Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2007, 05:20 PM   #1
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Since the discussions in CT have been slowing up a little, I thought it might be a nice CT tradition to start up, for various posters to post essays etc that they've written over the years, as a catalyst for discussion.

It would be nice to see some lively discussion over the -content- and -ideas- of such papers, without getting bogged down in literary criticisms of style and formatting. In many cases, these essays would be from earlier in our academic careers, and we are probably more keenly aware of how much our writing used to stink than anyone commenting later, so try to keep things topical?

To get the ball rolling, this is an essay I wrote way back in my first year of university for a World Politics course, on the prospect of the United Nations forming its own standing army. My own opinion on the subject has changed since I wrote it, but I'm very curious to hear from others about it.

I apologise in advance for some anti-american bias, but I wrote that essay very shortly after the US invasion of Iraq, and in many places, critical evaluation of America was pretty rampant.

Quote:
Since its creation on 24 October 1945, the United Nations has been an organisation devoted to preserving global peace and unity. It seeks to do this through negotiation, discussion, and many other peaceful methods of conflict resolution. However, many times since World War Two, these peaceful solutions have not always worked. In cases such as those, the U.N. is occasionally forced to resort to more aggressive measures. The U.N. Peacekeeping forces have been involved in dozens of operations to preserve peace in conflict-ridden nations. In light of recent perceived ‘failures’ of the U.N to react in a way proper to the situation, particularly in Rwanda and Somalia, many nations and intellectuals within nations have been denouncing the U.N.’s effectiveness in maintaining world order. One proposed solution to this problem is the formation of a standing army under the direct control of the U.N Security council. Such a thing would allow the U.N. much greater leeway in their ability to intervene to stop conflicts before they can escalate, and stop large military nations such as the United States from becoming the ‘World’s Police.’

The concept of military forces under the control of the U.N Security Council is not a new one. Article 42 of the U.N. charter states that “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41” (referring to the placing of embargoes on non-complying nations,) “would be inadequate, or have proved to be inadequate it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. ” Further, Articles 43 and 45 make reference to the fact that it is “All members of the United Nations…undertake to make available to the Security Council…armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. ”

The fact that many global conflicts have been prevented or ended if already begun by the peacekeeping efforts of the U.N amply proves the need for such a force, but that doesn’t speak to the necessity of a standing army under the U.N.’s direct control. As it stands now, the Security Council needs to first get Council approval to send forces, and then attempt to raise forces from the member nations, often a laborious process.

The time it takes to raise a force large enough to act in a violent crisis often results in the loss of many unnecessary lives. The perfect example of this is the Rwandan genocide, where hostile Hutus attempted to exterminate the Tutsis. In an article in the U.S News & World Report discussing the pros and cons of raising a standing U.N. army, the author states “It took U.N. member states three months to organize a relief force. By then, most of the killing had been done. ” Had the U.N already possessed a large military force ready to be sent into action, those long months could have been bypassed, and countless lives saved. Instead 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed, and the United Nations suffered a huge blow to credibility as an international peacekeeping force.

However, one cannot simply say ‘so let the U.N. have its army’ or else the world could quite easily see the nation who happened to contribute the most forces, or else have the general in command ordering troops into areas where they do not belong. In an interview with a History and Political Science graduate of the University of Western Ontario, this writer received an opinion as to how a system such as a U.N. standing army should ideally function. “The force would be made up of volunteer soldiers from all member nations, the soldiers and commanders would rotate on a regular basis and would be fully funded and trained by the U.N. in peacekeeping duties. It would not be made up of full divisions or units from member-state standing armies as this could potentially cast doubt on the objectivity of forces involved. ”

In addition, by allowing volunteers from all member nations to essentially detach from their own nation’s standing army to serve in the U.N. peacekeeping force, this would minimise the clout large military nations have now in deciding where and how to allow the United Nations to act. Two of the countries that contributed most helpfully in Rwanda were Ghana and Tunisia, neither of which are large nations economically, militarily nor politically as compared to the permanent Security Council members. Such a broad based group from which to collect forces would also do much to increase the credibility and objectivity of U.N. peacekeeping efforts while allowing smaller nations such as Ghana and Tunisia to make worthwhile contributions to the peacekeeping effort without constantly serving in the shadow of the United States, Canada and other large peacekeeping nations.

One of the problems facing the United Nations while it attempts to gather forces for peacekeeping efforts is the need for ‘coalition building’ that is, gathering enough member nations interested in giving forces and supplies that making an intervention becomes logistically possible. This was the main problem the United States faced while gathering support for actions in Iraq. Although it had the infrastructure to launch its invasion on its own, which is what it ended up doing with the aid of Great Britain and Mexico, had the U.N. possessed a standing army, and had the member nations agreed to act in Iraq, the Council could have had troops on the ground much faster.

This quick response time and broad base also allows the U.N. to take power away from the world’s ‘police force’ namely, the United States. As a nation, the U.S.A has acted outside the guidelines of the U.N. charter in its unjustified invasion of Iraq. In a case such as that, the proper duty for the U.N would in fact have been to intercede on behalf of Iraq to prevent an unlawful military action. But since the prime contributor of forces to peacekeeping efforts is the United States, the U.N. either wouldn’t be able to muster the necessary forces to intervene, or else would have had to try ordering American peacekeeping troops to enter combat against their own home nation, another situation that a broad, multi-nationally based standing army would avoid.

Perhaps the greatest contribution a standing United Nations army could make to world peace and stability is its power as a deterrent. Many conflicts in history have been avoided by the mere application of non-violent force. Moving forces into neighbouring countries to stop would-be invaders from following their plans could easily make a would-be warlord think twice. Should a nation like Nazi Germany again arise in Europe, such an army would simply deploy to the area to make it clear that no aggressive move would be tolerated.

In the same vein, a military force composed entirely of disparate nationals can be the ultimate in neutral force. With generals and commanders who rotate on a set basis, and forces from any and all of the well over 150 member nations of the U.N. such a force could move into any nation without causing fears of invasion or undue interference, allowing the U.N. diplomats time to get in and attempt to resolve touchy situations before they can spark. A perfect example of this is the current state of affairs in South Korea, where invasion fears by Kim Jong Il are preventing the U.N. from entering negotiations with his government to resolve his nuclear weapon threats.

Since its creation, the United Nations has striven to be a force for peace and stability in the world. While its peacekeeping forces are more effective than no interference at all, the inability of the U.N. to bring forces to bear in an appropriate and timely manner, to work around the inevitable foot dragging and red tape generated by requests for military forces, or to create a neutral force that should be tolerated if not welcomed in any crisis situation are all obviated by the creation of a standing army under the direct control of the Security Council.

Works Cited
1. Morrison, Brent. B.His. Interview. Monday November 3rd 2003
2. Ruse, Austin. Clinton Calls for U.N. Army Newsmax Sept 6, 2000
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/6/11264
3. United Nations. Charter
4. United Nations. Press Conference on Report of Rwanda Inquiry
Reprinted by Africa Policy Information Centre 16 December 1999
5. United Nations. Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda
Reprinted by Africa Policy Information Centre 15 December 1999
6. U.S. News & World A United Nations Army? US News & World Report v121 PG 45 August 5 1996
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2007, 11:55 PM   #2
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

I'd complain of the unsupported bias towards interventionism in this paper, the unexplained sense that there are "legitimate" and "illegitimate" acts of intervention, and the fact that because the UN operates by political economy it introduces new sets of problems, but first of all I'm not sure I'd want to get into the resulting argument with you and secondly I'm in the process of reading certain perspectives which are making my beliefs on the subject less certain.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 12:11 AM   #3
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
I'd complain of the unsupported bias towards interventionism in this paper, the unexplained sense that there are "legitimate" and "illegitimate" acts of intervention, and the fact that because the UN operates by political economy it introduces new sets of problems
Try including all of that in a first-year paper for which I was already going over my assigned word limit. I -pointed out- at the top of the post that this was an early-year paper in a politics class.

You need only to ask me to expand on whether or not I feel intervention is a necessary thing, and whether I feel there are legitimate or illegitimate acts of intervention, and I can do so. You don't need to get hostile about the fact that there are "Unsupported" opinions in the paper, but then further down decide to simply get in the digs but not ask for an expansion of the reasoning.

Quote:
but first of all I'm not sure I'd want to get into the resulting argument with you
Erm...this is the Critical Thinking forum, I thought we discussed and debated here, not argued. Also, I posted this -To Stimulate Discussion- To say "i'd respond to this but I don't want to have to respond to your responses" rather defeats the purpose.

So you read the paper and decide what, that several years ago, coming into my first year of university I was naive and idealistic? What on earth makes you think I'd take that observation personally or as an insult?
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 12:21 AM   #4
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

What makes you think I meant it as an insult? I'm not even sure how what I posted could constitute an insult. I didn't mean to come off as dismissive, it's just that I'm reading through Rothbard right now, as well as some socialist perspective, and I'm not sure I've been able to incorporate my readings well enough yet for me to actually take a coherent or strong position in the discussion.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 01:00 AM   #5
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Well, you pointed out what you percieved my stance to be in a fairly critical and dismissive way, so it was at least possible that part of the reason you didn't want to respond was because you thought I'd take it personally, but I'd hope by now it would be obvious that I make it a habit of not taking things personally in a discussion forum.

I posted the whole "Let's post essays" concept with wanting to hear your response specifically, as a matter of fact. So please, don't withhold it on my account.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 01:33 AM   #6
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Ok. I'll try to address it tommorow then.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2007, 12:36 PM   #7
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Ok, basically this is all I can think of in response.

I haven't studied the UN, so I'm not sure exactly how it works. It seems there are member nations, but that the UN considers itself to be in a position to intervene even in the affairs of non-member nations.

Problems: This paper advocates UN military intervention in circumstances of great conflict, but rejects the legitimacy of US military intervention. Now, the UN may represent a larger portion of the earth, may be less biased towards any one perspective, and my function somewhat democratically, but what does this make UN intervention except an instance of tyranny of the majority rather than a minority such as the US (assuming the nature of the intervention remains the same except for the party engaging in it).

Secondly, the methods the UN military would employ are questionable, as are the possible effects of organizing the military along the lines of UN ideals. This latter part you pointed out yourself by suggesting in the event of intervention against a member nation, soldiers in the peacekeeping forces from that nation could pose a problem.

Basically, and this is getting a little abstract here, the use of interventionary force against any party cannot be justified by conceptions of "legitimacy". Power tends to be something many Philosophers, Economists, etc. think of as a neccessary monopoly. However, from an Anarcho-capitalist perspective such as that of Rothbard in Power and Market, this isn't the case. Here is a quick rundown of how the UN system compares to Rothbards ideals of power distribution:

* To the extent to which UN member nations accept the use of the UN in intervention within UN member nations, including themselves, this represents a somewhat voluntary form of subscription to the services the UN provides. The main difference and problem comes from the fact that it is the governments of these countries which are in the position to deal with the UN, and these governments themselves, even when operated democratically, do not maximize economic utility because not all citizens would willingly subscribe to these services. This means that there is some number of discrete units of demand not met.

* Interventionism stands in direct opposition to voluntary contract. Now, the criticism to this is "no ****", but this is a kneejerk response made in ignorance of the bigger picture. The use of force will almost always represent a violation of the will of the person it is used against, and thus it stands in contrast to voluntary contract; however, the point of using voluntary contract in determining distribution of force is that it minimizes infringement upon voluntary contract.

Getting back to the point at hand, it is true that at least in the case of member nations there is a fair degree of permissability of intervention within their affairs by the UN (See first bullet to see where the gaps come in). Nations and peoples external to this system though shouldn't neccessarily be subjected to it. Now, the response to this usually takes the following course:

"A system which would permit acts of genocide and wholesale slaughter is impermissable. Even if the use of interventionary force also represents violence and coercion, it represents a minimization of such."

I have two responses to this. The first response, which is perverse in the eyes of most, is that human rights are deontologically negative. They exist only where something could be taken away from a person (their life, property, etc.); they only include the right to have things not happen to you. I don't think most people would take issue with this statement, but it's the next part they would find perverse.

Provision of defense, being a service, is not a negative right. The idea of providing force on the basis of negative rights is a failure in language, because this provision is an assumption of a positive right. That something is entitled to be given. There's an intersection here of both emotion and conception, so I don't blame people for getting cross-eyed, but nevertheless I am of the belief this doesn't hold up.

Response two, which is likely more tolerable, consists firstly of pointing out the failure of the UN to actually intervene when things such as Genocide take place. There are sadly current examples of this today. It consists secondly of pointing out that a free market system of providing for police services could easily respond to things such as genocide. There isn't a thing in the world that more demand exists for than safety from death. In acts of genocide, each individual who is being killed has this demand. Now, it certainly is true that in places like africa, these people are extremely impoverished. However, that's no barrier to provision of services. An advancement of services could be made, to be payed off at a later date. In cases of genocide it would likely be easier to pay this off because you're dealing with a consolidated group.

Yes, this way of contextualizing provision of services will also likely strike some people as perverse, but the fact is it would work, and it would likely work better than any existing system. I'd hope most people would agree that salvation at the hands of selfishness is better than death under the auspices of charity.

Last edited by Kilroy_x; 04-30-2007 at 12:40 PM..
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 01:42 PM   #8
MEGABILL
FFR Player
 
MEGABILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DDR Land
Posts: 4
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

The general idea of the United Nations having a standing army is kind of pointless to me. The United Nations' purpose is to gather the nations of the world to collaborate ideas, rules, and make general agreements based on common ethical ground. Enforcement is carried out through specially trained inspectors who report information back to the collective of nations.

A decision of war is made based on the collective of nations agree that some nation, or, when applicable, terrorist organization, is out of line to the extent that those nations ally as a whole and declare war using their own resources. The nations then act on their own will as agreed on by the standards they set themselves.

Therefore, at this point, what would be the purpose of the United Nations sending in their own "army" when the collective of countries can already do so themselves?

Additionally, all contributors of the UN would have to supply their own troops and other resources to provide for this army (where else would they come from?). Should one of the nations defect from the UN, what would happen if that country was contributing some significant portion of the resources for the UN army? The army would fall apart!

Just my $0.02
MEGABILL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 02:36 PM   #9
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
I haven't studied the UN, so I'm not sure exactly how it works. It seems there are member nations, but that the UN considers itself to be in a position to intervene even in the affairs of non-member nations.
Right up until that last bit. The UN only enacts such measures on member-states. However, the UN contains basically every nation on earth barring some very few exceptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...ns_Members.PNG

Quote:
Problems: This paper advocates UN military intervention in circumstances of great conflict, but rejects the legitimacy of US military intervention. Now, the UN may represent a larger portion of the earth, may be less biased towards any one perspective, and my function somewhat democratically, but what does this make UN intervention except an instance of tyranny of the majority rather than a minority such as the US (assuming the nature of the intervention remains the same except for the party engaging in it).
By being a member nation of the UN, you agree to abide by the decisions made by the UN as regards the safety, security and unity of the world. If the United Nations says that inappropriate actions are taking place, and you must either submit to the decision of the UN, or remove yourself from the UN, and you elect to remain a part of the UN but not change the actions deemed then I se a -much- stronger argument for legitimate intervention in that case.

Whereas a random nation deciding unilaterally to just intervene militarily in another nations affairs is more accurately called an invasion. Put more simply: I agreed by joining the UN to follow the UNs rules, I did not agree to follow the USAs rules.

Quote:
Basically, and this is getting a little abstract here, the use of interventionary force against any party cannot be justified by conceptions of "legitimacy".
I'd argue that when you join an organization that has clear rules, and clear consequences for disregarding those rules, if you elect to remain a part of that organization, you are gving tacit permission for the consequences of disregarding the rules.

Quote:
* To the extent to which UN member nations accept the use of the UN in intervention within UN member nations, including themselves, this represents a somewhat voluntary form of subscription to the services the UN provides. The main difference and problem comes from the fact that it is the governments of these countries which are in the position to deal with the UN, and these governments themselves, even when operated democratically, do not maximize economic utility because not all citizens would willingly subscribe to these services. This means that there is some number of discrete units of demand not met.

* Interventionism stands in direct opposition to voluntary contract. Now, the criticism to this is "no ****", but this is a kneejerk response made in ignorance of the bigger picture. The use of force will almost always represent a violation of the will of the person it is used against, and thus it stands in contrast to voluntary contract; however, the point of using voluntary contract in determining distribution of force is that it minimizes infringement upon voluntary contract.
See again though, by -being- a part of the UN you are in fact subscribing to the services the UN offers. Among those services are cases of censure, embargo and intervention on member nations acting outside the bounds of acceptable international behavior.

Quote:
Nations and peoples external to this system though shouldn't neccessarily be subjected to it.
I agree completely. But since Afghanistan has been a member nation since 1946, Iraq since 1945, Iran since 1945, the Koreas since 1991, and Rwanda since 1962, I see no reason why the rules of the system couldn't have been more accurately applied by the system instead of one nation outside of it.

Quote:
...human rights are deontologically negative. They exist only where something could be taken away from a person...Provision of defense, being a service, is not a negative right. The idea of providing force on the basis of negative rights is a failure in language, because this provision is an assumption of a positive right. That something is entitled to be given.
So if you are having a group attempt to take away your life, you don't have the right to keep your life? You don't have the right to get help in that task if you aren't able?

Quote:
Response two, which is likely more tolerable, consists firstly of pointing out the failure of the UN to actually intervene when things such as Genocide take place.
Well, there's a bit of a Prime Directive style logic being applied here though. The UN would and has responded to conflict, war, and genocide that cross national borders. If your country tries to exterminate my country, the UN will often at least get involved if not intervene directly. The grey area comes in on the subject of civil wars. If factions within a country are in conflict, unless only one side is committing egregious civil rights offenses, it seems to usually be the policy of the UN to not interfere inside single nations.

Quote:
It consists secondly of pointing out that a free market system of providing for police services could easily respond to things such as genocide.
Oof...allowing international mercenaries to get directly involved in the affairs of other nations skirts perilously close to a justification of terrorism internationally. Who oversees these for-hire groups to ensure that they are fighting a "proper" war, and not resorting to terrorism, chemical or biological warfare etc etc? If their status became in any way legitimized, every terrorist organization would just pick up a membership card, and have yet one more layer of legitimacy cloaking them.

Quote:
Yes, this way of contextualizing provision of services will also likely strike some people as perverse, but the fact is it would work, and it would likely work better than any existing system. I'd hope most people would agree that salvation at the hands of selfishness is better than death under the auspices of charity.
I'll gladly pay you tuesday for an f-18 today.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 02:40 PM   #10
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEGABILL View Post
Therefore, at this point, what would be the purpose of the United Nations sending in their own "army" when the collective of countries can already do so themselves?
How long does it take, once a decision to act has been made, for the collective armed forces of a dozen nations to mobilze, get into position, integrate their command structures, plan logistics and actually get into the field? The answer is "A hell of a lot longer than it would take a pre-existing UN army to do the same thing"

Quote:
Additionally, all contributors of the UN would have to supply their own troops and other resources to provide for this army (where else would they come from?). Should one of the nations defect from the UN, what would happen if that country was contributing some significant portion of the resources for the UN army? The army would fall apart!
Well, one assumes if this were something the UN were planning on doing, they would be bright enough to realise that with 192 member nations, they don't exactly need a huge investment from any one particular country.

It is also the case that since not all nations have a standing army themselves, or much of one if they do, that contributions could come in a variety of ways. I imagine for example, that the US might not like the idea of putting -any- of its troops under the command of a non-US authority, and might elect instead to contribute equipment, supplies, and funding.

I was never suggesting, nor were the people who wrote the articles I referenced, that the member nations would just send 1,000 guys each, and expect them to cohere in a month into a peak fighting force.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 03:47 PM   #11
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Right up until that last bit. The UN only enacts such measures on member-states. However, the UN contains basically every nation on earth barring some very few exceptions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...ns_Members.PNG
Ah.

Quote:
By being a member nation of the UN, you agree to abide by the decisions made by the UN as regards the safety, security and unity of the world. If the United Nations says that inappropriate actions are taking place, and you must either submit to the decision of the UN, or remove yourself from the UN, and you elect to remain a part of the UN but not change the actions deemed then I se a -much- stronger argument for legitimate intervention in that case.
It is stronger, but it isn't perfect for the reason I've already stated. The government of any country is far from a perfect representation of the demands of the citizens of that country. The market fills gaps in demand that even the democratic system by nature cannot. On the market, if you didn't want to pay for a certain system of government, for certain police services etc. you wouldn't have to do so. The rules of supply and demand would ensure everyone only produced the products most valued and only bought the products most valued.

Quote:
Whereas a random nation deciding unilaterally to just intervene militarily in another nations affairs is more accurately called an invasion. Put more simply: I agreed by joining the UN to follow the UNs rules, I did not agree to follow the USAs rules.
Yes, this makes sense generally. See above, however.

Quote:
I'd argue that when you join an organization that has clear rules, and clear consequences for disregarding those rules, if you elect to remain a part of that organization, you are gving tacit permission for the consequences of disregarding the rules.
Sure. But at the same time it's government officials that are electing to remain part of the organization, not Joe Shmo who has no opinion on the UN, or John Smith who is opposed to the way the UN operates.

Quote:
See again though, by -being- a part of the UN you are in fact subscribing to the services the UN offers. Among those services are cases of censure, embargo and intervention on member nations acting outside the bounds of acceptable international behavior.
See above.

Quote:
I agree completely. But since Afghanistan has been a member nation since 1946, Iraq since 1945, Iran since 1945, the Koreas since 1991, and Rwanda since 1962, I see no reason why the rules of the system couldn't have been more accurately applied by the system instead of one nation outside of it.
Fair point.

Quote:
So if you are having a group attempt to take away your life, you don't have the right to keep your life? You don't have the right to get help in that task if you aren't able?
That's nonsense. How did you come to think I was suggesting that? You have the right to keep your life, the right to defend yourself, and the right to seek help if you aren't able to defend yourself, but you don't have the right to be provided with help. If someone wants to help you Gratis, that's fine. If someone wants to make you pay for help, that's also fine. You aren't entitled to free protection services, basically. Defense is a commodity, not an entitlement.


Quote:
Well, there's a bit of a Prime Directive style logic being applied here though. The UN would and has responded to conflict, war, and genocide that cross national borders. If your country tries to exterminate my country, the UN will often at least get involved if not intervene directly. The grey area comes in on the subject of civil wars. If factions within a country are in conflict, unless only one side is committing egregious civil rights offenses, it seems to usually be the policy of the UN to not interfere inside single nations.
This is a senseless policy. It's precisely this type of pointless respect for political boundaries at even the highest of costs that demonstrates the ineptitude of a political solution, rather than a market solution which would ignore boundaries.


Quote:
Oof...allowing international mercenaries to get directly involved in the affairs of other nations skirts perilously close to a justification of terrorism internationally. Who oversees these for-hire groups to ensure that they are fighting a "proper" war, and not resorting to terrorism, chemical or biological warfare etc etc? If their status became in any way legitimized, every terrorist organization would just pick up a membership card, and have yet one more layer of legitimacy cloaking them.
It's quite simple actually. The market for defense can be assumed almost A priori to be huge. Terrorist organizations would be groups that legitimate defense organizations would fight. In this respect there wouldn't be much difference between current organization of power and market organization. However, you're also missing out on a number of things. First of all, in the type of system Rothbard proposes, there are no governments, therefore there are no "nations". The idea of "nations" being distinct entities with affairs is silly anyways. Nations are simply groups of people. The existence of world governments are by definition a barrier to free trade and communication between individuals.

There would be limited to no demand for terrorism, and services provided would counteract terrorism. There would be limited to no demand for chemical and biological warfare because the costs for business in both image and money (ultimately all represented as monetary loss) would be horrible. Greed would prevent or at least minimize perceived and real unethical behavior as long as those with power remain subservient to market forces.

Who oversees them? The same forces that always do in the market. On top of that, private review companies would probably form to analyze the defense providers, much as there are currently consumer reports that inform subscribers about the quality of products, their negative sides, etc. allowing them to make their own decisions about what to buy. Defense companies that had a great deal of controversy or illegitimacy about them would inevitably fail and become unable to exercize power any longer.

A justification of terrorism? Of course not, defense is not synonomous with offense.

The worst that could happen, at least according to Rothbard, if this contextualization of power and market is incorrect, is that some set of defense companies will re-assert power in the same way that government does today, meaning we will just end up with what we have now once again.
Quote:
I'll gladly pay you tuesday for an f-18 today.
Right. This is a form of contract that would undoubtedly occur if the free market handled defense. You would probably end up paying interest though.

Last edited by Kilroy_x; 05-1-2007 at 03:50 PM..
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 04:25 PM   #12
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
It is stronger, but it isn't perfect for the reason I've already stated. The government of any country is far from a perfect representation of the demands of the citizens of that country.
Well, that's a bit shady if you ask me. It's the same response I have to people who say "You can't judge America by the actions of President Bush" But they have free democratic elections, direct state representation in the house of representatives and the senate, and have safety valves in place such that if enough people state the government is no longer representing what the people want, they can actually just remove the government legally and elect a new one. So yes, I think you -must- act as though a legiteimately elected government represents the people who legitimately elected it, unless you are advocating completely doing away with all governments (which is seems you do, below, but that's a seperate topic we ought to make a thread for)

Quote:
Sure. But at the same time it's government officials that are electing to remain part of the organization, not Joe Shmo who has no opinion on the UN, or John Smith who is opposed to the way the UN operates.
Hrm...it's a good point, insofar as remaining a part of the UN just seems like such an obvious policy that I've yet to ever hear a politician running on a platform that even mentions the UN, but it's certainly possible in democratic nations that if there was widespread distaste for the UN, that someone could run for office on a platform of removing the country. I'm pretty positive that any legitimately elected leader can simply withdraw from the UN in a fairly straightforward manner.

Quote:
but you don't have the right to be provided with help. If someone wants to help you Gratis, that's fine. If someone wants to make you pay for help, that's also fine. You aren't entitled to free protection services, basically. Defense is a commodity, not an entitlement.
Yes...and if one of the tenets of being a member nation of the UN is "If you are under unlawful attack from outside your country, we -will- offer help gratis" then the issue is moot, because there's just a standing offer of free help.

Quote:
This is a senseless policy. It's precisely this type of pointless respect for political boundaries at even the highest of costs that demonstrates the ineptitude of a political solution, rather than a market solution which would ignore boundaries.
But if you hire outside nationals to come defend you, so long as the UN exists they could potentially be obligated to interfere in that action, since wartime activities were being perpetrated in a nation by foreign nationals. I'm not sure the two systems could possibly co-exist, and while you seem therefore to say "Right, so we should ditch the inefficient, slow, problematic UN system"(Which is basically what happened to the League of Nations of which the UN was supposed to be the functional successor, I'm not entirely convinced that the UN doesn't serve a valuable enough international purpose to talk about disbanding it entirely.

Quote:
First of all, in the type of system Rothbard proposes, there are no governments, therefore there are no "nations". The idea of "nations" being distinct entities with affairs is silly anyways. Nations are simply groups of people. The existence of world governments are by definition a barrier to free trade and communication between individuals.
Ok..so step one is "Dissolve all national governments, replace them with ________"? I mean, with no central political authority, you're just asking for every currently existing country to erupt into civil war, or replace a democratically elected government with some self-appointed oligarchy or dictatorship... I think by and large, people -like- being part of a nation. The security and quality of living inherant in having national and state/province/county infrastructure managing the country, ensuring that food, medicine, shelter etc etc are maintained at reasonable standards isn't something to consider tossing aside lightly.

Quote:
There would be limited to no demand for terrorism, and services provided would counteract terrorism.
You've lost me there. So my militant group wants to overthrow your government, so we start commiting acts of terrorism. You call in some for-hire defense group, they mobilize and start trying to defend your country...and run into the exact same problems dealing with terrorism and guerilla warfare that every other nation has had to deal with. What's the difference between my terrorism being carried out on your country with its own army, and my terrorism being carried out on your country with the army you hired to come in? If anything, you'd be worse off because the imports don't know the land at all. It would be Vietnam after Vietnam all over the world.

I mean, by that same token, a UN army wouldn't fare any better necessarily, but I'd rather an ineffective defense that came for free than an ineffective defense that came at the cost of my GDP.

Quote:
Who oversees them? The same forces that always do in the market. On top of that, private review companies would probably form to analyze the defense providers, much as there are currently consumer reports that inform subscribers about the quality of products, their negative sides, etc. allowing them to make their own decisions about what to buy. Defense companies that had a great deal of controversy or illegitimacy about them would inevitably fail and become unable to exercize power any longer.
So a finely trained, well equipped army...not tied to any nation, free to move about the world and fight for anyone who will pay them...and suddenly a few bad reports means nobody wants to hire them anymore...what do you suppose such a group might do? Settle down in the Falkland islands and raise sheep?

Quote:
The worst that could happen, at least according to Rothbard, if this contextualization of power and market is incorrect, is that some set of defense companies will re-assert power in the same way that government does today, meaning we will just end up with what we have now once again.
So, we disband all countries, give private military groups the ability to simply go carry out warfare anywhere they like for whomever pays them what they ask...and the worst case he can come up with is "We go back to the way things were"?! I'd say a closer worst-case would be "The world gets carved up anew, in a series of bloody conflicts lasting decades"
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 05:46 PM   #13
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Well, that's a bit shady if you ask me. It's the same response I have to people who say "You can't judge America by the actions of President Bush" But they have free democratic elections, direct state representation in the house of representatives and the senate, and have safety valves in place such that if enough people state the government is no longer representing what the people want, they can actually just remove the government legally and elect a new one. So yes, I think you -must- act as though a legiteimately elected government represents the people who legitimately elected it, unless you are advocating completely doing away with all governments (which is seems you do, below, but that's a seperate topic we ought to make a thread for)
Democratic elections do not represent the entire populace. The represent the majority of the populace. Politicians are also often elected not because they share the opinions of the Majority, but because they can market their image to the taste of the Majority. Someone is always transgressed by government, even in democracy. Government does not represent anywhere near perfectly the opinions or values of its citizens, even in democracy.

Quote:
Hrm...it's a good point, insofar as remaining a part of the UN just seems like such an obvious policy that I've yet to ever hear a politician running on a platform that even mentions the UN, but it's certainly possible in democratic nations that if there was widespread distaste for the UN, that someone could run for office on a platform of removing the country. I'm pretty positive that any legitimately elected leader can simply withdraw from the UN in a fairly straightforward manner.
This is true. But then what of the minority of people who wanted to retain the services of the UN?

Quote:
Yes...and if one of the tenets of being a member nation of the UN is "If you are under unlawful attack from outside your country, we -will- offer help gratis" then the issue is moot, because there's just a standing offer of free help.
Perhaps this is true. The nature of the contract remains somehwat silly though, and the point remains important for the framework of how we address the issue even if in this specific case it is moot.

Quote:
But if you hire outside nationals to come defend you, so long as the UN exists they could potentially be obligated to interfere in that action, since wartime activities were being perpetrated in a nation by foreign nationals.
Again, borders represent a pointless economic and social restriction.

Quote:
I'm not sure the two systems could possibly co-exist, and while you seem therefore to say "Right, so we should ditch the inefficient, slow, problematic UN system"(Which is basically what happened to the League of Nations of which the UN was supposed to be the functional successor, I'm not entirely convinced that the UN doesn't serve a valuable enough international purpose to talk about disbanding it entirely.
Yes, this is what I would say. It's not that the UN doesn't create value, just that the alternate system would create more.



Quote:
Ok..so step one is "Dissolve all national governments, replace them with ________"?
Rothbard suggests the court system and the police system would be replaced with subscription services to court and police services. Checks and balances would be created by the market, probably in the form of multiple court consensus requirements for conviction. Rulings which were judged to be wise would bring the court more customers, rulings which were unfavorable would lead to lack of customers.

Quote:
I mean, with no central political authority, you're just asking for every currently existing country to erupt into civil war, or replace a democratically elected government with some self-appointed oligarchy or dictatorship...
This is silly. What motivation is there for war? Most wars are over dispproportionate and insurmountable class distinctions, not ideology. Ideology usually only comes into play when the class distinctions occur along ideological lines.

Quote:
I think by and large, people -like- being part of a nation. The security and quality of living inherant in having national and state/province/county infrastructure managing the country, ensuring that food, medicine, shelter etc etc are maintained at reasonable standards isn't something to consider tossing aside lightly.
The consideration isn't made lightly. The argument is that the market could provide these services better, and without the inherent "someone always loses" effect of government. The cost of government intervention has been shown in all economic affairs to reduce the quality of food, medicine, shelter etc. no matter what the policy or intentions. Why should security be any different?

Quote:
You've lost me there. So my militant group wants to overthrow your government, so we start commiting acts of terrorism. You call in some for-hire defense group, they mobilize and start trying to defend your country...and run into the exact same problems dealing with terrorism and guerilla warfare that every other nation has had to deal with. What's the difference between my terrorism being carried out on your country with its own army, and my terrorism being carried out on your country with the army you hired to come in?
My army is financed only by people willing to pay the costs. People don't go to jail for not paying taxes. People aren't shot for refusing to join the military. Instead they're offered as much money as members of our "country" are willing to pay. The elimination of boundaries would mean an absence of potential for attack against political entities. What would the point of terrorism against random members of the total populace be?

Quote:
If anything, you'd be worse off because the imports don't know the land at all. It would be Vietnam after Vietnam all over the world.
I don't see how. First of all, you make a silly assumption in thinking defense companies from any one geographical area would be especially prevelent, or lack of defense companies would occur along geographical lines. Secondly you think along lines of existing political structures. "National" consolidation would be non-existent, or at least in such radically different form tht none of these criticisms would hold.

Quote:
I mean, by that same token, a UN army wouldn't fare any better necessarily, but I'd rather an ineffective defense that came for free than an ineffective defense that came at the cost of my GDP.
Oh, but in the market first of all there is incentive to improve, and secondly this GDP cost is imposed on all individuals who wish to acquire some ability to use force. A market solution is by definition less likely to be inneffective, at least on average.

Quote:
So a finely trained, well equipped army...not tied to any nation, free to move about the world and fight for anyone who will pay them...and suddenly a few bad reports means nobody wants to hire them anymore...what do you suppose such a group might do? Settle down in the Falkland islands and raise sheep?
Whatever is most profitable and most desirable, I imagine. Unless they're all just hopelessly addicted to the defense industry I don't see what problem would arise, and as long as no barriers are made to entry to the field, the individual members could just join another company. The fact is, they would probably lose their equipment if they went out of business because the equipment represents most of their capital, meaning yes they would have training, no they would not be a band of unemployed gun toting mercenaries.

Quote:
So, we disband all countries, give private military groups the ability to simply go carry out warfare anywhere they like for whomever pays them what they ask...and the worst case he can come up with is "We go back to the way things were"?! I'd say a closer worst-case would be "The world gets carved up anew, in a series of bloody conflicts lasting decades"
Because conflict certainly isn't a rule in this day and age, under current political systems. Seriously, are you even trying to think about this perspective or are you just rejecting it instinctively? Warfare, no. Defense, yes. The cost of warfare is always much higher than the cost of defense anyways, meaning there's no real economic incentive to attack anyone. The only way wars are currently maintained is by exercizing force on the citizens of a country to acquire funding. Hell, I'm sure you remember the talk about how the Iraq war would "finance itself". It surely didn't, and when such decisions are made entirely with the bottom line in mind, it will ironically probably result in less conflict than we currently have. The only problem is poor calculation. I'm thinking this is a great reason to go about de-politicizing the world slowly and in a certain order. Education should probably be improved by the rationalizing force of the market before we try to depoliticize defense and the legal system for instance.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 06:17 PM   #14
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
Democratic elections do not represent the entire populace. The represent the majority of the populace. Politicians are also often elected not because they share the opinions of the Majority, but because they can market their image to the taste of the Majority. Someone is always transgressed by government, even in democracy. Government does not represent anywhere near perfectly the opinions or values of its citizens, even in democracy.
I'm not disagreeing with that statement. I'm not saying "Democracy -is- universally the accurate will of all the people" I'm saying "If you want to be a democracy, and elect someone, then they -ought- to be considered -as though- they are the universal will of all the people. Otherwise your elected leader has no mandate to do anything, and should never be allowed to act in a way that effects the whole country. It's trite, and it ignores a lot of issues involved but if you don't like your country you are under no particular obligation to stay there.

Quote:
Rothbard suggests the court system and the police system would be replaced with subscription services to court and police services. Checks and balances would be created by the market, probably in the form of multiple court consensus requirements for conviction. Rulings which were judged to be wise would bring the court more customers, rulings which were unfavorable would lead to lack of customers.
Now I see a -lot- of problems with this...So I subscribe to a court system for which theft is punishable by death, and you steal from me...ought you to be executed? What if the court system you subscribe to doesn't? Consensus of multiple courts? The justice system isn't unwieldy and slow enough already? What if I can't afford to subscribe to a police system? Nobody will investigate crimes on me? Nobody is obliged to come to my rescue because I can't pay them? I'm really picturing a scene where some mugger grabs you in an alley and demands to see your police membership card, and if it's a really rough police force, apologises and lets you go, and if its not, you get stabbed in the gut.

Quote:
This is silly. What motivation is there for war? Most wars are over dispproportionate and insurmountable class distinctions, not ideology. Ideology usually only comes into play when the class distinctions occur along ideological lines.
The motivation is that I have power, and want to exercise my power over people, so in a vacuum of power, I will attempt to move in.


Quote:
My army is financed only by people willing to pay the costs. People don't go to jail for not paying taxes. People aren't shot for refusing to join the military. Instead they're offered as much money as members of our "country" are willing to pay. The elimination of boundaries would mean an absence of potential for attack against political entities. What would the point of terrorism against random members of the total populace be?
I think you dramatically underestimate the resistance to the creation of some single global system of "people" There are many MANY people whose sole vested interest in the world is accumulation of goods and power for them at the expense of anyone who they can use and control to facilitate that.


Quote:
Whatever is most profitable and most desirable, I imagine. Unless they're all just hopelessly addicted to the defense industry I don't see what problem would arise, and as long as no barriers are made to entry to the field, the individual members could just join another company. The fact is, they would probably lose their equipment if they went out of business because the equipment represents most of their capital, meaning yes they would have training, no they would not be a band of unemployed gun toting mercenaries.
Id still be more than a little worried about international paramilitary groups up and deciding to go rogue and try to set up their own little fiefdom somewhere.



Quote:
Because conflict certainly isn't a rule in this day and age, under current political systems. Seriously, are you even trying to think about this perspective or are you just rejecting it instinctively?
I'm not rejecting it instinctively or even out of hand. Before I give any prospect deep and serious consideration, I see no harm in pointing out what I see to be my glaring issues with the concept. As you provide explanations and defenses for the issues I see (Which you're doing admerably as per usual) I give it a more deep look, and continue to point out what I see as potential issues and pitfalls. You'll notice I freely admit where an issue is with your proposed system as well as in the one currently existing. It's just the way I come to an understanding of something: Keep poking holes until it falls apart, or there are no more holes.

Quote:
The only problem is poor calculation. I'm thinking this is a great reason to go about de-politicizing the world slowly and in a certain order. Education should probably be improved by the rationalizing force of the market before we try to depoliticize defense and the legal system for instance.
It sounds here very much like you're looking towards a very socialist, communal sort of co-op to manage global affairs, and it's a wonderful image to think about, even work towards. But it simply isn't going to happen in our lifetime, probably not the lifetime of our children either.

Last edited by devonin; 05-1-2007 at 06:20 PM..
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 07:17 PM   #15
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
I'm not disagreeing with that statement. I'm not saying "Democracy -is- universally the accurate will of all the people" I'm saying "If you want to be a democracy, and elect someone, then they -ought- to be considered -as though- they are the universal will of all the people. Otherwise your elected leader has no mandate to do anything, and should never be allowed to act in a way that effects the whole country. It's trite, and it ignores a lot of issues involved but if you don't like your country you are under no particular obligation to stay there.
I don't think elected leaders particularly are legitimate, and yes your response is largely trite and ignores a lot of issues involved.

Quote:
Now I see a -lot- of problems with this...So I subscribe to a court system for which theft is punishable by death, and you steal from me...ought you to be executed? What if the court system you subscribe to doesn't? Consensus of multiple courts?
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.

Quote:
The justice system isn't unwieldy and slow enough already?
This could be attributed to its monopoly status as much as anything else.

Quote:
What if I can't afford to subscribe to a police system?
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.

Quote:
Nobody will investigate crimes on me? Nobody is obliged to come to my rescue because I can't pay them?
See above.

Quote:
I'm really picturing a scene where some mugger grabs you in an alley and demands to see your police membership card, and if it's a really rough police force, apologises and lets you go, and if its not, you get stabbed in the gut.
That's quite the imagination you have.

Quote:
The motivation is that I have power, and want to exercise my power over people, so in a vacuum of power, I will attempt to move in.
Your attempt will be met by defense mechanisms though. There is no "power vacuum" especially, all interaction is voluntary except for potential acts of defense against perpertrators of crime and the potential acts of crime themselves. These non-voluntary interactions are minimized by the utility maximization inherent in the market. The only "power vacuum" is an absence of coercive force, which I highly doubt is enough to overcome the types of defense which would spring up in this free market.

Quote:
I think you dramatically underestimate the resistance to the creation of some single global system of "people"
I have absolutely no idea what yu mean by this.

Quote:
There are many MANY people whose sole vested interest in the world is accumulation of goods and power for them at the expense of anyone who they can use and control to facilitate that.
And? I won't question that this is true, but I'm not sure how it couldn't be handled by the proposed system. I'm also not sure how current existing systems come close to handling it, honestly.

Quote:
Id still be more than a little worried about international paramilitary groups up and deciding to go rogue and try to set up their own little fiefdom somewhere.
As long as they don't use force to do so there's no problem with this that I see.

Quote:
I'm not rejecting it instinctively or even out of hand. Before I give any prospect deep and serious consideration, I see no harm in pointing out what I see to be my glaring issues with the concept. As you provide explanations and defenses for the issues I see (Which you're doing admerably as per usual) I give it a more deep look, and continue to point out what I see as potential issues and pitfalls. You'll notice I freely admit where an issue is with your proposed system as well as in the one currently existing. It's just the way I come to an understanding of something: Keep poking holes until it falls apart, or there are no more holes.
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.

Quote:
It sounds here very much like you're looking towards a very socialist, communal sort of co-op to manage global affairs, and it's a wonderful image to think about, even work towards. But it simply isn't going to happen in our lifetime, probably not the lifetime of our children either.
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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-1-2007, 07:49 PM   #16
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
This could be attributed to its monopoly status as much as anything else.
Granted and withdrawn.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-2-2007, 12:39 AM   #17
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-2-2007, 12:54 AM   #18
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default 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.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-2-2007, 11:53 AM   #19
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
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?

Quote:
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.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-2-2007, 01:59 PM   #20
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: [Essay]Should the United Nations have a standing army?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
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.

Quote:
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
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution