[Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

[devonin]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

I don't think elected leaders particularly are legitimate, and yes your response is largely trite and ignores a lot of issues involved.

i guess the point I was more trying to make here was "if you don't like it, you can leave. So by staying, you give if not tacit approval, at least tacit acceptance.

Yes, consensus of multiple courts. The availability of courts would hopefully mean any sane person wouldn't subscribe to a system with such draconian punishment. It would probably end up being the lesser sentence in any case.

I just think that the balance would actually be struck more in favour of incredibly draconian punishments. If I have no intention of ever commiting a crime, never stealing, never assaulting etc, why is it -not- in my best interest to support the strongest consequences for crime possible? It's a wonderful deterrant to the people who'd commit crimes on -me- if where I come from, the penalty for most crimes is death.

This could be attributed to its monopoly status as much as anything else.

Granted and withdrawn.

This would be almost impossible. You already forcibly subscribe to a police system which is a coercive monopoly. There's no discernable reason for you not to be able to afford police service that's less expensive (and more improved) by competition.

I'm not sure we can really judge how much the current police system actually "costs" even in terms of what percentage of our tax dollars go in that direction currently. it's one of those fundamental services that the government provides no matter what, so the price tag there is rather tough to pin down. But I grant you that as in virtually everything, competition makes for cheaper more efficient services, provided sufficient structure is in place to prevent price-fixing, and coalitions.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

I mean that when you remove all nations, and allow every service and concept to fall under the auspices of a free market, you're creating both a global economy and a global political system. With no nations, a company based out of what -was- a country can now offer its services everywhere on the globe. I was simply saying that you underestimate the extent to which plenty of existing groups whose only stranglehold on power is that they are the only game in town would oppose such a system.

That's fine. It just strikes me as annoying when I try to right something with the hope of anticipating and negating a criticism and then the criticism comes anyways.

I'll grant that it could be me being blind and not seeing where you address the point if you'll admit that it could be you not addressing the objection as completely as you think you do. I'll pay closer attention to the depths of the arguments in the future.

How did you come to this conclusion? Rothbard is an Anarcho-CAPITALIST. There's no trace of syndicalism in this perspective, no advocacy of public ownership. It's individualism combined with firm belief in the free market, along the lines of some more radical libertarian positions. Time constraints aren't important, as long as steps are progressive rather than regressive. For instance, anarcho-synidalists have the odd tendency to be very hypocritical by supporting the initial establishment of one world government to hypothetically support the transition to anarchy. This is a contradiction in terms.

Well, I said "looking towards" not "trying to form" I mean...you're looking at removing national borders entirely, removing political systems entirely, replacing everything with free market services, encouraging as much global competition in all aspects of life as you can (I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rothbard is going -way- past simply resolving defense issues this way, and would be perfectly happy seeing -everything- operate under this system.

it just seems to me that the system being described seems like it would function -best- in a highly sociallly aware, egalitarian society, where competition keeps all costs low, all efficiency high, and where different kinds of services would be encouraged to form package-deal style co-ops, where you get every service for one low low price.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

i guess the point I was more trying to make here was "if you don't like it, you can leave. So by staying, you give if not tacit approval, at least tacit acceptance.

The only available alternative would probably be to retreat from society altogether or to kill myself. I suppose these are options. Others have certainly taken them. I just hope that I can change things for the better maybe. I'm not responsible for the problems in the world, but I would like to help with the solutions.

I just think that the balance would actually be struck more in favour of incredibly draconian punishments. If I have no intention of ever commiting a crime, never stealing, never assaulting etc, why is it -not- in my best interest to support the strongest consequences for crime possible?

Because of the possibility of a loved one suffering this punishment, or the possibility of false conviction.

It's a wonderful deterrant to the people who'd commit crimes on -me- if where I come from, the penalty for most crimes is death.

Actually if you look at crime statistics and the history of criminology in general you'll find that basing punishment on a policy of deterence is pretty ineffectual, and in some cases accomplishes the opposite of its intended effect.

I'm not sure we can really judge how much the current police system actually "costs" even in terms of what percentage of our tax dollars go in that direction currently. it's one of those fundamental services that the government provides no matter what, so the price tag there is rather tough to pin down.

Not at all, budget information is easy to obtain. The problem comes in understanding the redistributive effect within the government budget. Graduated taxing implies that rich people pay for more of the system (although poor people pay a more important and damaging portion of their income). This ideally means everyone gets the same value of service despite disproportionate payment, but if you look at how funding is allocated you'll notice that at the state, city, and more local levels the affluence of the community in question corresponds to superior service there than elsewhere. Even this redistribution functions poorly.

But I grant you that as in virtually everything, competition makes for cheaper more efficient services, provided sufficient structure is in place to prevent price-fixing, and coalitions.

Price fixing agreements are actually ridiculously hard to maintain on the free market.

I mean that when you remove all nations, and allow every service and concept to fall under the auspices of a free market, you're creating both a global economy and a global political system. With no nations, a company based out of what -was- a country can now offer its services everywhere on the globe. I was simply saying that you underestimate the extent to which plenty of existing groups whose only stranglehold on power is that they are the only game in town would oppose such a system.

Believe me, I'm fully aware of the strength of entrenched interests. It's precisely that strength that's representative of the type of nonsense I would wish to do away with. Global economy, yes. Global political system? Only insofar as an economy can represent a political system.

I'll grant that it could be me being blind and not seeing where you address the point if you'll admit that it could be you not addressing the objection as completely as you think you do. I'll pay closer attention to the depths of the arguments in the future.

I'll concede the possibility.

Well, I said "looking towards" not "trying to form" I mean...you're looking at removing national borders entirely, removing political systems entirely, replacing everything with free market services, encouraging as much global competition in all aspects of life as you can (I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Rothbard is going -way- past simply resolving defense issues this way, and would be perfectly happy seeing -everything- operate under this system.

You aren't wrong. That's the gist of Anarcho-Capitalism. It rejects the neccessity of externality altogether in favor of the market.

it just seems to me that the system being described seems like it would function -best- in a highly sociallly aware, egalitarian society, where competition keeps all costs low, all efficiency high, and where different kinds of services would be encouraged to form package-deal style co-ops, where you get every service for one low low price.

Agreed, for the most part. I'm not sure how that represents a world which is especially communal though. The last part about co-ops may or may not be true. It would be impossible to know how the market would arrange itself without actually letting it do so. Anyways, if you read other libertarian leaning economists like Friedman I think you'll find a fair number of arguments that social awareness and equality tend to be increased by the free-market though. From both observation and interpretation there seems to be much more synergy between the free-market and an ideal social structure than conventional wisdom would seem to indicate.

[devonin]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Well, it seems we've fallen into a fairly reasonable consensus, you've cleared up pretty much all of my percieved misconceptions, and I'm happy to grant that on paper, such a system seems like it would be beneficial in a number of ways. However, you can't extend free-market and privitization unilaterally. There are plenty of necessary services which, if opened up to everyone, would be completely untenable as a free-market system.

I really do worry about the possible consequences of trying to apply this system globally, or even on the scale of current nations...especially insofar as defense, security and police. Have a look into the RPG game world 'shadowrun' some time. I mean obviously there are plenty of fantastical elements to it, but the world does function on the grounds that there are basically no nations, and everything is run by corporations providing services...quite an interesting take on the consequences of what the anarcho-capitalists propose.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

However, you can't extend free-market and privitization unilaterally. There are plenty of necessary services which, if opened up to everyone, would be completely untenable as a free-market system.

How do you figure?

I really do worry about the possible consequences of trying to apply this system globally, or even on the scale of current nations...especially insofar as defense, security and police. Have a look into the RPG game world 'shadowrun' some time. I mean obviously there are plenty of fantastical elements to it, but the world does function on the grounds that there are basically no nations, and everything is run by corporations providing services...quite an interesting take on the consequences of what the anarcho-capitalists propose.

This struck me as absurd initially, but then I figured the questionability of perspectives doesn't particularly differ based on format. I don't think Shadowrun cites its sources or is tied to any hands on research though. I might pick it up. As long as we're discussing the perspectives video games have to offer, you should check out the Metal Gear Solid series. It tends to lean against the perspectives I've been espousing, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.

[devonin]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

How do you figure?

Well...the tenability of a free market system is based entirely on the availability of options. Most people in politics today who want to "privatize" services using the same logic you have been for why that is better, seem to not notice that simply making a service private doesn't imply much of anything. Now a company owns it, charges you for it, and the intention is that they'll use that money to make the service more efficient, but if there's still no alternative, they're under no obligation to do so.

My case example is the road system. Attempts to privatize roads have happened before. The logic goes "We sell some stretch of road to a company, who charges you a toll to drive on it. The revenue generated will mean that the company can maintain the road better and more efficiently"

But if they decide to just pocket the money, you still don't have much of a recourse, when there's only the one road between A and B.

I say such a system is untenable because the way it -would- work would require say...10 roads, owned by 10 companies in parallel between every destination, so they could actively compete and so you would have actual options if you don't like how the road is being maintained.

There are just some infrastructural systems like that for which it is incredibly unrealistic or problematic to imagine a dozen companies all competeing with one another for your services. Further, I'm still not seeing what is to stop this free market system making like it already does today, and mergers, takeovers and conglomeration leaving us all with just the one big monopoly option anyway.

This struck me as absurd initially, but then I figured the questionability of perspectives doesn't particularly differ based on format. I don't think Shadowrun cites its sources or is tied to any hands on research though. I might pick it up. As long as we're discussing the perspectives video games have to offer, you should check out the Metal Gear Solid series. It tends to lean against the perspectives I've been espousing, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.

Well, Shadowrun is a table-top rpg not a video game, and as such has had dozens of sourcebooks, fiction novels and so on to build and develop the system in a way that even though being fictional is under no obligation to be especially -cited- is nevertheless a lot more well-thought out and internally consistant than most/all video game style worlds.

Also, I never said "This is how it will go" I said "Here's an interesting possible future where they went that direction, and it ended up bad" I wasn't aware you could research and properly cite the future :P

[GiR-]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

i say ya even though im from U.S.A i think they should

[devonin]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

i say ya even though im from U.S.A i think they should

Why?

[JangBoGo]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

but the UN is basically powerless.... I mean one of the major problems with the UN is the 5 permanant security council members.... if any one of them disagrees then nothing gets through even though the voting comes to 14-1. UN army is not going to happen unless all 5 members of the security council agree to have one....which will never happen. Just look at the US...when they wanted approval to get into Iraq... the UN said that is violating international law yet the US just moved into Iraq...and the UN did nothing about it...now if they have thier own army...? Would they dare to invade the US? Who spends over 600 billion dollars into military techonology...more than all of the worlds military spending combined? I think not.

[devonin]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

So...because the US is powerful enough to flout international convention, we should just never establish any international convention at all...what a wonderful plan.

Should we all just subjugate the international will to that of America? Let it dictate all world policy on all issues?

Just because the UN under either circumstance couldn't militarily stop -the US- doesn't necessarily mean they ought not to attempt to stop other people acting in violation of the rules they agreed to follow when they joined the UN.

I mean...just because my house wouldn't survive a rocket attack, I shouldn't maybe lock my door so the robbers can't get in?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Well...the tenability of a free market system is based entirely on the availability of options. Most people in politics today who want to "privatize" services using the same logic you have been for why that is better, seem to not notice that simply making a service private doesn't imply much of anything. Now a company owns it, charges you for it, and the intention is that they'll use that money to make the service more efficient, but if there's still no alternative, they're under no obligation to do so.

They're under no obligation, but they have strong incentive to take any measure which increases demand for their service because it increases profitability. This incentive does not exist in goverment. The sad truth that 9/10 of economists will gladly tell you is that "obligations" have little motivating effect, while money has profound motivating effects. Government has no incentive to provide better service, and their sense of obligation rarely compels them to very great lengths.

My case example is the road system. Attempts to privatize roads have happened before. The logic goes "We sell some stretch of road to a company, who charges you a toll to drive on it. The revenue generated will mean that the company can maintain the road better and more efficiently"

But if they decide to just pocket the money, you still don't have much of a recourse, when there's only the one road between A and B.

This is a classic argument. Indeed, we see it manifest particularly clearly in the infrastructure of railroads two centuries ago. The cost of long routes cross country were kept very low by competition, but on shot hauls between cities, where only one route was available, the cost was much higher, often even higher than the total cost of taking the number of long routes a person might find neccessary to get across country.

What protects the consumer then? Well, first of all it's important to realize that even in monopoly positions like this, cost of services will only neccessarily rise to the maximum amount the consumer can tolerate. It may be very expensive, but in order for the operator of the road to continue to make money they have to offer their services at a price the customer will buy. In terms of "pocketing the money", there's a very obvious set of mechanisms in place to discourage this. Firstly, any failure to maintain the capital investment in forms of roads decreases the earning power brought about by holding those roads. It does so by diminishing customers as well as demand. Even when customers have no choice but to use that road system, they're still provided with stronger incentive to maximize on their investment by poor service. Carpooling, as well as greater utilization of the vehicle in general (fewer trips, carrying more cargo, etc.) will lead to maximization of the customers utility, while the money the person in charge of the roads earns will diminish. There are all sorts of mechanisms like these in place that function perfectly. In the larger picture, any company that behaves like this will inevitably lose out, leaving the door open for a company which produces superior services and thus makes more money to purchase this property and capitalize on it in a superior fashion.

I say such a system is untenable because the way it -would- work would require say...10 roads, owned by 10 companies in parallel between every destination, so they could actively compete and so you would have actual options if you don't like how the road is being maintained.

Not at all, for the reasons described above. However in a free market there would be a tendency for as many roads as could be sustained by demand to pop up.

There are just some infrastructural systems like that for which it is incredibly unrealistic or problematic to imagine a dozen companies all competeing with one another for your services. Further, I'm still not seeing what is to stop this free market system making like it already does today, and mergers, takeovers and conglomeration leaving us all with just the one big monopoly option anyway.

I believe I've already responded to the first criticisms. In terms of the latter part, there isn't anything guarenteeing no monopoly arises, but there is a fundamental difference between our current government monopoly on services and a monopoly which arises as a result of a free market. The second comes about as a direct result of consumer demand, not as a result of force and threat of force. In the end though, even if the monopoly ultimately ends up behaving poorly, we're left in much the same place as we are now with our government monopoly. The incentives government has to refrain from completely screwing us over now will continue to exist even if anarcho-capitalism leads us back to government again.

This is all largely a moot point, however, as a free market monopoly would be absurdly difficult to accomplish, almost to the point of impossibility.

Well, Shadowrun is a table-top rpg not a video game, and as such has had dozens of sourcebooks, fiction novels and so on to build and develop the system in a way that even though being fictional is under no obligation to be especially -cited- is nevertheless a lot more well-thought out and internally consistant than most/all video game style worlds.

It might be. I don't do much classic pen and paper RPG-ing, so I'm really in no position to question this. Christianity (as with most theology) is largely well thought out and internally consistent though, but it doesn't make it truthful in any measure. Logic has to play second chair to empiricism.

Also, I never said "This is how it will go" I said "Here's an interesting possible future where they went that direction, and it ended up bad" I wasn't aware you could research and properly cite the future :P

Well no, but anticipating the future is a projection of an alternate model based on the assumptions of the current model. Understanding how the current model works is a neccessary prerequisite here, at least if we want our fiction to maintain maximum probability of becoming fact.

[devonin]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Fair enough indeed. Well said and well put.

[JangBoGo]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

So...because the US is powerful enough to flout international convention, we should just never establish any international convention at all...what a wonderful plan.

Should we all just subjugate the international will to that of America? Let it dictate all world policy on all issues?

Just because the UN under either circumstance couldn't militarily stop -the US- doesn't necessarily mean they ought not to attempt to stop other people acting in violation of the rules they agreed to follow when they joined the UN.

I mean...just because my house wouldn't survive a rocket attack, I shouldn't maybe lock my door so the robbers can't get in?

um yeah it was the US who created the UN.... so basically they have the control....such as the world bank of the UN....the president ALWAYS has to be American...dosen't that tell you something?

[Paulinsky007]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

That is stupid if they do.
The whole reason for the UN is to keep the peace not wage war

[devonin]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

um yeah it was the US who created the UN

It was the US who created the UN like it was the US who won world war 2.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

I don't think most people will appreciate the analogy, sadly.