Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
of course i'm not saying that all decisions at all levels are influenced in some way by the international dynamic. but, i do think it is unrealistic (hypothetically, not naming you specifically) for someone to claim that the international community doesn't fundamentally effect important aspects of policy.
|
If I wanted to, I could sit here and argue against the U.N. and against the Fed and against my State and against my City Council and against anyone who would claim to tell me how I should live my life. But I do not see this supposed line you have drawn between the ability for a City, State or Fed to have checks in power that are unavailable over the U.N. Worse case scenario - if a State decides to imprison all blacks, the Fed will step in to prevent the States from doing so _because_ the other States would want that action. If the Fed failed to step in, it would be replaced by the actions of the other States. If a Nation started to kill all of their Christians, the U.N. would step in to prevent it from doing so _because_ the other Nations would want that action. If the U.N. failed to step in, it would be replaced. If the Fed gave the order to imprison all blacks, the Fed would be replaced by the States before the action could be carried out. If the U.N. gave the order to bomb the Vatican, the U.N. would be replaced replaced by the Nations before the action could be carried out.
The outside-the-sphere-of-influence only exists within the people. If I want a change in my state, I do not sit back and wait for the Federal gov't to read my mind and institute a change. If two cities within a state clash, the state gov't steps in to handle the situation (note: this is the more powerful third party you describe below - but both cities have theoretically equal influence on this third party). If two states clash, the Feds step in. If two nations clash ... the U.S. steps in? This is not appropriate because the U.S. is not only not an equal representative of each of the clashing nations, but it is not even a representative of any of them. This is the job of the U.N.
In order to exist, the U.N. must please the nations that it is comprised of as best as possible. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the U.N. to negotiate fairly between any two conflicting nations. Put the U.S. in that role and fairness is not on the table. The U.S. exists regardless of the two nations it it attempting to mediate. The U.S. will push for a resolution that is most favorable to it, not a resolution that is most favorable to the two nations in dispute.
Your concern for an unchecked U.N. is unfounded as long as your concern for an unchecked Fed exists. If you want to argue that the U.N. shouldn't exist (or be extremely limited) and the Fed shouldn't exist ... you could argue that all the way down to the city level. But there is zero logic in arguing that any one of them should not exist due to lack of power check - the power check is in the democracy.
Quote:
perhaps i am confusing terms... but i'd like to discard the word altogether in this discussion as i dont' think it fits the relationships countries have with eachother very well. the discrepancy occurs when you liken it to a king and similar authorities: king's have legitimate legal authority of their domain. they decide when the slaves get a break because the slaves, in a sense, are theirs.
nation to nation relationships are different. if i were having a dispute with a friend and i call a more powerful third party to broker a bargain with said friend... would you call the third party a dictator? if i were short cash and only one person had the resources to lend me money... would that person be a dictator? if i and a host of my friends were milling around unsure of how to tackle a problem... would i be a dictator if i gave our group coherance and leadership? i don't think dictatorial actions necessarily follow in these circumstances.
|
King's have legitimate authority over slaves? According to who? The King? I don't think the slaves would agree.
In your friend-as-broker analogy, I would indeed call that more powerful friend a dictator if there was any question in my mind that he did not have equal friendship with me as he did with you - in which case, he would not be a dictator, he would be an equal representation of both of us - i.e. the U.N. For the cash analogy: as I said, a benevolent dictator is still a dictator. For your aimless group of friends analogy: You would be a dictator if they decided you should not decide what the group should do.
The U.S. is a dictatorship. That is the position one holds when one makes decisions for others without their consent by means of representation. I'm sorry you don't want to believe that. I know it doesn't sound like what the U.S. is supposed to be - which is precisely why this anti-UN nonsense needs to stop.