bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
heh, allowed!
Building an effective United Nations
- Thread starter magneze
- Start date
This is an interesting discussion. It seems most people accept that a UN in which countries can hold a veto can never be truly effective, so the debate is really about how to create a structure in which there can be majority voting and which confers appropriate voting rights.
People have mentioned 'one country; one vote' which although it offers equality would perhaps give too much say to tiny nations. Voting rights based on population has a twofold problem - first it would confer enormous power to China and India, and secondly it may create a population race in order to secure greater power at the UN - not what an overpopulated planet needs!
So, I decided to take a slightly unusual (rather radical and possibly completely barking) approach. Why should voting rights be fixed? Why not allocate voting rights based on how much good a country was doing in the world ... use your vote at the UN to make the world a better place and you get more power to continue doing so.
How would such a UN vote market work. Well, let's give each country equal voting credits to start off with - the key is in how they are used.
If we use the UN Human Development Index as a measure (OK, that's controversial in itself, but it's a good place to start) - If we use the UN Human Development Index as a measure then a country that supports a vote that results in an increase in the HDI of a country other than itself it gains voting credit; support a vote that results in the reduction of HDI in other countries then you lose voting credits. The degree of increase or decrease would be proportional to the current HDI ranking of the country. Support a measure that results in better conditions in the poorest African countries and you'll gain more credit than if you create a cosy little club between rich nations.
Such a scheme, like any other, would be open to abuse and would need to be tuned to prevent such abuse, but the idea that you would be rewarded for doing good, by being able to do more good seems like a nice one.
For countries like the US and UK that claim to 'do good' or that invading a country will result in improvements for the population, here's a concrete test of that conviction - do they take the short term hit of lower voting rights that would result from the destruction of the invasion in order to gain greater rights from the improvements they claim will arise.
So, there you go - thinking 'out of the box' or just out of my mind?
People have mentioned 'one country; one vote' which although it offers equality would perhaps give too much say to tiny nations. Voting rights based on population has a twofold problem - first it would confer enormous power to China and India, and secondly it may create a population race in order to secure greater power at the UN - not what an overpopulated planet needs!
So, I decided to take a slightly unusual (rather radical and possibly completely barking) approach. Why should voting rights be fixed? Why not allocate voting rights based on how much good a country was doing in the world ... use your vote at the UN to make the world a better place and you get more power to continue doing so.
How would such a UN vote market work. Well, let's give each country equal voting credits to start off with - the key is in how they are used.
If we use the UN Human Development Index as a measure (OK, that's controversial in itself, but it's a good place to start) - If we use the UN Human Development Index as a measure then a country that supports a vote that results in an increase in the HDI of a country other than itself it gains voting credit; support a vote that results in the reduction of HDI in other countries then you lose voting credits. The degree of increase or decrease would be proportional to the current HDI ranking of the country. Support a measure that results in better conditions in the poorest African countries and you'll gain more credit than if you create a cosy little club between rich nations.
Such a scheme, like any other, would be open to abuse and would need to be tuned to prevent such abuse, but the idea that you would be rewarded for doing good, by being able to do more good seems like a nice one.
For countries like the US and UK that claim to 'do good' or that invading a country will result in improvements for the population, here's a concrete test of that conviction - do they take the short term hit of lower voting rights that would result from the destruction of the invasion in order to gain greater rights from the improvements they claim will arise.
So, there you go - thinking 'out of the box' or just out of my mind?
Read Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin.
Its the same guy who wrote "the beast from jekyll island" a comprehensive debunking of the entire federal reserve system.
Why are you all so suprised to hear people tell you that the systems of power erected around us are criminal enterprises designed to oppress you, to gift power to those least worthy? Is that not the norm throughout history.
Its the same guy who wrote "the beast from jekyll island" a comprehensive debunking of the entire federal reserve system.
Why are you all so suprised to hear people tell you that the systems of power erected around us are criminal enterprises designed to oppress you, to gift power to those least worthy? Is that not the norm throughout history.
Azrael23 said:
No.
"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another" (Marx)
That I believe, and I think it's evident when looking at sysems of political power past and present, but from that it doesn't follow that there's some vast, sinister, elite conspiracy to manipulate just about everything we see and hear - which is what you seem to believe.
lostexpectation
New Member
the united nations is doing exactly what it was meant to do
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I think the current UN needs to be taken apart completely and everyone start from scratch - the current insitution is too mired in it's bureacracy and it's historical founding to be a candidate for any kind of World Parliament.
kyser_soze said:
That I do agree with.
The UN as it now stands largely reflects the balance of power, and some of the assumptions held in government, in 1945. It's also too bureaucratic, and too much a tool of a few dominant powers. Much like the WTO, IMF and World Bank, in fact.
IMO none of the institutions that currently have pretensions to being 'world' anything are fit for purpose (to use the currently fashionable buzzword).
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I know it's sci-fi nerdiness extreme, but I reckon that a global political set up akin to that in The Diamond Age will be the next stage of the development of societies...
Roadkill said:
But there is a conspiracy to manipulate what we see and hear. You cannot seriously believe that corporate mass media is completely neutral?
You must understand that once a class of people has the ability to print the money they can buy who or what they like as well as having a major influence in the creation of economic conditions for US ALL.
If thats not a conspiracy, what the hell is?
PS Stop quoting marx, its not big and its not (that) clever.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Roadkill said:
this is pretty much what i couldn't be arsed to say.
Would u like to have the power to print the money and create credit? Thats beyond power in the current economic model. Thats like Godhood.
The monarchy took that power in this country and in the US private familes took it in 1913. After a lot of too`ing and fro`ing in the century before.
wakey wakey.
The monarchy took that power in this country and in the US private familes took it in 1913. After a lot of too`ing and fro`ing in the century before.
wakey wakey.
Azrael23 said:
Of course it isn't, but that doesn't mean it's part of a global conspiracy. It merely acts in its own interests.
Why "must I understand" it? It's paranoic bollocks.
Just because economic power is largely in the hands of one class, it doesn't follow that there's a conspiracy between them all, or even that they all have the same aims.
You conspiracy theorists range between being hilarious and frustrating.
PS Stop quoting marx, its not big and its not (that) clever.
I merely quoted Marx because I think he sums the situation up as well as anyone could in one sentence.
Azrael23 said:
PMSL! So the Queen orders the printing of money?
Let me guess, you've seen her turn into a lizard as well. it's you who needs to wakey wakey. There's no need to resort to outlandish conspiracy theories (or paranoid flights of fancy) to explain how the world is. It's all there for you to see - if you can be bothered to try and understand it.
Roadkill said:
Have you heard of bilderberg? or are you still in denial?
Roadkill said:
I agree with you, its not some vast conspiracy between the entire upper class, they are in competition with eachother. But that makes no difference to the people, they are in a competition to see who can wield the greatest power.
Who runs the central banks? These are real flesh and blood people.
Roadkill said:PMSL! So the Queen orders the printing of money?
it's you who needs to wakey wakey. There's no need to resort to outlandish conspiracy theories (or paranoid flights of fancy) to explain how the world is. It's all there for you to see - if you can be bothered to try and understand it.
No the Queen owns the lions share of the bank of england and through people like the MPC the 13 chapters of the Federal Reserve as well. She does not dictate anything, she hires people to ensure things run smoothly. She is a figurehead not a puppetmaster.
Plz don`t condescend to me. It just makes you look arrogant.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Azrael23 said:But there is a conspiracy to manipulate what we see and hear. You cannot seriously believe that corporate mass media is completely neutral?
You must understand that once a class of people has the ability to print the money they can buy who or what they like as well as having a major influence in the creation of economic conditions for US ALL.
If thats not a conspiracy, what the hell is?
PS Stop quoting marx, its not big and its not (that) clever.
it's not a conspiracy. it's called being the ruling class. that's what they do, they keep thigns so that they rule. no-one said media is neutral, no one said that economics weren't fiddled in their favour. how teh bloody hell else are they going to maintain power. but occam's razor doesn't lead from this rational observation into the realm of moloch and bumsex and global tyranny.
Logic dictates that when a journalist sneaks into a private compound and video records all this going on (granted no bum sex filmed but enough male prostitutes are bussed in) people should believe it. Its not my problem if you can`t handle your leaders conducting mock ritual sacrifice to an old testament demonic deity. Did you think they were just like normal people?! Maybe you should read some stuff about Nero and see what excessive power does to a person of weak will.
The fact no one wants to listen is not logic, its called cognitive dissonance.
The fact no one wants to listen is not logic, its called cognitive dissonance.
Azrael23 said:
Bilderburg is no more than a think-tank - albeit one with some rather dodgy thoughts.
You're the one who's been trying to claim that some shadowy elite makes all the decisions.
There's a troll living in the works of the Thames Barrier. You can't see it, but that only goes to show how well it hides itself. Prove me wrong!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Azrael - it's not so much that you think there is an elite, it's more that you think/believe that they act in concert with each other that causes people problems.
Criminality and conspiracy does.kyser_soze said:
Maybe. A lot of the humanitarian side of the UN could probably be kept intact. The control structures certainly need to be completely rethought though and, as you suggest, other 'controlling' organisations like WTO need to be brought within a structure that has more accountability to the countries it will affect rather than an elite group.
However, in creating the new structures you need to ensure that the rules governing the interactions between countries within the organisation are set up in such a way as to force countries down a path in accordance with the aims of the organisation. This is extremely hard to acheive, as with the set up of the security council and the presence of a right to veto, those with power at the creation of the organisation will seek to enact processes that entrench that power.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Arnie had long expressed an interest into going into politics in the US - even before meeting Schriver - and had been very public in stating that it would happen after he'd retired from movie making.
So it was hardly 'Bang' was it?
I mean seriously - if all the capitalists got together and really started running the world, do you really think they'd tolerate ANY wars happening anywhere near key resources like oil? Of course not - because while it's in the interest of oil companies to keep oil prices high, it's not in the interest of the car companies, energy companies or indeed anyone else.
While there MAY be collusion within industries between individual companies, and there may be certain 'groups' who try and influence markets and policy, the idea of a secret world government is laughable - the global elite might have some areas of mutual self interest but those are more than equalled by competition.
So it was hardly 'Bang' was it?
I mean seriously - if all the capitalists got together and really started running the world, do you really think they'd tolerate ANY wars happening anywhere near key resources like oil? Of course not - because while it's in the interest of oil companies to keep oil prices high, it's not in the interest of the car companies, energy companies or indeed anyone else.
While there MAY be collusion within industries between individual companies, and there may be certain 'groups' who try and influence markets and policy, the idea of a secret world government is laughable - the global elite might have some areas of mutual self interest but those are more than equalled by competition.
Arnie "I`ve always dreamed of being a dictator or being a saviour like jesus"
GRADE A LUNATIC.
I think his rise to power was a very quick thing. Would you disagree?
I have pcitures of him parading around with Warren Buffet and one of the Rothschilds beofre he was elected, getting out of a helicopter I believe.
I wonder what they like to talk about.
GRADE A LUNATIC.
I think his rise to power was a very quick thing. Would you disagree?
I have pcitures of him parading around with Warren Buffet and one of the Rothschilds beofre he was elected, getting out of a helicopter I believe.
I wonder what they like to talk about.
Similar threads
