Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
if you introduce a body with legitimate powers that presides over nations and not among them, you have changed the fundamental power structure. instead of a nation-nation paradigm, you have shifted to a nation-world gov-nation structure (much like the current state-fed gov-state model we in the US use).
|
Yes. That is precisely my point.
Quote:
|
the difference between the two lies in the fact that although our current internal model would resemble a nation/UN model... there would be nothing outside of that political sphere to effect change on the internal machinations. do you see? we have our model... but that system is tempered by undeniable outside influences. a similar model on a world scale would have no such check on its power.
|
I'm open to being convinced of this supposed difference - but you are not connecting the dots.
If the Fed decided to prohibit Florida from trading with California, who has the outside-the-political-sphere power to challenge the Fed's decision? Canada? Spain? The U.N.? No. No one other than all 50 of the States themselves have that power. Remove all other nations from the equation and the U.S. still exists with 50 states and the Fed is the final authority. Decisions made by the Supreme Court are not in any way affected by other nations. The Supreme Court is the final authority.
Taken to the next level, the United Nations is the final authority for the world and as long as it is atleast a representative democracy, it is controlled by the people of the world. That the current iteration of the U.N. is mostly a two-degrees removed representation is a problem that would need to be remedied - but assuredly the solution is not to denounce the U.N. alltogether.
When a state in the U.S. disapproves of an act of the Federal Gov't, the answer is not to secede.
Quote:
|
to say that American foreign policy is a dictatorship is quite ludicrous. there are times when our foreign policy moves are squarely oriented at benefiting ourselves... but there are many many other examples of where U.S. involved is demanded and thanked. there are also many instances when lack of U.S. involvement is lamented.
|
I think you may be confusing the term 'dictator' with 'oppressive dictator'. The U.S. is assuredly a dictatorship when it comes to dealing with other nations - that it offers help simply means it is, in comparison to a dictator who did not offer help, relatively more benevolent. That does not make it any less of a dictator. If the U.S. wants another nation to do something, the U.S. will exert as much of it's power as it deems necessary to force the nation to accomodate. And if it is important enough, there is nothing the rest of the world can do to stop it (see: Iraq war). This is not a democratic process - it is a dictatorial process.
A King could give everyone a day off from slavery once a year. That is an act of kindness in comparison to a King who does not provide that day. In both cases, the King is a dictator. The former is oppressive and the latter is benevolent.