I think this requires legitimate discussion.

There are five permanent members of the UN security council:

US
UK
France
Russia
China

These countries all have differing political viewpoints, and one veto can kill a resolution. This is NOT democratic.

In order to further democracy of the world, wouldn't it be better if the UN adaopted a one member - one vote system. Countries can then decide what is in their own national interest and vote accordingly, with the democratically 'elected' resolution enforced. Every member must commit 10% of its armed forces to the UN mandate.

This way the UN would become a much more effective body.

Thoughts?

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Shall the UN dues be similarly equalized, each country having the same number of votes, and each country supplying the same amount of money?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Matt,

Each country would have one vote, regardless. I'm not sure what funding the UN currently has - so let's say (for arguments sake) 0.5% of GDP and 10% of armed forces. At the moment we have 5 countries that can decide the fate of other, smaller countries, based upon national interest, which is why the UN is ineffective as rarely will you get all five agreeing on even minor issues.

If you support democracy, then why not introduce democracy to the UN. In the US you get one vote per person, regardless of your income, whether you pay taxes or not. So why not in the UN?

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

He said a percentage of troops, so that would probably be a no. But I agree with the fixed price as opposed to percentages. For taxes, also. Why should the successful be punished by being forced to pay a percentage of money? I'd support something like $1000 per year per person. That's 300,000,000,000 per year. Quite a sum if you ask me. Negotiable, of course. Obviously, we would first have to get rid of leech legislation like welfare and all of the unnecessary bullshit like public schooling and public firefighters, as those can be replaced by private institutions. And obviously we would need to remove all the massive spenders, like the republicans and democrats.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

So some countries would pay more, but receive the same amount of votes? That doesn't make much sense.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Slon,

It's up for debate.

Some people pay more taxes but still get one vote in an election, I have the same political power as Richard Branson, are you suggesting that Branson gets 500 votes and I get one? Or worse that Bill Gates gets 1,000 votes and you get one?

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

No, I'm suggesting we all pay the same amount of dollars in taxes.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I don't think taxes is the issue. I don't know about the US, even if you don't pay tax (eg a full-time mother) you still get a vote. Why is the UK more important than say, Botswana? Why shouldn't Botswana, South Africa, Italy, Germany or New Zealand have say. I always thought democracy wasn't based on the ability to pay tax.

Are you suugesting that the US should have more votes or that the Africans should club together to buy a single vote?

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Does it seem fair that countries should be able to vote for other countries to pay for things?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I don't think democracy is intended in this arrangement. It seems to me to me that unless consensus is reached in the Security Council on any given issue then nothing happens. I'm trying to think this through as I write but sometimes no action might be preferable to action approved by three but disapproved by two. Having a situation where the majority can force its will on the minority in the Security Council might cause even greater damage.

Feel free to correct my thinking here.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Matt

Is it fair to you that your 'neighbour' gets you to pay for things? As I said, Branson contributes more to the UK economy than I do, should he get more votes than me, or Bill Gates/Donald Trump get more votes than you (I assume they pay more taxes than you, though I will stand to be corrected)

That is how democracy works - one person, one vote (regardless of income)

My taxes and yours have directly funded the war in Iraq, like it or not.

What is your alternative? The ineffectual status quo?

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Diuretic,

The one member, one vote system would rely on global majority, not 5 states deciding the fate of the world, therefore resulting in less damage rather than more. Surely a good thing? Is the majority not already forcing its will? Would the Palestinian issue not reach a speedier conclusion if the 'international community' put its weight behind it?

CNN.com - Palestinians condemn U.S. veto at U.N. - December 15, 2001
CNN.com - U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution on*Mideast - Jul 13, 2006

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

The U.N. shouldn't even exist. It is useless. If it wasn't useless then it would be a threat to national sovereignty. Hence it is a useless organization that should always remain so, or simply stop existing.

Tamper,

What is your alternative, no national discourse?

__________________
'They'd rather be alive than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards.' Private Eightball - Full Metal Jacket

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Right, and I say that if Bill Gates pays $3000 in taxes per year, that the full-time mother also pay $3000. Why should one get more of a vote than the other UNDER THE SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE SYSTEM WITH WHICH I DISAGREE, well, because one pays more. Two people pay for a meal in the same restaurant, one pays $4 the other pays $10, which one will get the better meal? Obviously the one that pays more since it follows that he ordered an expensive meal. My solution is to have everyone pay the same amount of money in tax money.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.