Don’t confuse money with wealth. The fact that Americans choose to buy things abroad rather than purchase them at home means that they feel they get better value abroad. Make no mistake - if you eliminated foreign trade, the U.S. standard of living would decline dramatically.
But more importantly, eliminating foreign trade is impossible. The economy is so intertwined now that it’s not even clear what ‘foreign trade’ is. Is a Toyota a foreign car if it is built in a U.S. auto plant by U.S. workers? How about a Chevrolet Camaro that is built in Ontario? Is Chrysler a foreign company? Daimler-Benz?
The fact is, the tendrils of the world economy have spread through all nations, tying them together. Isolationism isn’t just a bad idea, it’s impossible.
You do raise a very good point, but speaking for myself, the comments I’ve made about the UN here are specifically aimed at its ability (or lack thereof) to mediate armed conflicts or humanitarian military interventions.
The world needs the UN, though, even if it is largely impotent in military afairs, particularly invovling the larger nations. There simply has to be some organization thru which we at least try to work things out. And it’s the smaller countries that benefit the most. The US can largely take care of itself, or at least it is much more capable of doing so than any other nation on earth. But when Podunkistan invades Boondocksistan, the UN at least gives the latter a fighting chance to elicit help from the broader community of nations.
Who provides the largest portion of UN funding? The good ol’ US of A, at 27% (Cite: PDF). So it still comes down to us. 27% with almost 100 member states. That’s almost extortion.
Why don’t we all stop pretending that the UN is a multi-national body and just admit that it’s the USA and a few friends propping up the rest of them, with the extra added benefit of having to have other people put their stamp of approval on everything we do? It’s the practical equivalent of buying your friend a house and then having them tell you whether you’re welcome or not depending upon whether they’re pissed at you or not.
The UN is old, busted, and completely ineffective. We can do better, and we should do better, but it’s not even remotely legitimate to demand that we subsidize an organization that regularly gives us the shaft even as we pay by far the largest share of the costs for those other organizations you are so proud of (UNESCO, UNICEF, etc.).
Do you have a theory as to why the U.S. is still a member and pays so much money for something that is “useless”?
Maybe it is useless if you want world peace, but it seems that world peace is not in the interest of the U.S. So maybe the U.S. likes the U.S. just the way it is, precisely because of its inability to secure peace, precisely because of its inability to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it wants, like invading Iraq, while at the same time providing some control over the non-super-power countries out there who can’t simply ignore the U.N. with the ease that the U.S. does.
In any event, even if the US wants to “do better,” its efforts would go easier with the support of a proven international body like the UN than to simply ramrod its principles down everyone else’s throats in a unilateral effort. Bush has given the rest of the world lots of reasons to be suspicious of Americans bearing gifts…
I have some respect for the United Nations. It’s a great forum for nations to get together and discuss things of mutual interest. I’m also a big fan of some of the UN organizations Ale metioned such as WHO. The UN is useful and will continue to be useful for years to come.
I do not respect the ability of the United Nations to keep the peace nor do I believe them capable of ensuring human rights are respected. I don’t care if they tell us, or anyone else, they can’t invade another nation. Whether the use of military force is justified or not doesn’t change depending on the position of the majority members. Was the US invasion of Iraq illegal under international law? I don’t see any charges. Was it illegal under domestic law because it violated a treaty we signed? I don’t see any prosecutors making a case.
Well no, because there will always be people like me who, if not free to buy as they wish, will buy nothing at all. If I could only choose from american cars, Id ride a bike instead. Dont punish me and all other americans who buy based on quality and ability rather than patriotism just because youre pissed at europe.
Protectionism is only necessary when youre stupid enough to base your currency on a finite natural resource. When your currency is based on human labor as ours is, protectionism is a noose around the neck.
I dont really have a problem with increased political isolationism, but as far as Im concerned free trade is a human right. Economic isolationism in any nation is just a vehicle for the elites (i.e the incompetant) to avoid the reality of what their fellow citizens really think of the value of their labor.
And I could subsequently take it back when you weren’t using it.
Unless, of course, a vast governmental apparatus enforcing property privilege was in place, thus allowing a child arriving to this world to starve because the world had already been ruthlessly divvied up in such a way that a few had lots and many had none, like that child who had had no say in the divvying.
Of course, in the real world, I accept that government, taxation and property are all necessary at this stage in human development, and I will agree to submit to the will of the electorate even though I might disagree with it.
If we are to throw government overboard at some point in the future when humanity is ready for it, my friend, I may well join you in delight. But pray do not, as we steel ourselves for the victim’s final heave-ho, call a halt so that you can take his clothes in order to dress up the dummy of property privilege. If we are to be free, let us be free of all governmental tyranny, dummies and all.
I have no idea what you mean to imply by these constant references to the “real world”, as though you live in it and I don’t. As far as I can tell, the only difference between us is a matter of volition and consent. You are willing to accept a particular status quo (your own, but ostensibly not, say, North Korea’s), but I am not. That does not mean that I live in an imaginary world while you live in a real one, but merely that you are satisfied with where you find yourself and I am not. You therefore need not make such references about real worlds since they are non sequiturs.
Moreover, no one has suggested that government be thrown overboard. Deliberately mischaracterizing reform as destruction is so beneath you that I’m astonished to see it. I must therefore assume a massive typographical mistake or else a confusion of me with someone else. Advocating a strong government that secures the rights and property of all its citizens is hardly a position of anarchy. I certainly hope, and presume by default, that you are not taking advantage of how much I value our friendship over contentious debating in order to twist my argument into something unrecognizable because, while I am willing to drop such trivial matters as the origin of the universe, I am unwilling to have my worldview misrepresented either by friend or foe.
Socialism is a manifestation of property fetish, and a myopic theory of human nature that has been thoroughly debunked by Nobel level economists. Socialist governments have starved children, dashed dreams, ruined lives, murdered people, and devastated production. It breaks the knees of successful people so that the less successful may have a level playing field. It sets prices arbitrarily, ignores market demand, and concentrates wealth in the hands of governors because it isn’t just a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul — the magistrates and bureaucrats keep a healthy chunk of the wealth they distribute for themselves. It costs a lot of money to maintain a gigantic bureaucracy and to provide limousines for rulers.
I compare the status quo I find myself in to others and thank my lucky stars, to some extent. That is not to say that I cannot conceive of better.
But I am proposing that our situation might be better without government in future. I fail to see where I used the word ‘destruction’. My metaphor concerned casting off unneccessary weight in pursuit of progress.
Of course I agree.
My friend, if you will read the thread again I would hope that you can see that I do no such thing. I consider that property privilege engenders its own form of tyranny, just as taxation can. I would never seek to misrepresent your objections to enforced charity. I would seek only to convince others that enforced property privilege was no less objectionable.
All of which, as one who advocates social democracy with a view to future social libertarianism, I agree with wholeheartedly. Let us examine human nature, these illusions called “volition” and “consent”, using proper neuropsychological tools without recourse to dualistic nonsense or superstitious teleometry, in an attempt to minimise human suffering.
Did you really read your cite? That 27 percent refers to the cost of peacekeeping operations, and amounts to a measley $700 million. That’s half the amount that the White House asked for to hand out as foreign aid to countries that agreed to send troops to Iraq. And for that measley $700 million, we can support important military operations without having to keep troops in Haiti, Sierra Leone, Liberia, East Timor, Cyprus, or several other faraway places. It’s a damn good bargain.
For general UN operations, we’re assessed 22 percent of the total, which amounts to $2.8 billion. Before you start whining, that 22 percent is roughly based on our share of the world economy. Futher, that figure has decreased over time. In 2000, our share was 25%, but Bill Clinton and Richard Holbrooke negotiated it down. You also might want to note that Japan pays 19.5 percent of the UN assessment, even though their economy is half our size.
Well this little thread certainly has developed into a multi subject debate, which i was not expecting ! I may be guilty of not explaining myself adequately during my OP rant !
The idea about the US closing it borders was more of a situation where a country would be entitled to say “fuck you” to the very mention of the United Nations. I was not suggesting this course of action as an answer! However it seems that there really are many positive views of this as an option .
This suprised me at first: How can a country which wishes to export its democratic ideals all over the world, and is quite prepared to ignore the will of its international peers to achieve that aim, be full of people who would really rather be left alone?
Which is it - do you want be be left alone as Mr Bandit says ( although this statement : “Its the world that keeps demanding America’s attention, not the other way around. We don’t want to fight your wars, and we don’t want to rule you. We just want to be left alone. and. You. Won’t. GO AWAY!!!” leads me to believe im being whooshed !)
OR do you want to rid the world of all the tyrants and despots and install democracy??
I really dont see how you can be both.
As far as the UN goes: we all seem to agree that the US is (was? :)) a respected key player in world politics. The sensible way to deal with an organisation, whose ideals you signed up to, and which you feel is becomming ineffective, is to change it - from the inside - you know - improve it. To ignore it because it doesnt fit in with your plan and then to say “well - it’s crap anyway” is just shite. Have the bollocks to TRY and improve the planet - not just shoot stuff.
I agree that the UN needs a good enema, maybe the US is the right country to do it ( seeing as you spend sooooo much money on it …). Dont justtake the easy way out - and yes invading countries IS the easy way out for politicians
So why use your cynical approach to the best ( only ?) thing the planet currently has to try and prevent conflict, to get a semi on at a political conference??
And no - boosh wasnt talking about Kerry or permission slips or anything else. He was saying that America doesnt give a shit about talking shops like the UN - shooting and killing is what is called for here - which unsurprisingly is exactly what the UN was created to prevent !
That is why i pit the tossers who jeered and booed the mention of the UN at the RNC.
The other comments re: cctv and whether the US would survive with its borders closed, are not of interest to me in this thread
I really wich i could write all this without my boss watching me. Appols for the grammar.
