are actually represented by the Chinese government, and this body should reflect that. However, to be consistent with that policy, the population of *every* country should then be measured as the number of people who voted that country's government into power. Or should another criterion be used to allocate power? If so what? Personally. the only acceptable solution I see for the medium-term is a somewhat reformed UN, that nevertheless is mostly consultative in nature, and that does not prevent the US from doing what needs to be done. IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the decisions. That's not democracy, that's dictatorship. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
However, to be consistent with that policy, the population of *every* country should then be measured as the number of people who voted that country's government into power. No it should be measured by those who had the *opportunity* to vote. IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the decisions. I think that such an arrangement would be both an improvement over the status quo, and beneficial to the United States. After all, the US hasn't exactly shown itself to be a knee-jerk unilaterlist, even after being attacked a year and half ago. 15 months after the axis of evil speech and five months after Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq, we're still consulting with the international community, even though we didn't have to. So, basically the world could accept such an arrangement as described above, or else continue with the status quo and I think that you will see that the abandonement of the United States by the international community in this time of need, will probably leave the US much more unilateralist in the future as it is today. So, despite your insulting accusation that the US wants a dictatorship, perhaps you should consider that something may be much better than nothing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 10:44 14-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the decisions. I think that such an arrangement would be both an improvement over the status quo, and beneficial to the United States. It would certainly be beneficial to the US, but definitely not to the rest of the world. You see, John, just like the US, many countries have had to struggle to gain their independence. And just like the US, we're kind of attached to that independence. So, obviously, we're not looking forward to giving up our independence and have the US dictate to us what we can and cannot do. After all, the US hasn't exactly shown itself to be a knee-jerk unilaterlist, even after being attacked a year and half ago. 15 months after the axis of evil speech and five months after Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq, we're still consulting with the international community, even though we didn't have to. ...and even though the US has repeatedly stated that it will do whatever it wants anyway, whether the rest of the world agrees with it or not. Sounds pretty unilateralist to me. So, basically the world could accept such an arrangement as described above, or else continue with the status quo Given the alternative, I think I'll prefer the status quo... Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members (like the UNSC). So, despite your insulting accusation that the US wants a dictatorship, perhaps you should consider that something may be much better than nothing. When do you have a dictatorship? When you have *one* party forcing its will upon everyone else. That's why the PRC qualifies as a dictatorship, that's why Iraq qualifies as a dictatorship. In your preferred situation, we will have *one* party (the US) forcing its will upon everyone else -- therefore, that situation qualifies as a dictatorship. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members (like the UNSC). Does one vote per country seem fair to you, when some countries, such as Brunei, with a total population about 70% of that of the *city* of Boston, would get the same representation and decisionmaking power as nations with populations hundreds of times larger? OTOH, I'm not sure a purely population-based voting power would be fair either. Perhaps some measure based on a combination of population, democratic representation, monetary dues paid, economic power and perhaps even land size and/or resources might be more fair, but maybe not. I think someone (many people) would be unhappy, no matter how things are broken down. -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:39:09PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 05:01 PM 3/11/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: Or should decision making be based on population, so that China and India, gain power, and smaller states, like France or the US, have less? The `one adult, one vote' method enjoys widespread legitimacy. Absolutely not. Indeed, any suprnational system that is basically controlled by China and India would enjoy very little legitimacy in places of the world that are thousands of miles away. If you were a Mexican, and 99% of your country opposed something, but the policy was enacted anyways on the strength of Chinese and Indian voters, how would you feel about your governance? First of all, China should not be in such an organization since it is not a liberal democracy. It makes no sense to give a country votes proportional to the population when the country is not a democracy. India, on the other hand, is a democracy. To answer JDG's question about Mexico vs. India, I would feel that my government did a poor job of campaigning in India. Almost the same thing could be said about California vs. North Dakota, with North Dakota voting for one presidential candidate and California another, and California's vote having much more weight than North Dakota's. It seems to work in the US. I think such a system would force US governments to spend more time considering and campaigning for world opinion, which would be a good thing (much like Presidential candidates vie to win California). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
