Just looking for some thoughts on this:
Is the office of the United Nations compatible with Libertarian ideals?
I don’t know, what does the furniture look like?
But seriously: NO.
If a mafia is bad, a cartel of them is worse.
The United Natons resemble the Papacy during the “Avignonese Captivity”. In short their only function is to rubberstamp decisions taken by others or give an aura of moral high ground to the “secular” power.
There are also so many things wrong with the UN from a libertarian point of view… it’s funded with money extorted by the member nations using the threat of violence; it supports an agenda of coercion (for example forcing poorer nations to adopt policies decided elsewhere under the threat of sanctions or cutting off their “aid packages”) … and then there’s the issue of membership in the Security Council. While the US, Russia, Britain and China can all claim to have won WWII, what is France’s business there? France was military defeated and occupied by Germany. They may argue they had a government in exile and a resistance movement that kept fighting the Germans but so did Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium etc. Is this a rich boys’ club? If so where are Germany and Japan? Is this a nuclear armed nations’ club? If so where are India, Pakistan and Israel?
The United Nations is not only -not- libertarian, it’s virtually public enemy number one, because it has pretenses to global governance. If and when we get a libertarian nation going, it will be the UN we’re up against, because we will not seek legitimacy from them because in our eyes -they- have no legitimacy. That’s built in conflict already.
The UN is not the biggest concern at the present time. It is really USG who is the present vehicle of world empire and needs to be stopped. The Pentagon, not the UN, is occupying, toppling or surrounding as many as a dozen countries at the present moment and threatening to start WW3 in Iran. The Fed is printing unimaginable amounts of money and pulling every trick in the book - and inventing new ones - to mask the price inflationary effects until after the 2012 election.
The power of the UN is merely an extension of the power of USG and its allies (NATO, etc.) The League of Nations collapsed organically as the natural result of its own absurdity. The UN will do likewise if we stop the march to world government being major-domo’d by USG right now.
Clayton -
True, true, but long term I think the UN a bigger problem as they will claim worldwide jurisdiction, which the USG currently at least does not.
I doubt attacking Iran would start WWIII, tbh. It’s a weak regime without many friends. Who’s going to jump into the fray, Russia? No. North Korea? lol.
True. Sickening and true.
Well that’s my point really. But even if the USG falls or dies away or reduces in power significantly, the UN will remain a threat due to its presumption of worldwide legitimacy. It could become a much bigger threat than the USG. It could become world-government. And that would be a far bigger disaster than even the USG in its current transgressions.
it could be. I think everything is compatible with libertarianism (in the realm of reality) except orginal agression. *So in its present form no.
Are there certain actions the UN takes that you want to specifically ask if it could be libertarian?
We’ll have to disagree on this. In my view, an invasion of Iran will help Russia and China see past their differences far enough to cooperate in expelling the US from the Asian continent. Enemy of my enemy and all that.
Clayton -
Doubt China will be battling the US anytime soon. We’re so dependent on each other, that any type of antagonism between the two would be an economic and political disaster for both. Don’t forget that it’s when countries do not trade (ie Iran), that often leads to war.
Really? How is China dependent on the US? They need to buy up more of our debt? I don’t think so.
Clayton -
Bingo. If there must be States, better that they be as small and numerous and in as much competition with one another as possible.
Libertarianism is hostile to nationalism, but equally hostile to internationalism insofar as that means international statism. We would like to see the nation-state overcome, but not to be replaced with a world-state, that would be the worst of all possible outcomes from a libertarian perspective: no place to run.
If I were in control of US foreign policy, I would have the US withdraw immediately and unilaterally from all these alphabet soup agencies of the emerging world-state: WTO, IMF, WHO, UN, etc. Granting that they should exist at all, the foreign policy of nation-states should be unilateral free-trade, free-immigration, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nation-states. Contra some liberals/libertarians, I don’t think there is any need to seek free-trade treaties, or leagues, or organizations, etc. The best way to influence other nation-states would be setting a good example, with the hope that foreign peoples might take notice and demand that their own rulers imitate us - and when the rulers refuse, those budding foreign libertarians would be welcome to emigrate to the US.
clayton - thats kind of putting a spin on it isnt it? They are buying US securities because its one of the safest investments in the world and what they think is a good return on there money (not saying its good just safe).
There have been some articles on LRC over the past year that have suggested that China has actually been secretly dumping US securities and buying massive quantities of copper, iron and other commodities instead. If their leaders have half a brain cell between them, that’s what they’d be doing…
Clayton -
ya thats what i long suspected there plans would be (not exactly commodities, but anything outside the dollar), though i would think they own so much that secrecy would be almost impossible. Though going through 3rd party agents that dont know who the client (china) is.
Lets assume thats what they are doing why would they buy the securities to begin with? I assumed that it would be a total dump and teamed up with the russians, middle east, venezuela, ect type countries and make a play at the yuan being the world’s currency. This would also explain why the chinese are undervaluing their currency so foreign buyers can invest in it at a fraction of the cost and then get the bump when they correctly value it after the play.
Whatever the Chinese are doing its going to hurt the dollar big time. The dollar’s ony hope against a huge depreciation is if the Chinese are investing in the US without any plans… haha.
Libertarianism is hostile to nationalism
Hope I’m not opening a can of worms here but : Anarcho Capitalists are in favour of doing away with the state altogether - at the national and international levels. What about Minarchists? If they opt for a limited national state, does the same apply internationally?
Minarchists are Statists who feel too uncomfortable admitting it.
I look at it very simply. A State is something that:
- Forcibly claims money, property, or labor from people against their will.
- Can subject anyone to long-term and dangerous imprisonment.
- Will use on-the-spot coercien ranging from restraints to chemicals, beating, and killing.
- Is the ultimate arbitar of all the “rules” for the above and how to enforce them.
It’s that fine print that’s easy to miss. Minarchism acquiesces to the above, so it sounds like a sucker bet to me.
First of all better they all be independent from one another. A small state is well if it is independent, but if it is a satelitte of a larger state then not so much, as it is de facto part of a large empire anyway.
I would say: If there must be States, let them be just big enough to remain independent (and not an inch more).
Minarchism acquiesces to the above
Wow. That’s quite a statement, Groucho.
Tell me, in a Minarchist world, wouldn’t individuals have an eternal responsibility to limit government use of force?
But how can it be done. When you’re giving power to politicians what do the citizenry have left?
Limited government was the only bastion the minarchists had, and it has proven a failed policy for many reasons, unfortunately.
But how can it be done.
Hi Anemone,
That is a good question and one which I believe is a different question to, ‘How can it(limited government) be maintained?’ which to me is the more interesting question, as this is what we have yet to see achieved. (‘How it can be done?’ History shows how it was done… through freedom fighters winning battles to impose limits on government).
I forget who said this but ‘The price of freedom is eternal vigilence’. Just because we lose some battles or even the war doesn’t mean each individual’s inner desire for freedom is extinguished. It cannot be. So even if we hit rock bottom and end up in a slave state, we still have a responsibility to reclaim freedom and limit excessive use of force… next time round. My argument is that it’s no fun having to overthrow tyrannical regimes why do we have to go back to a slave state to correct problems we have now, the cause of which can be established without sacrificing everything we have fought for?
Try to look at the bigger picture. It may have failed to a large extent but that doesn’t mean the war is over… just that we have lost a battle or a series of battles. And we are still here with some freedom remaining. We can either make full use of that freedom or we can go all the way back and start again. Anyway, doing away with the state altogether would still leave us with the problem of self-defence in the absence of individual responsibility. So it really is about failing to maintain individual responsibility rather than choosing a state or not to have a state. The state can only grow beyond imposed limits by individuals relinquishing individual responsibility… responsibility chiefly for guarding over the scope of the state.