09-02-2003 12:26									#31
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"a government where people can elect different leaders but not change the policies "

Huh!? What do you mean we can't change the policies? We have had politicians all over the spectrum from LBJ to Reagan? Do you honestly think that policies we enacted would have been the same if say, Mondale had beaten Reagan in '84? If Goldwater had beaten Johnson in '64? The USA is a democracy, Cuba is not.

	09-02-2003 12:27									#32
	Remove this text

che,

quote: and proportional elections for at least one legislative house.

I take this you meant either the Congress or the Senate? Wouldn't this need a constitution amendment?

	09-02-2003 21:07									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

KOTA: It depends on what you mean by a world government. If you mean, will the UN under the plan outlined above come to more and more resemble the "United States of Earth", I'd say possibly, but not in any of our lifetimes.

I would say, however, that the UN as outlined above would become a defacto major player in international affairs, gaining "superpower" status almost overnight, having sufficient resources and teeth, thanks to the combined contributions of all its member states to be a bulwark against ANY nation (including the USA).

The thing is, a restructured UN offers us a LOT of important advantages. Unlike any individual nation-state (which must of course, often look to the shorter term, and see to its own self interests), this organization HAS no shorter term. It would exist to be our Moral backbone. It would exist to do the things that no singular nation-state could do effectively on its own. Part of the reason for that is its pluralistic nature. Rather than it being a case of the US, or France, or China simply dictating terms to a large hunk of the world, the UN (made up of representatives from all over the world), would get to participate in crafting policy, and helping to steer the ship. This equates to *automatic* coalition building....where the UN goes, it goes in accordance with its own mandate, and under the direction of the world body. And, as the UN would be in the position to take a longer-term world view, it would not get bogged down in short term crisis management, save for the commissions that focused on specific areas (such as disaster relief, as mentioned above).

Also, I should point out that as a significant part of the UN's restructuring, one of the things that should come about from this is the election, not appointment of each member's UN representative. Give the UN the teeth described above, and it becomes necessary to hold him directly accountable to the voters of the nation he represents (and obviously, building this into the charter would strain and stress the non-democratic nations who are members....a good thing, IMO, given the changes to the charter I have proposed).

-=Vel=-

	09-02-2003 21:34									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

As far as Cuba goes, Che and I both believe that its more democratic, but for different reasons. I don't think it has anything to do with voting. The Cuban government works more for ALL of its people, not giving special priviledge to a select few. The US government does give priviledge to a select few. I'm trying to say that the US is elitist and therefore less democratic.

	09-02-2003 21:39									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I disagree. What you are saying is that in Cuba, there are no "perks" and special privleges for the upper echelon of the Communist party, and this is clearly not the case.

They have their elites, just as we have our elites, and the elites eat better, have air conditioning, and more freedom.

The *disparity* between the elites is undoubtedly different in the two countries, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. Further, the USA has a high degree of social mobility. I've never been to Cuba, so I can't speak for them, but clearly, social mobility isn't as important there, if the different between the elites and non is not so great (ie - moving "up" doesn't get you as much of a marginal benefit there as it does here).

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Another important distinction - In Cuba, you can rise through the ranks by being a "good little Communist" here, you rise through the ranks thanks to your own effort and hard work. The former is passive....you make yourself subservient to the will of the ruling Communist party, don't rock the boat, further its ends, and you go places. Here, you put your nose to the grindstone and make your own future, parties be d@mned.

-V.

	09-02-2003 21:46									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kingof the Apes Vel- I like your plan. But a question that arises is this: Do you ever think there will be a worldwide government? Not like the UN, with many nations part of it, but a government elected by all the people on earth? My thought on that is no. People are too partisan.

I personally think it's inevitable. History has been a steady process of smaller political units merging into a larger one. We began as isolated hunter/gathers, then we formed villages. The villages turned into city states which in time became nations. And we can see with the EU that this process is still continueing today.

And we can also see that we are evolving a global culture. A typical Japanese today doesn't dress very much differently than a Canadian, who looks the same as an American or a German. We watch the same movies, in large part, and listen to the same music forms, though the individual bands may be different. Just recently on Jay Leno, I saw a band from South Africa perform, and if that fact wouldn't have been announced, I would never have been able to tell the difference.

Now you may ask so what? Well the point is that nationalism arises in part because one country's culture is different than another, which gives them a unique identity. In time though there will so little distinction between nations that any squabbles that result will be more like Californians griping about New Yorkers, instead of like the US against the Soviets. The concept of national borders will be used merely for the process of local governance, rather than a dividing line between one nation and another.

	09-02-2003 21:51									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I largely agree, however, I think the process will be a very slow one (thus, not likely in any of our lifetimes). But on balance, I agree.

-=Vel=-

PS: In other news, there's a picture of my thumb on the front page of our local paper! Well....and also one of my books.... (got to participate in an article about "bookcrossing.com" which I'm using to help get the word out 'bout the books!)

	09-02-2003 22:07									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I largely agree, however, I think the process will be a very slow one (thus, not likely in any of our lifetimes). But on balance, I agree.

Certainly. It probably won't even happen in your grandchildren's lifetime for that matter. Another thing we need to have is a universal language, since language is the ultimate form of culture. But we can see today how widespread the use of English is becoming all over the world, that process has begun. It's the language of business, and in large part of science. Eventually it will evolve to the point that we all speak a form of it. It probably won't be recognizable to those of us living today as English, just like many people haven't a clue what Shakespeare was trying to say, but it will happen eventually.

	09-02-2003 22:10									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Vel,

Bush I arrested Noriega. Why do you believe we need a Democrat president to clean up our residue? You will only get decisive action from a Republican president. Democrats are too force adverse.

I agree the UN should have a democracy test to be in a leadership role in any organization or the SC. But, since any such reform would have to be ratified by all participating countries, which will not happen, I think we simply kill the UN and start a new organization structured along the lines you suggest.

NATO has a democracy test. We could expand NATO into a world organization.

	09-02-2003 22:30									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ned....not sure where you got the notion that I think we need an elected Democrat to do the above. IMO, the party-politics of the USA won't much matter. What WILL matter is electing a president who has UN reform on his mind, and the political will to get us there.

Personally, I think that the US has sufficient influence in the UN to push through the needed changes, but that remains to be seen. If not, then yes, I'd be strongly in favor of ditching it for an organization with a Democracy test as a place of beginning, and NATO would be as good a place as any to start (which actually might not be a bad idea....as the movement gained strength, the the UN--which would not dismantle itself with our leaving--could eventually be merged with the new organization, forming a "house of representatives" as it were, to the organization).

Willem....agree on all counts, and it's a good thing to see. (and who knows, with advances in biotech, maybe we WILL be around to see it.... )

-=Vel=-

	09-02-2003 22:30									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned NATO has a democracy test. We could expand NATO into a world organization.

NATO is primarily a military organization, it wouldn't be equipped to deal with the types of issues that the UN now does. And it would be very difficult getting many nations to feel comfortable having a Western based military alliance running the world.

	09-02-2003 23:02									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I disagree. What you are saying is that in Cuba, there are no "perks" and special privleges for the upper echelon of the Communist party, and this is clearly not the case. They have their elites, just as we have our elites, and the elites eat better, have air conditioning, and more freedom. The *disparity* between the elites is undoubtedly different in the two countries, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. Further, the USA has a high degree of social mobility. I've never been to Cuba, so I can't speak for them, but clearly, social mobility isn't as important there, if the different between the elites and non is not so great (ie - moving "up" doesn't get you as much of a marginal benefit there as it does here). -=Vel=- EDIT: Another important distinction - In Cuba, you can rise through the ranks by being a "good little Communist" here, you rise through the ranks thanks to your own effort and hard work. The former is passive....you make yourself subservient to the will of the ruling Communist party, don't rock the boat, further its ends, and you go places. Here, you put your nose to the grindstone and make your own future, parties be d@mned. -V.

1) What do you need social mobility if there is equality?

2) I'm not arguing for absolute equality. I'm just satisfied if every one has a fair share of the pie and no one is living filthy rich while other go without.

3) Social Mobility is soooo insignificant Vel. So many people work their nose to the grindstone as you say, and they end up homeless or deep in debt. Most of the rich in this country made it to where they are because the kissed good ass, stabed someone in the back, or they were particularily ruthless. Of course, there is the case where they were born with it

P.S. I created another thread. You might have to go through a few pages though its not to popular yet

	09-02-2003 23:25									#43
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Just replied to your other thread!

And I must disagree that social mobility is irrelevant.

While it'd be nice to see that everybody has a piece of the pie, that MUST come with the precondition that those who want a piece of the pie must be willing to work for it.

If you are out busting your a$$ every day to make a living, and I don't feel like doing that, should the government just give me my share, even though I'm not willing to do anything? It's not that I'm not capable, I just don't want to.

And, IF there's a mechanism in place to provide for people like that, why would anyone want to? Where would the incentive be for hard work to get ahead? Why bother....you can just sit at home, eat bon bons, and watch the soaps all day and do just fine.

-=Vel=-

	09-02-2003 23:45									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: The Global spread of Democracy would make the world a safer place to live. Tin-Pot dictators love lobbing missiles at each other. They love mobalizing their armies and playing god in their local regions (and sometimes, beyond that). If we wish to see a dramatic dropoff, and perhaps even the disappearance of such things, then a democratized world is a fine way to start. In short, a democratized world is a SAFER world.

I cannot agree that democracy are less warlike when you have states like India, Israel and the US being as bad as any dictatorship.

quote: A Democratized world is a better educated world. I'll get to this later on, and go into more detail, but for Democracy to work, the people of a given country must be at least somewhat educated, literate and informed. Better education is a stabalizing force, and leads to increased innovation in every nation.

India has abysmal literacy levels compared to China. Better education is a stabilising force? Don't be daft.

quote: More opportunities for trade and commerce. Given the greater safety and security that a democratized world represents, businesses from all over the globe would have a higher degree of safety when opening up shop in these newly democrized nations. This leads to the creation of more jobs, and has the effect of raising the standard of living in those nations. As their standard of living increases, their demand for goods and services increases, and the market grows stronger. Businesses are risk-averse, however, and will not make this move in a region of instability unless it is on an extremely short term basis (contractually, rather than, say, investing in a physical plant or facility).

A bit optimistic about the effects of business aren't you? I very much doubt that the disparity of development across the world is down to 'instability', and lack of democracy. You mention what I assume are large multinationals 'setting up shop'. This is not always benign, since this may involve corrupting local politicians, hiking prices for a basic utility and gaining a stranglehold over an area. And let's not forget that multinationals are perfectly happy to deal with dictators. What about indigenous business start-ups and nationalised industries? Are they undemocratic?

quote: None of this, however, will be possible with the UN in its current running condition. The system needs an overhaul, and it needs it now. The US should use its influence in that organization, and in cooperation with its allies, fix everything that's broken about the UN (this list is, currently too long to even contemplate putting here, and should be more fully explored in another thread devoted to that singular topic), and it needs to be done with all possible speed.

I don't want to see the UN Americanised under the guise of it being 'broken'. Not everyone accepts so unquestioningly the vague assertions leveled at the UN.

quote: Another part of the UN revamping would be to either kick out, or sorely curtail the involvement of non-democratic governments (perhaps by denying any non-democratic government veto powers--yes, that means you, China--or by banning non-democratic nations from serving on any council positions, or both).

The UN serves peace, not democracy. Quite rightly too. Peace is far more important.

	09-02-2003 23:55									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK 3) Social Mobility is soooo insignificant Vel. So many people work their nose to the grindstone as you say, and they end up homeless or deep in debt. Most of the rich in this country made it to where they are because the kissed good ass, stabed someone in the back, or they were particularily ruthless. Of course, there is the case where they were born with it

Social mobility is very important. People are ambitious creatures, they have aspirations beyond just those of providing for their immediate needs. And some are more ambitious than others. If you try and develop a social system that doesn't allow for people who want more from life, you will have a system where there's no longer any incentive to excell, and/or one that creates some resentment and frustration. Why do you think the Soviet Union failed, and why China is moving towards a capitalist system?

One of the problems that I see occuring in the argument of capitalism vs. socialism is this idea that they are mutually exclusive. They're not! There's no reason why you can't have a capitalist system that has a fair means of income distribution, either through social support like Unemployment Insurance, disability funding etc. or simply through a fair minimum wage. Take a look at a public traded company, it's owned by shareholders, which is in essence a socialist principle. Add to that things like profit sharing, stock options and a few more schemes I'm sure I haven't heard of, there'e no reason why the two ideas can't cooexist.

I think one of the problems with your view of capitalism is that you're basing it solely on the American model, which is the extreme version. The European nations, as well as Canada, are experimenting with a model that tries to incorporate aspects of both philosophies. Now I don't want to open a debate on the merits of welfare states vs laissez faire democracies, but I see no reason why the two should automatically be opposed to each other.

	10-02-2003 00:01									#46
	Got spare money?

Sandman:
You raise some good points. I will do my best to respond.

I contend that the examples you have provided are not "worse than any dictatorship." The nations you mention are democratic-minded, yes, and each of them faces enemies that they are not afraid to confront with force of arms if needs be.

India - faces a hostile, rival nuclear power to its north, whose government is authoritarian (another one of those dictators), and whose people are fundamentalists. Democractic nations need not be pacifistic in European style to be democratic. They can and should defend themselves (that Europeans seem to have largely forgotten this point makes it no less valid).

Israel - faces hostile rivals on all borders, whose governments are anything BUT democractic, and who have stated repeatedly that they wish to destroy the nation. Again, democracies need not be pacifistic states.

USA - Because of the reluctance of a post-cold-war Europe to step up with us, we are left being the "only cop on the beat" when it comes to getting out there in the world and DOING something. You don't agree with that, fine....have your countrymen spend the resources necessary and show us how to do it right. The USA is hardly akin to a dictatorship (though it seems that the current administration would dearly love to change that....nonetheless, they'll be out on their a$$es as of election day).

Education: Yes...India's literacy rates are abyssmal. Bad example, thanks to the presence of the caste system, as you no doubt, are aware. Nonetheless, even WITH this enormous social weight around their necks, they have made remarkable strides.

Business: Not optomistic in the least. All countries go through the VERY SAME cycle when it comes to industrializing, and the newly democratized nations would be no exception. It is certainly true that multinational corporations would set up shop in these nations to take advantage of cheaper labor....but an interesting thing happens then.....one company does it, and gets a good deal, so another does it, and then another, and another....and before you know it, wages start rising. Why? Because as the labor IN those markets becomes more skilled, they can shop around....more than one factory in town, and they know how to run the machines. This basic pattern has happened in every industrialized nation on the planet.

I am not advocating "Americanizing" the UN, and if you do not agree that it is "broken" then you have clearly not been reading the news. Lybia serving on the Human Rights council? If that is not broken, I'm not sure how else to define it.

The UN has structural flaws that prevent it from being the kind of organization we (the world body) NEED it to be.

As to serving peace....oh yes....the UN has been serving up large doses of peace, hasn't it?

Containment doesn't equal peace.

Writing useless resolutions without the means of enforcing them doesn't equal peace.

Does it?

-=Vel=-

	10-02-2003 00:03									#47
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I have to agree with che. Until we have a truly democratic society at home, it's irresponsible to trust the state to act in the interests of liberty and justice, particularly when these ideals are antithetical to its interests. For instance, in Iraq.

	10-02-2003 00:04									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Again, I am not talking about a US-led, UN movement. I am talking about empowering the UN. Key difference, and IN that difference, it does not matter that we're not where we'd like to be on the homefront.

Is it important? Sure. But it does not prevent us from taking the action outlined above.

-=Vel=-

	10-02-2003 00:16									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I'm not inclined to trust the UN any more than the US. After all, a lot of UN states are lead by the same tin pot dictators you think it should deal with.

	10-02-2003 00:28									#50
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I'm not inclined to trust the UN any more than the US. After all, a lot of UN states are lead by the same tin pot dictators you think it should deal with.

Well then, you've just suggested one of the first reforms, no tin pot dictators allowed, or at least not allowed to vote or hold power. Only nations that adhere to certain human rights principles will be allowed to do anything more than send their ambassadors. Including the economic benefits of membership, like the WTO, World Bank, plus aid and development programs. If they want UN money, they'll have to play by the rules.

	10-02-2003 00:30									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Agreed, Willem, and in fact, if you read my longish post above, Ramo, you'll find that I already outlined that....

-=Vel=-

	10-02-2003 00:32									#52
	Support Apolyton

@Ramo's general wibe.

However, while 'fix up the US' is a nice slogan, one should also think of the way of accomplishing it.

	10-02-2003 00:32									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: India - faces a hostile, rival nuclear power to its north, whose government is authoritarian (another one of those dictators), and whose people are fundamentalists. Democractic nations need not be pacifistic in European style to be democratic. They can and should defend themselves (that Europeans seem to have largely forgotten this point makes it no less valid).

1. Pakistanis are overwhelmingly secular. Only its underpopulated provinces on the Afghan border have Islamist majorities.
2. Defending themselves? Look at Gujurat and its anti-Moslem pogroms. There are fundies running India too. Or consider India's support of terror in Kashmir. India's not much better than Pakistan in this regard.

I'll resist responding to your comments on Israel and the US so this thread won't be too jacked.

	10-02-2003 00:42									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Well then, you've just suggested one of the first reforms, no tin pot dictators allowed, or at least not allowed to vote or hold power. Only nations that adhere to certain human rights principles will be allowed to do anything more than send their ambassadors.

Sounds good, but including states that support the authority of human rights abusers. The problem is that there wouldn't be too many states left after you cut off the fat.

quote: Including the economic benefits of membership, like the WTO, World Bank, plus aid and development programs. If they want UN money, they'll have to play by the rules.

Why would tin pot dictators care about their people? Economic warfare is a foolish, counterproductive strategy that only hurts the people its intended to help. Cutting off aid or erecting trade barriers would undermine just about the only thing the UN is good for. This is the kind of thing that undermines these regimes in the end.

As for the World Bank, giving loans to tin pot dictators is a bad policy, often intentionally malevolent on the part of the West, particularly because successor democratic states have to deal with them. Personally, I think we should destroy that institution. Along with the IMF.

As for the WTO in general, we need serious reform in it. As is, it's pretty much an instrument of Western protectionism. We should start going after things like agrisubsidies, IMO one of the principal problems in the world today, and stop enforcing idiotic IP laws in the third world.

	10-02-2003 00:57									#55
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Just replied to your other thread! And I must disagree that social mobility is irrelevant. While it'd be nice to see that everybody has a piece of the pie, that MUST come with the precondition that those who want a piece of the pie must be willing to work for it. If you are out busting your a$$ every day to make a living, and I don't feel like doing that, should the government just give me my share, even though I'm not willing to do anything? It's not that I'm not capable, I just don't want to. And, IF there's a mechanism in place to provide for people like that, why would anyone want to? Where would the incentive be for hard work to get ahead? Why bother....you can just sit at home, eat bon bons, and watch the soaps all day and do just fine. -=Vel=-

Vel, you just seem unwilling to see that hard work really has very little to do with someones place in our society. There are plenty of people in this country who do no work what so ever and live like kings.

	10-02-2003 01:00									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Willem Social mobility is very important. People are ambitious creatures, they have aspirations beyond just those of providing for their immediate needs. And some are more ambitious than others. If you try and develop a social system that doesn't allow for people who want more from life, you will have a system where there's no longer any incentive to excell, and/or one that creates some resentment and frustration. Why do you think the Soviet Union failed, and why China is moving towards a capitalist system? One of the problems that I see occuring in the argument of capitalism vs. socialism is this idea that they are mutually exclusive. They're not! There's no reason why you can't have a capitalist system that has a fair means of income distribution, either through social support like Unemployment Insurance, disability funding etc. or simply through a fair minimum wage. Take a look at a public traded company, it's owned by shareholders, which is in essence a socialist principle. Add to that things like profit sharing, stock options and a few more schemes I'm sure I haven't heard of, there'e no reason why the two ideas can't cooexist. I think one of the problems with your view of capitalism is that you're basing it solely on the American model, which is the extreme version. The European nations, as well as Canada, are experimenting with a model that tries to incorporate aspects of both philosophies. Now I don't want to open a debate on the merits of welfare states vs laissez faire democracies, but I see no reason why the two should automatically be opposed to each other.

Willem, people are conditioned to be selfish. True selfish people don't make good citizens, but we need to make people more socially conscious. Then they will work harder.

	10-02-2003 01:07									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: However, while 'fix up the US' is a nice slogan, one should also think of the way of accomplishing it.

Libertarianism + socialism.

	10-02-2003 01:11									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I contend that the examples you have provided are not "worse than any dictatorship." The nations you mention are democratic-minded, yes, and each of them faces enemies that they are not afraid to confront with force of arms if needs be.

Strawman. You even have the cheek to 'quote' something I did not say. I said that democracies can be as bad as dictatorships with regards to militarism and gunboat diplomacy, NOT WORSE.

quote: Education: Yes...India's literacy rates are abyssmal. Bad example, thanks to the presence of the caste system, as you no doubt, are aware. Nonetheless, even WITH this enormous social weight around their necks, they have made remarkable strides.

An alternative view would be that education increases the power of the caste system.

quote: Business: Not optomistic in the least. All countries go through the VERY SAME cycle when it comes to industrializing, and the newly democratized nations would be no exception. It is certainly true that multinational corporations would set up shop in these nations to take advantage of cheaper labor....but an interesting thing happens then.....one company does it, and gets a good deal, so another does it, and then another, and another....and before you know it, wages start rising. Why? Because as the labor IN those markets becomes more skilled, they can shop around....more than one factory in town, and they know how to run the machines. This basic pattern has happened in every industrialized nation on the planet.

'Newly' democratised? Do you imagine that every poor country is a dictatorship? There have been countries that have been democracies for ages and are scarely any better off.

I don't buy your story of ever-increasing wages. Multi-nationals can just leave when wages get too high, or start employing children, or bribe their way to a monopoly.

As the labour gets more skilled, they can shop around? These people are doing what is generally known as unskilled work. It's just ridiculous to assume that 'shopping around for jobs' can exist in Third World working conditions. Give me a break.

And you haven't commented on indigenous start-ups and nationalised industries. These are every bit as valid as multi-nationals, and are far more important towards improving economic performance.

quote: I am not advocating "Americanizing" the UN, and if you do not agree that it is "broken" then you have clearly not been reading the news. Lybia serving on the Human Rights council? If that is not broken, I'm not sure how else to define it.

I didn't say it wasn't broken, I said that I was unwilling to accept that it was so badly broken as some vocal Americans seem to think. Libya, a country with a poor human rights record, getting voted onto the human rights council is pretty bad. But that does not make everything the UN does tainted. Make specific complaints, not vague generalisations.

quote: The UN has structural flaws that prevent it from being the kind of organization we (the world body) NEED it to be. As to serving peace....oh yes....the UN has been serving up large doses of peace, hasn't it? Containment doesn't equal peace. Writing useless resolutions without the means of enforcing them doesn't equal peace.

Your vision is also happens to serve multinational corporations. You advocate apocalyptic wars against every dictatorship (and probably democracies which don't measure up), so the current UN is clearly better at producing peace. Containment most certainly does equal peace by any reasonable standard, i.e. no wars. And who decides which resolutions are 'useless'?

	10-02-2003 01:14									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Cutting off aid or erecting trade barriers would undermine just about the only thing the UN is good for.

Who's talking about trade barriers, they just don't get any protection from world bodies if a deal goes sour, or a member country slaps a tariif on their exports. And aid could simply take the form shipments of food and medical supplies, no cash.

quote: Personally, I think we should destroy that institution. Along with the IMF.

There's nothing wrong with them in principle, it's just they way they're being run. They just need reforms, along with the rest of it.

quote: We should start going after things like agrisubsidies, IMO one of the principal problems in the world today, and stop enforcing idiotic IP laws in the third world.

I certainly agree with you on the subsidies, though it would be foolish not to expect some regulation of IP laws. I admit the approach is rather draconian at the moment, but we also can't afford go to the other extreme either.

	10-02-2003 01:18									#60
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Libertarianism + socialism.

I just love it when a plan comes together.