Naw, they don’t have any teeth. It’s more like a military alliance like NATO… they go around and beat the shit out of tiny governments that can’t defend themselves but they have zero real military power or taxing power, defining features of a government.
Clayton -
It’s like the Holy Roman Empire and Papacy of the Dark Ages rolled into one… It calls crusades, and it pretends that it’s above the state, while really it is just an extra crown for the most powerful state around.
By the way, I’m also a child of public school (unfortunately).
@gamma_rat: That’s definitely what they aim to be. However, I don’t think they attain to their own pretensions.
The power of the Church rested in its ability to control people’s minds. The Church could say to a non-conformist King, “cooperate with us or continue to deal with wave after wave of popular revolt” and it could offer a cooperative King, “formally submit to us and we will deliver your subjects to you meek and submissive like sheep ready for slaughter.” The UN has no such control mechanism so it really has nothing to offer the rulers that it wants to subjugate. What power does the UN have over people’s minds and convictions? In my opinion, precious little.
Yes, they would like climate consciousness and secularism to be the new world religion. They probably have their fingers in a wide variety of new-age, cults, occult, and so on. But these manufactured zeitgeists command very little power over people’s consciences precisely because they have almost no grounding in human morality and human nature. The essential dogmas of Christianity that are concerned with human behavior are at least recognizably human. This cannot be said for the new-fangled religions.
Clayton -
“Naw, they don’t have any teeth. It’s more like a military alliance like NATO… they go around and beat the shit out of tiny governments that can’t defend themselves but they have zero real military power or taxing power, defining features of a government.”
True, and the other Member States usually leave the shit-out-of-beating part to the US, lol. Most of the time ‘the UN’ isn’t one entity with a coherent opinion anyway. It’s simply the sum of the wills of its Member States, though obviously dominated by the so-called “Permanent Five” (US, UK, France, Russia, China). One thing that I find ironic and kind of sad, is how much of a fiscal hawk the US (along with Japan and sometimes the EU) is when dealing with UN spending. If only they were even remotely as tight with our money at home! But I suppose it’s because UN spending doesn’t buy any votes back home.
Yes, I suppose this is really more of an IMF speciality these days.
Neither is any government. It’s always a shifting alliance of individuals.
Yeah, most people think of the Security Council and maybe the General Assembly when they think “UN”, but it’s not just a building in New York that serves as a sort of global embassy… There is a gigantic, permanent, global bureaucracy involved too.
Is the United State_s_ of America just the sum of the wills of its member states? Was it not supposed to be, initially?
Sometimes I’ve felt like I should get a job in the public sector so that I technically don’t contribute any taxes to a violent system. It seems like the morally superior thing to do.
But then you’d be living off of money taken aggressively from others. That’s not so morally superior, if you ask me.
Indeed, that was a big part of the reason why I sought a job in the private sector. As a software engineer for the government-contracting division of a large company, the bulk of my salary - at least 80%, by my reckoning - came from taxes. That makes me a net tax consumer for the time being. I think it goes without saying that I hope to rectify this situation.
Well I work at NOAA, so I guess it counts. However, I am seeking opportunities outside of this, as the experience of the pubic sector is not good. I can evaluate what its like at a later time.
I agree that, in general terms, it is preferable to work in the private rather than in the public sector. However, I think a libertarian shouldn’t stop doing the job he likes because the state monopolizes the service (or makes it very difficult to have the same job in a private company).
Working on a secondary education degree to teach math/economics (basics, maybe I’d add a little Austrian economic perspective to ward off famous statist myths). I’m morally troubled but I don’t know if Virginia has private institutions (other than “Governor’s schools”) near my hometown, but before I dove into Austrian Economics/Anarchro-capitalism I wanted to teach mathematics at my old high school since it’s a subject I love and still want to after. Since VA a right-to-work state there won’t be obstacles to go through like unions.
+1 Dylan - a good reason not to work for the government is that it’s almost certainly soul-crushing work and deprives you of the opportunity to develop real marketable skills. I think it’s generally up to the individual’s conscience. I think people should bear in mind that, even in a private law society, there would be assassins, mercenaries, and so on.
That’s why I think it’s unfair to single out police or soldiers as being engaged in particularly aggressive government occupations - it’s the system itself that is aggressive and that needs to be changed. Security services, regional defense. etc. are all perfectly noble occupations if separated from tax-funding. The occupation of postal delivery is no less tainted by its tax-funded, monopoly status - it is the tax-funding and monopolization that taints the occupation, not the particular duties performed in the occupation. To the extent that those duties deviate from what would obtain in a free market, that is again the result of the prior aggression of taxation.
Clayton -
I worked for the Federal government for 10 years - intellectual property. Was not a libertarian prior to starting. Was a libertarian when I got out. Became a libertarian about halfway during that stint. In fact it was at work when I stumbled upon the mises.org website for the first time. I even participated in forums while at working for the Fed.
Did not believe in what I was doing, but still worked. Money was decent and job security was good. Quit the job when I saved up a good bit of money. Now just relaxing and sitting back. I may even consider going back to intellectual property should I return to the workforce. Maybe as a consultant.
No, but I would like to.
Haha, didn’t the irony of browsing Mises at work kill you? 
I too, became more of a Libertarian as I spent more time in the public sector. I still love my job though.
Yeah, it’s a weird moral question. Which is more moral, to benefit from a violent system, but not sustain it (with tax money), or to not benefit from it (sort of) but to sustain it with your efforts.
I simply hated the job. It was boring and monotonous. That was the main reason I left. If I do something again with IP, it won’t be working for someone else.
I work at a Financial Regulatory body that is often mistaken for a public institution if that counts.
I think it’s accurate to say that one is sustaining something only if he has the intention of doing so. Since I only relinquish money for taxes because I don’t want to be imprisoned (or worse), I don’t think I’m sustaining “the system”. The money I relinquish could be said to sustain it, but that requires a different, impersonal meaning for “sustain”. But that was the case even with my previous job.
You work at the Fed???
Clayton -