[vmarks]

http://libertyboard.org/modules.php?...cle&sid=63

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has come to the defense of gun owners. He recently submitted H.R. 1146, a bill that would allow the United States to leave the U.N. He is lobbying House Republicans to allow a floor vote on his bill.

"The U.S. House routinely spends 15 minutes re-naming post offices," Paul said.

"It should spend 15 minutes to answer the question an increasing number of Americans are asking: Should the United States continue to support the United Nations?"

Furthermore, Rep. Paul has created an online petition for Americans to show their support for H.R. 1146. The petition is located online at www.Just15.org.

Provisions of Rep. Paul's bill include the following:

-- Relinquishing all U.S. participation in the United Nations and any subsidiary groups and agreements.

-- Removing the U.N. headquarters out of New York City and revoking all of its governmental privileges.

-- Ending U.S. financial support for U.N. operational and "peacekeeping" missions.

The deadline for the petition is June 23, 2003.



Now, say what you will about this idea, but you should know that Ron Paul was a past Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, and he is consistently rated near the highest among legislators who protect liberty, both personal and economic.

[boots]

Yeah. I agree. We shouldn't be associated with nasty things like UNICEF and WHO.

Damn that Ted Turner for paying our dues...

[vmarks]

Originally posted by boots:
Yeah. I agree. We shouldn't be associated with nasty things like UNICEF and WHO.

That's not the issue- of course there are a few good things about the U.N. - and you named them. What about the ill they do, either through action (unabashedly attempting to push elimination of firearms for US citizens) or inaction (no aid for the Kurds, no help for Tibet, pulling out in 1967 so that Egypt could attack Israel, the list goes on.)

Weigh the benefits and the negatives. Consider what we already do outside of the WHO and UNICEF. Our aid to South Africa, for example. Pulling out doesn't mean dropping humanitarian efforts, it just means pursuing them independently of the U.N.

[Timo]

I disagree with the casual, indifferent and unstudied idea of dismantling instititutions -- so painfully pieced together -- that bridge cultural divides, however imperfectly; all for the sake of indulging a pot-smoking me-first ideology.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Timo:
I disagree with the casual, indifferent and unstudied idea of dismantling instititutions -- so painfully pieced together -- that bridge cultural divides, however imperfectly; all for the sake of indulging a pot-smoking me-first ideology.

Me neither. Obviously forming the U.N. was a hard-won accomplishment. The question is, when it endangers fundamental constitutional rights, is it time to reconsider membership? If that isn't the time, when is?

This has nothing to do with pot-smoking. That is another thread.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd say the vast majority of Americans would be glad to ditch the UN.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd say the vast majority of Americans would be glad to ditch the UN.

and you would know this...how?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
I disagree with the casual, indifferent and unstudied idea of dismantling instititutions -- so painfully pieced together -- that bridge cultural divides, however imperfectly; all for the sake of indulging a pot-smoking me-first ideology.

[Timo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Me neither. Obviously forming the U.N. was a hard-won accomplishment. The question is, when it endangers fundamental constitutional rights, is it time to reconsider membership? If that isn't the time, when is?

This has nothing to do with pot-smoking. That is another thread.

I disagree. It has everything to do with pot-smoking or other types of self-indulgent me-first and damn everyone else ideologies, which always emphatize the fruits of freedom and never speak about the responsibilities of freedom. Pot smoking in this case is a good metaphor, because no one understands the word libertine anymore.

I personally do not see the UN "endangering constitutional rights." As with many problems in the United States, I see our most serious problems as primarily home grown rather than as evil demons imported in from abroad.

[vmarks]

Lerk, Timo,

I hope you'll answer my question:

Obviously forming the U.N. was a hard-won accomplishment. The question is, when it endangers fundamental constitutional rights, is it time to reconsider membership? If that isn't the time, when is?

[Timo]

Can you be more specific?

[OreoCookie]

What constitutional rights are endangered by the UN? I don't get it.

[thunderous_funker]

Ah, the old "internationalism is a threat to sovereignty" crapola. Super.

And, as usual, the ones screaming this accusation at the UN suddenly fall silent when it comes to the WTO or FTAA.

I guess some people have a funny idea what "sovereignty" means. To them it seems to mean "the right of business to trump all other interests" or perhaps "the right to do as you please regardless of the consequences to others".

Maybe the real question here should be:

Does the US ever need to compromise?

Or better yet, why not simply modify the UN charter to read:

All nations are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[vmarks]

Ron Paul said:
Perhaps it's time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.

If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation's foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported "authority." Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make "laws" that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

The text of the bill is here:
HR 1146 introduced March 6, 2003

[Nicko]

Heh, like it or not, not even the US can stop globalization.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Heh, like it or not, not even the US can stop globalization.

globalization of markets is one thing, and generally regarded as a good thing. Globalization of government is generally regarded as a bad thing, when considering that the government that governs best is the one that does so locally, and least.

[BRussell]

vmarks can you be specific as to how the UN is threatening US gun owners?

I dunno. Anyone who really thinks the UN has any power over the US hasn't been following the news much.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmarks:
globalization of markets is one thing, and generally regarded as a good thing. Globalization of government is generally regarded as a bad thing, when considering that the government that governs best is the one that does so locally, and least.

Thanks for completely substantiating my post.

UN threats to sovereignty==bad
WTO & FTAA threats to sovereignty==good

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Timo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
globalization of markets is one thing, and generally regarded as a good thing. Globalization of government is generally regarded as a bad thing, when considering that the government that governs best is the one that does so locally, and least.

This is tough. Globalization of markets has its good sides, perhaps, but you can't really say that it's "generally regarded as a good thing." Ask, e.g., Canadians out of work if NAFTA is a good thing.

Similarly, this assertion that "government that governs best is the one that does so locally, and least" has merit, but it also has glaring definicies. So if you put your first statement together with your second, you are arguing for a world where the lowest common denominator is the financial bottom line.

You're not actually arguing this, but this is what you realistically advocate by holding those two statements true. You end up arguing for business and finances to be the ultimate measuring stick. You haven't achieved the least government because you've abidicated the responsibilities of government to a market, which as surely as any despot will govern you, and from a far and with no hint of representation.

I argue nation states (and amalgamations of them, at times) that exist to spread the ideals of liberty, enlightenment, education and human rights have a role to play in this world. They also exist to defend against the destruction of all ideals save monetary ones. They exist to protect rights beyone those of property. They exist to balance what is otherwise prone to wanton greed, unchecked expansion and self-destruction.

vmarks, I would think if we were colonials you would be a Jeffersonian and I a Federalist, and our debates would be along their lines. Such is the durability of concepts uncovered in the Enlightenment.

[OAW]

Why all these "conservatives" are fretting about the UN is simply beyond me. The fact of the matter is that the US is a veto-wielding, permanent member of the UN Security Council. As a result, the UN can't make the US do anything it doesn't want to do.

The "UN Black Helicopter" crowd can be quite amusing at times!

OAW

[Nicko]

Originally posted by OAW:
The "UN Black Helicopter" crowd can be quite amusing at times!

OAW

Hey don't be so sure about that...someone is flying those things around! The prospect of world peace is a threat to us all!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Lerk, Timo,

I hope you'll answer my question:

Obviously forming the U.N. was a hard-won accomplishment. The question is, when it endangers fundamental constitutional rights, is it time to reconsider membership? If that isn't the time, when is?

To whose constitution do you refer? Ours? Iraq's? Afghanistan's? Kosovo's? Somalia's? Rwanda's? Syria's? North Korea's?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
vmarks can you be specific as to how the UN is threatening US gun owners?

I dunno. Anyone who really thinks the UN has any power over the US hasn't been following the news much.

And anyone who really thinks the UN has any power over any nation hasn't been following the news much...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
To whose constitution do you refer? Ours? Iraq's? Afghanistan's? Kosovo's? Somalia's? Rwanda's? Syria's? North Korea's?

Lerk, you'd think a guy with your vast intellect would know the answer to this question...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Lerk, you'd think a guy with your vast intellect would know the answer to this question...

my post was rhetorical.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
And anyone who really thinks the UN has any power over any nation hasn't been following the news much...

Right. Perhaps we should rephrase it to "anyone who really thinks the UN has any power at all hasn't been following the news much."

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my post was rhetorical.

and I matched your rhetoric with my own.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
and I matched your rhetoric with my own.

um...I'm not sure you get my point, but that's ok.

[Nicko]

lol you guys are hilarious.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...I'm not sure you get my point, but that's ok.

I never get your point Lerk. I'm just an unenlightened hick from Montana.

[nonhuman]

The argument that the UN is ineffectual, especially in regards to making the US comply with it's wishes is not an argument for remaining a member. If anything, it's an argument for getting out. I've never been a supporter of the UN, or of the idea that we need some sort of world government or regulatory body. The fact that power within the UN is so unfairly distributed just makes me more firmly believe that such an institution is doomed to inefficiency and corruption. I say we sould withdraw our UN membership both because it has the potential to threaten national sovereignty, and because it is so powerless against the US (and other nations in similar positions).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I never get your point Lerk. I'm just an unenlightened hick from Montana.

Like I said, that's ok.
I was talking to vmarks, regardless. You just interjected yourself. If I knew you were going to do that, I would have been less subtle.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Like I said, that's ok.
I was talking to vmarks, regardless. You just interjected yourself. If I knew you were going to do that, I would have been less subtle.

Sometimes, it's hard to read such things on the net.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
The argument that the UN is ineffectual, especially in regards to making the US comply with it's wishes is not an argument for remaining a member. If anything, it's an argument for getting out. I've never been a supporter of the UN, or of the idea that we need some sort of world government or regulatory body. The fact that power within the UN is so unfairly distributed just makes me more firmly believe that such an institution is doomed to inefficiency and corruption. I say we sould withdraw our UN membership both because it has the potential to threaten national sovereignty, and because it is so powerless against the US (and other nations in similar positions).

The UN is NOT a world government. It is merely a forum for allowing world governments to cooperate and compromise. It is a means of establishing international law.

The UN cannot do anything without the consent of it's members. It has no authority or autonomy outside of the conset of it's members. That is both it's strength and it's weakness.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'd say the vast majority of Americans would be glad to ditch the UN.

If they did, it would pass. As it stands, I don't see it happening.

I'd rather have the UN reformed than removed. It is a needed vent in the world of international politics.

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:

I'd rather have the UN reformed than removed. It is a needed vent in the world of international politics.

Hmmm, we agree on something.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by moki:
If they did, it would pass. As it stands, I don't see it happening.

I'd rather have the UN reformed than removed. It is a needed vent in the world of international politics.

Isn't that what the WWE is for?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The UN is NOT a world government. It is merely a forum for allowing world governments to cooperate and compromise. It is a means of establishing international law.

The UN cannot do anything without the consent of it's members. It has no authority or autonomy outside of the conset of it's members. That is both it's strength and it's weakness.

It's not a government in the same sense as the US' or UK's governments, but how is a body that creates laws and, to some extent, enforces them not a government? You're right that it can't do anything without the consent of its members, but the same is true of any other (non-dictatorial) government. And again, no government has authority or autonomy outside the consent of its members. It is simply a different form of government. It is the logical extenstion of the republican system. The people elect representatives to their government. Their government, in turn, is part of an international community. The "individuals" in that commnity elect representatives to the body that governs them. The only difference is that the member nations of the UN have given less of their power to the UN than have the individuals to their respective national governments.

[thunderous_funker]

The UN creates laws?? Do tell.

Or are you thinking of Treaties?

I don't consider nations entering into mutually binding Treaties to be quite the same thing as the UN "creating laws". Not to mention that those Treaties are still subject to the approval of local government before they are binding.

You sound as if the UN was some body of aliens dreaming up rules you have to abide by without any accountability, representation or recourse. That's so far from the truth it's rather comic.

Your representative (accountable to you through your government) negotiates with representatives of other governments. Any and all tentative agreements are subject to your approval (through your government).

What exactly is so onerous about that?

[Nicko]

From UN.org:

The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 191 countries*.

When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States - large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems - have a voice and a vote in this process.

The United Nations has six main organs. Five of them ? the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat - are based at UN Headquarters in New York. The sixth, the International Court of Justice, is located at The Hague in the Netherlands.

and....

The United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems that challenge humanity. Cooperating in this effort are more than 30 affiliated organizations, known together as the UN system. Day in and day out, the UN and its family of organizations work to promote respect for human rights, protect the environment, fight disease and reduce poverty. UN agencies define the standards for safe and efficient air travel and_ help improve telecommunications and enhance consumer protection. The United Nations leads the international campaigns against drug trafficking and terrorism. Throughout the world, the UN and its agencies assist refugees, set up programmes to clear landmines, help expand food production and lead the fight against AIDS.

In September 2000, the members of the UN - including 147 Heads of State and government - met in New York to set the international agenda for the beginning of the new century._ The resulting Millennium Declaration sets out measurable goals to be attained in seven key areas:_ peace, security and disarmament; development and poverty eradication; protecting our common environment; human rights, democracy and good governance; protecting the vulnerable; meeting the special needs of Africa; and strengthening the United Nations.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The UN creates laws?? Do tell.

Or are you thinking of Treaties?

I don't consider nations entering into mutually binding Treaties to be quite the same thing as the UN "creating laws". Not to mention that those Treaties are still subject to the approval of local government before they are binding.

You sound as if the UN was some body of aliens dreaming up rules you have to abide by without any accountability, representation or recourse. That's so far from the truth it's rather comic.

Your representative (accountable to you through your government) negotiates with representatives of other governments. Any and all tentative agreements are subject to your approval (through your government).

What exactly is so onerous about that?

How is entering into a treaty different from creating laws? Treaties are simply laws on the international scale. They aren'te particularly relevant to the individual, but they have the same or similar function for a nation as a regular law does for an individual.

I am aware that the UN doesn't create mandates by which I have to live. Too, am I aware that the UN is not a body which lacks accountability. The fact that the member states have to agree to the treaties before they are bound by them simply means that the UN follows a more democratic model than national governments tend to, where treaties are akin to referenda.

I don't particuarly think that the UN is onerous, I just think that it's scale is too large. The larger a governmental body, the harder it is to oversee, and the more waste and corruption there will be. Until the US works in such a way that the people have a real say in what treaties the nation does and doesn't enter into, I don't think it's appropriate for the US to be part of a body such as the UN.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Until the US works in such a way that the people have a real say in what treaties the nation does and doesn't enter into, I don't think it's appropriate for the US to be part of a body such as the UN.

How can you say this? Did the US enter into the landmine treaty? no. Did the US enter into the Kyoto treaty? no. Approve of the International criminal court in the Hague? no.

What exactly are you so paranoid about?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
How is entering into a treaty different from creating laws?

Aside from what is surely a legal distinction worth noting (where is Simey when I need him...), I should think the qualatative difference would be readily apparant.

Once agreed to, they behave similarly to laws, but it's the nature of how they are entered into that makes them substantially different.

Two or more parties agreeing to a set of rules is qualitatively different, as I see it, from having a set of rules dictated to various parties by an authoratative body.

Aside from how they are formed, I should also say that how they bind the the parties is notably different. A treaty is contract between parties--a form of quid pro quo. Compliance by one party is predicated on compliance by the other. A law is universally binding regardless of performance by other parties. You and I can agree to obey the law, but once one of us breaks the law, our treaty is ended--the law hasn't.

Jurisdiction is fundamentally different. The law has jurisdiction over all parties whether agreed to or not by matter of decree. A treaty only has jurisdiction over those who are party to it. I'd certainly trade tax laws for tax treaties in a heartbeat.



Any international cooperative effort involves compromise. It can mean a certain suspension of sovereignty. That can rub people the wrong way, but we should never forget that it's still self-imposed. We choose the degree of our cooperation. We choose the degree of our compromise. It is the most inherently democratic, accountable and representative system I can imagine for dealing with international problems.

If the rule of law is an unacceptable standard because it requires compromise, with what should we replace it?

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Once agreed to, they behave similarly to laws, but it's the nature of how they are entered into that makes them substantially different.

Well, the US constitution, for one, states that any treaties entered into by the USA become the "law of the land". For what it's worth.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
Well, the US constitution, for one, states that any treaties entered into by the USA become the "law of the land". For what it's worth.

Further proof that they are inherently different. Otherwise there would be no need for the Constitution to say otherwise.

Thanks.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Further proof that they are inherently different. Otherwise there would be no need for the Constitution to say otherwise.

Thanks.

sure thing; ya owe me one

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nicko:
How can you say this? Did the US enter into the landmine treaty? no. Did the US enter into the Kyoto treaty? no. Approve of the International criminal court in the Hague? no.

What exactly are you so paranoid about?

actually, as has been demonstrated, the UN has more to fear from the US than vice versa, and has less to gain from US's involvement.
the US holds all the cards, basically...the most powerful ones. For the US to take its ball and go home now is ironic. Everything has gone its way, so then why whine?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Aside from what is surely a legal distinction worth noting (where is Simey when I need him...), I should think the qualatative difference would be readily apparant.

Once agreed to, they behave similarly to laws, but it's the nature of how they are entered into that makes them substantially different.

Two or more parties agreeing to a set of rules is qualitatively different, as I see it, from having a set of rules dictated to various parties by an authoratative body.

Aside from how they are formed, I should also say that how they bind the the parties is notably different. A treaty is contract between parties--a form of quid pro quo. Compliance by one party is predicated on compliance by the other. A law is universally binding regardless of performance by other parties. You and I can agree to obey the law, but once one of us breaks the law, our treaty is ended--the law hasn't.

Jurisdiction is fundamentally different. The law has jurisdiction over all parties whether agreed to or not by matter of decree. A treaty only has jurisdiction over those who are party to it. I'd certainly trade tax laws for tax treaties in a heartbeat.



Any international cooperative effort involves compromise. It can mean a certain suspension of sovereignty. That can rub people the wrong way, but we should never forget that it's still self-imposed. We choose the degree of our cooperation. We choose the degree of our compromise. It is the most inherently democratic, accountable and representative system I can imagine for dealing with international problems.

If the rule of law is an unacceptable standard because it requires compromise, with what should we replace it?

Basically, I agree with everything you have said above. Treaties are self-imposed. What makes a treaty binding is domestsic law, and the mutual self-interest of the parties.

However, there are those who aspire to make international law much more than this. Some people want international law to be superior to domestic law in all respects. This would mean, among other things, that countries wouldn't be free to withdraw from treaties once they decide they are no longer in their interests (I'm speaking generally, not about the UN). This isn't where things stand right now, but there are true believers with other ambitions, which basically amount to eroding the idea of politically sovereign states.

There are also exceptions. The UN Charter itself is an example of this. The UN Charter asserts that it has binding jurisdiction even over non-members. The reason is historical. The UN Charter was written basically by the World War II allies. It was therefore written to be binding upon the former Axis powers despite the fact that they didn't willingly participate. Since then, of course, they all joined as regular members. But the language is still in the Charter.

Anyway, I'm a little shocked to see you give such an orthodox, Realist description of international law. I'm impressed though.

[macvillage.net]

The United Nations is to biased these days to be of benefit to the world.

Think about how the UN works. Everyone gets representation... Good idea, in principle, but it doesn't work in today's world.

The US, Canada, Britain, and sometime Australia, tend to a have the same ideas about alot of things. They are close, and do a lot together (war, love, trade, whatever).

Then there is Europe, a whole bunch of countries, that now are starting to share laws, share currency, integrating their economies...

Europe, essentially operates as 1 country (any disagreement would be bad for all thanks to how integrated they have become... good for them otherwise though).

The English speaking countries are another large body.

The rest of the world lacks representation..... their voice can never even be heard, much less reacted upon.


The idea behind the UN is a noble one, I will grant it that... the system today isn't meant to work the way it does. It was for a different time. Global trade and relations have changed everything.

2 dominant powers... then a bunch of little helpless countries... all with people, needs, and wants... just like the big powers... but no real representation.

What's needed is a reordering that would allow for a true balance of power. Something that countries can't team up on eachother. All countries have a fair say/share. Only the will the entire world take it seriously.

Right now it's a joke. It's really "United Western World"... er "United, 2 western groups".

And get rid of vito powers! They are silly.

There is to little equality in the UN. If your not a western country, you are meaningless.

The UN should serve the people of the world... *not* the governments of the western democracies.


Look at the security council. Look whose perminant... hmm.

Now look whose on the security council... hmm...

that accurately represents the worlds population

For easy access:
http://www.un.org/Overview/Organs/sc.html#MEMBERS

Either start over, or renovate. The current UN is a burdon on the world. It's a sincere effort, but not enough effort. Do it right, or don't do it at all.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Just gotta comment on a few things you said. First, just because a country's first language is not english doesn't mean that they don't have a voice on the world stage LOL most people in europe/asia /africa are bilingual to a certain extent. Rest assured that the diplomats are as well... not to mention that there are translators.

Europe operates as one country? I'm sure there are more than a few who would disagree on that one

While many countries may have problems with the UN, I think it is widely accepted that it is one institution that is here to stay and is not a joke in any sense.