Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
What is your opinion of the UN, as a public sector, being ethically, legally, and morally bound to promote the provisions of its social contract? Simply building roads and aqueducts for anarchy reduction purposes in less developed countries could have an impact on migrant labor whenever there is any public sector venture of sufficient scale.
Our current warfare-state economic model, and its promotion of the common Offense (in the US), has no basis in our constitution. A Welfare-state economic model is specifically enumerated in Article 1, section 8. "... and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ..."
|
I agree with a more active UN as an international political institution that could parallel the international economic order, on the condition of reform. If it is going to be a public institution more closely affecting the people of the world, then I think steps should be taken to make their voices more able to shape the institution's policies. For such a system though, there'd have to be change at the national level as well.
Overall, I think minimal regulation and intervention in the form of social safety-nets is the best way to offset the harmful consequences of business--the problem is that no institutions exist to play that role in the context of the global economy. Perhaps the probable replacement of the nation-state with a sort of continent-state (if continental-unions follow that path) will make cooperation toward such a global agenda more possible.