June 19, 2006

Ongoing Argument with Charlemagne

Please re-read carefully what I had written in my original post. I had written (notice the italicized part):

So cut out the portion that had the dictators. The main gist of the sentence was whether you believed that the humans in the UN would look out for the interests of the citizens of the member nations, without the check and balances in the US system.

The mention of many of the member nations in the UN being dictators is to further prove the point that the UN does not look out for the interests of the citizens of member nations, it was not an indication that you believed the UN was only full of democratic nations. The reverse logic, if you include what I said, is that even if we assume for the sake of argument that Indians are represented by the UN, the same cannot be said for dictatorship countries.

This is a layered argument, which takes one argument at one level, then makes another argument on another. It is about the same subject, but rather than staying on one logic track, it branches out to other possibilities.

Bureaucrats do not set policies.

The UN bureacrats did not set the policy of which nations were able to deal with Saddam under the Oil for Food program, which companies had the right to make deals with an internationally sanctioned regime? It is quite apparent given the evidence, logic, and reasoning that bureacrats do set the application of policies. Unless you are suggesting of course that the representatives of France and Russia worked to set policies that would enable them to exploit Saddam and the Iraqis for their own gain, in return for being exploited by Saddam.

Those who control the details of a plan, control that plan. It matters not who set the policy into existence in the beginning, if that policy is used against the spirit of the founders. This is a false argument about metaphysics. By quoting the causality chain of who set the policy first, you are not making one dint on whether bureacrats unlawfully corrupt the spirit and purpose of those policies.

Again, India has 1.1 billion people, and yet they do not have a veto on whether someone becomes the UN Secretary-General or not. You remark on the representation India gets at the UN, but the obvious differences in representation by population belays that claim. When you talk about a vote, I do remind you that the basis of liberal democracies is one man, one vote, one time. India canvote how many times they want for a leader, but the nations with vetos can override them all the time, therefore their vote does not matter. We're not talking about the future, btw, so any reforms you seek to implace is not relevant to whether Indians and other nation-peoples get representation NOW or Before.

Nevertheless, as I said before, the UN is a good start.

A undemocratic start is not a good start. The American Revolution which acquired independence but did not remove slavery, that was a good start cause obviously we look at the current events and we understand that it was a success. The UN which disenfranchises the billion or so people in India and other countries like Japan, which pay the UN proportionally most of their funding, is not a good start. Why? Simply because, not only does the UN tax nations like Germany and Japan (the more wealthier nations) without representation, but they don't represent the great majority of the people in this world. Any redeem values people remark about the UN are figments of their imagination, hopes and desires that might exist sometime in the future, but in the current affairs what we have is things like Peacekeeping for Sex in the Congo, Blood for Oil in Iraq, and various other boondogles that instead of being investigated, are actually being covered up and ignored, delayed and rope a doped. Things are a good start when people have reasonable justifications that it will end well, or if they have confirmation through history that it did end well. Some starts were bad, and then ended up being successful like Washington's entire life perhaps, but that is not quite relevant to "good starts" as you mean it.

Too much idealism is not useful, and therefore not a good start.

What I said was that, compared to a scenario in which the USA effectively functions as a world government

But the US doesn't function as a world government even today. It can only be described as an enforcement agency that enforces specific standards upon as many people as it can reach and influence. A government requires taxation, the US taxes nobody. In point of fact, our military protection is extended to many nations via "status of forces acts" with no revenue being returned, in Germany for example our bases are actually revitalizing the local economy there. I have never heard of a government that provided benefits to citizens and paying them a reward, without that government deriving taxes from those citizens. Well, I actually I have, and it is called socialized welfare. So if you mean the US is the socialized welfare nanny of the world, then yes it is. BUt if you mean world gov as in "collects taxes and administers laws", then no.

The UN you refer to as representative is in the future, right now it is not representing anyone except the interests of the power lobbyists and the bureacrats. The US you refer to as a world government, is no such world government in today's world.

It's time to start talking about what exists today, rather than the ideas of the future.

Why? Because an Indian citizen has at least some say in policy decisions at UN (through the representative sent to the General Assembly by the Indian government which the Indian citizen democratically elected) whereas the Indian citizen has absolutely no say in policy decisions made by the US government.

Again, I repeat the argument I made before that nullies this claim of yours. Indians elect their government, and their government makes 1 to 1 individual deals with the USA. This allows the recognition of India, by America, of their economic potential and population. Which the UN does not do at this moment. Your argument that an Indian citizen at the lowest base, has more say in the policy decisions of the UN, then the policy decisions of US-Indian relations, deals, and economic evaluations is not true. If the Indian government goes into a deal with the US, it will be honored. It will not be vetoed by some guy the Indians did not elect. If the USA agrees and India agrees, then it exists. However, if India agrees with everyone in the UN except a veto holder, then India gets nothing regardless of what they vote for. I am not refering to a perfect, nominal, ideal, futuristic UN. I am talking about the UN as it exists at this moment, which is relevant to the context of this discussion as much as the current existence of the US system at this moment in time, is.

As I said, you're making the "might is right" argument here.


Again, you're free to replace the might is right argument with another version to your liking, but that is how it exists right now, at this time, in this state of reality. If you have another state of reality you'd like to push, go ahead. There is nothing inherently wrong with might is right, because no nation has been right without also being victorious. No nation, no person, nobody in the HISTORY of the human race has failed and then said "oh, I got it right so who cares". Getting it right and failing is not mutually inclusive. It is not might that matters, it is victory, might simply facilitates victory. So in essence, victory makes right, to the victor goes the spoils.

If you want to deny and characterize the world we have \ today as some other type of system, a utopia perhaps, you're free to do so. But you should refrain from advocating your arguments ad nauseam because they don't become more efficacious as timely repetitions go on.

By the same logic, then, in the USA, the wealthy (who pay a higher share of the total taxes collected by the government) should have veto power over legislation in the US Congress and the US Senate?

Again,my argument is not to argue whether the USA should or should not have a veto. My argument is that if you seek to replace the system as it exists today, you need to shell out some serious money. This is true of the US as well, if the Democrats want to win and change the way things are done, they will have to committ a SERIOUS amount of money to defense and other things. You miss the point if you try to transplant the UN veto to the American system. Like I stated, the US system has check and balances the UN does not have, obviously it would be stupid to transplant the UN's faulty and bug ridden system to one that actually works, in the USA.

So no, it is not by my logic, but rather by yours in the context of transplanting the UN's faulty veto system to the US. The President has a veto, because all citizens elect him through direct population and proportional representation. This has little or nothing to do with the UN.

Thanks for making your viewpoint about democracy quite clear.

Thanks for making a straw man out of my arguments, but you should stop doing that if you wish to continue to use logic. You do understand what logic is, correct, and what a straw man is? Just to clarify, but a straw man is something you create by using your logic, and call it as having originated from my argument, then having dashed this straw man creation of yours, you then state that you now claim victory over my argument. But in the end, my argument still stands, regardless of the illusionary sleight of handle performed.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home