The absurdity of the UN

[bloodyminded]

Actually, that's not what he said. He said NGOs and other charities would pick up the slack. That's not the same thing as stating that the flow of money labelled as "aid" would remain constant.

It's pretty clearly implied. The distinctions you draw are nowhere hinted in his remarks.

Moreover, that's not a standard we should seek to uphold. Most people, particularly leftists, think more and more and more money is the answer to all the world's ills.

Please. It's the capitalist religion. If one objects to the totally materialist notion, one is instantly labelled...a leftist!

Further, there are a hell of a lot of leftists involved in charity and NGO work, and I doubt a single one of them with any experience would say it's 100% about "money." I think you're flying the Flag of Strawman.

This idiotic mentality is what keeps the money flowing, decade after decade, while the steward of this money continually fail but keep their cushy jobs and are never held accountable.

There is no "steward." There are many, mostly unrelated to one another in anything but general principle, and some are very good and some are not.

[Bob]

I'm not sure what you're try to say, and we're getting pretty off topic. Ether way, I hope to see calls for abolition of the UN more and more mainstream. It is pathetic that such calls are described as "fringe" or "right-wing". Many people, and we've seen in this forum, without any knowledge whatsoever about the UN and its subsidiaries, reflexively defend it and speak of it as if it is some indispensable institution that is a force for good in this world. It's revealing about many things in our society - social leftist indoctrination to reflexively support big bureaucracies as long as they have a pleasant mission statement.

[Michael Hardner]

Non-profits predate the UN by a at least ten thousand years.

My God. AT LEAST TEN THOUSAND YEARS !

A Sumerian handing somebody a piece of fruit on the fertile crescent in 8000 BC is instantly redefined as the establishment of an NGO non profit and a libertarian victory.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the point is obvious, ceasing funding to the UN would free up those funds to be spent appropriately, or saved, or a combination of both. The UN is the absolute WORST vehicle through which rich countries should work towards their development goals in impoverished societies.

Yet you have said nothing about how the existing programs (efficient or not) would be replaced. You don't seem to care a whit, and would have programs terminated and people die so that the rich west nations funding the UN wouldn't suffer the indignity of 'insults' from the lowly.

When your volume is constantly at 10, the screaming doesn't sound that loud after even a few posts.

[Michael Hardner]

But why are you thinking that more money being sent to impoverished people is better? There are two questions you need to ask, is Africa in need of more aid, less aid, or is the amount of aid it receives now appropriate?

Even the way you look at this problem is indicative of your insensitivity. How much aid doe they need from us ? Why wouldn't we start by discussing the minimum that we should expect people to have in impoverished countries ?

Your initial approach is tantamount to "how much is this going to cost me" ?

[Michael Hardner]

It is pathetic that such calls are described as "fringe" or "right-wing".

And I never understood really why people thought that... until I started reading your posts.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure what you're try to say, and we're getting pretty off topic.

I keep responding to points you bring up, after which you admonish me for going off topic.

Well, I feel compelled to respond to continual outrage against this mysterious, monolithic entity called "the Left," which I in fact have never seen. Your views aren't as extreme as poster August's--who claims that Pinochet and Milton Friedman were Stalinist Lefties--but it remains a continual complaint in your arsenal, and I feel it bears little resemblance to lived reality.

The world must surely have been a magnificent place before Das Kapital was written. This "Left" ruined a perfectly decent global order, evidently.

Ether way, I hope to see calls for abolition of the UN more and more mainstream. It is pathetic that such calls are described as "fringe" or "right-wing".

I think they can very safely be termed "fringe," at least, so long as we subtract the implied denunciation. After all, on a global scale, my support for same sex marriage is a "fringe" opinion.

Many people, and we've seen in this forum, without any knowledge whatsoever about the UN and its subsidiaries, reflexively defend it and speak of it as if it is some indispensable institution that is a force for good in this world. It's revealing about many things in our society - social leftist indoctrination to reflexively support big bureaucracies as long as they have a pleasant mission statement.

I'm willing to buy that, even totally aside from how good or bad the UN might be. But it's an issue of human society, not a "left" issue. The Right has its own set of ill-considered conventions and emotional sicknesses; less remarked upon, but very true, is that self-described "centrists" or "moderates" are equally as numb and servile to conventional thought and powerful institutions.

Your bare bones point is correct; your target is conveniently specific.

Edited July 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[dre]

The bottom line is that the UN isnt going anywhere, and this is just more of the same rants we have heard for decades. And if you read some of the stuff people are claiming on here, its pretty obvious they just dont know what theyre talking about.

Talk of "North Korea telling us how to disarm", or the "UN forcing us to implement carbon taxes", or describing the UN as a "global government".

Thats not to say the UN doesnt have some problems, and its share of failures. Im all for looking at ways to reform it and make it more effective and efficient.

[Bob]

My God. AT LEAST TEN THOUSAND YEARS !

A Sumerian handing somebody a piece of fruit on the fertile crescent in 8000 BC is instantly redefined as the establishment of an NGO non profit and a libertarian victory.

It's about context. An NGO of today can't be compared an NGO from twenty-five years ago, a century ago, or many millenia ago. That's not the point, anyways, is it? The question was about whether or not the slack from an abolished UN would be picked up, and it would. And moreover, more people would benefit.

[Bob]

Even the way you look at this problem is indicative of your insensitivity. How much aid doe they need from us ? Why wouldn't we start by discussing the minimum that we should expect people to have in impoverished countries ?

Your initial approach is tantamount to "how much is this going to cost me" ?

What insensitivity? There are finite resources to go around. Lines must be drawn regarding how much we're willing to export in aid. You can't ignore costs. Ever. But leftists like you imagine that wealth manifests itself out of thin air. Economic cost (which is more complex than simply dollars and cents) is always the foundation of any program. You can't ignore economic realities.

As far as what they need, what, do you think there is some shortage of aid?

[Bob]

Yet you have said nothing about how the existing programs (efficient or not) would be replaced. You don't seem to care a whit, and would have programs terminated and people die so that the rich west nations funding the UN wouldn't suffer the indignity of 'insults' from the lowly.

When your volume is constantly at 10, the screaming doesn't sound that loud after even a few posts.

I've said it several times. None of the programs need to be transitioned. Their destruction is the primary objective of abolishing the UN. They harm the populations they claim to assist. People are dying NOW because of the UN, not the other way around. We don't need the UN to administer sleeping nets and vaccines or to establish schools. And the UN fails miserably in those and virtually every other dimension, despite the context-free fundraising talking points you provided in this thread from the UNICEF website that attempt to paint a rosier picture.

The "insult" argument wasn't mine, it was Bonam's. And I reject that argument completely. This isn't an issue of pride, it is an issue of pragmatism. If we really want to do good by impoverished societies, we need to seriously revisit aid programs, which certainly includes virtually all sections of the UN - which invariably leads to its abolition, or, at the very least, to a massive slicing off of most of its bureaucracy.

You have everything upside down. You think the UN is some lifevest that keeps at-risk people from sinking. The opposite is true.

[Michael Hardner]

What insensitivity? There are finite resources to go around. Lines must be drawn regarding how much we're willing to export in aid. You can't ignore costs. Ever. But leftists like you imagine that wealth manifests itself out of thin air. Economic cost (which is more complex than simply dollars and cents) is always the foundation of any program. You can't ignore economic realities.

As far as what they need, what, do you think there is some shortage of aid?

Nobody said resources are infinite, or that costs should be ignored. What was ignored was my point that your primary driver in that debate is "how much money do I have to pay".

That is evidenced by the question at the end. I just won't go there.

[Michael Hardner]

We don't need the UN to administer sleeping nets and vaccines or to establish schools. And the UN fails miserably in those and virtually every other dimension, despite the context-free fundraising talking points you provided in this thread from the UNICEF website that attempt to paint a rosier picture.

We don't need it - they do. I'm a human being so I want to help them.

You don't want to help them, but are focused on how much we pay. That's clear from the way you prioritize the discussion. I'm kind of above feeling disgust for an empty nickname on a web page, but if I knew you in person I probably would be disgusted with you.

All discussions, all debates, and all intellectualisms are made by and debated by humans - who have VALUES underneath it all. There's no logic to that. But if we don't share certain values, then I will consider you subhuman and there's not much we could ever agree on.

[Michael Hardner]

I've said it several times. None of the programs need to be transitioned. Their destruction is the primary objective of abolishing the UN. They harm the populations they claim to assist. People are dying NOW because of the UN, not the other way around.

Your argument is astronomically ridiculous. When we were discussing programs, you indicated that they fell short because their costs were high, and weren't 100% effective, and were slow etc. etc.

SO. Because they're not perfect, you will erase them completely. "People are dying" as you said because the UN isn't doing as well as it could, but you would remove programs completely ?

It's like saying "a patient died because a doctor made a mistake - eliminate all hospitals".

This line of thinking is a strange combination of illogic and ignorance.

[Bob]

All you keep doing is arguing a position without knowing anything. You jumped into this topic awhile back when you made unfounded statements alleging "effective" programs administered by the UN, implying disaster in the event of the UN's abolition. You worship at the altar of the UN without knowing anything about it. Your entire line of argumentation is based on assumptions - that the UN must be running "effective" programs, and that these "effective" programs are essential to provide assisted people with the most basic of needs. These were your assumptions when you entered this discussion awhile ago (in an earlier thread), and they remain your assumptions today - without having any knowledge whatsoever. Seriously, the best you could do was a copy-and-paste from a UNICEF public relations website.

At least go watch a few Jeffrey Sachs lectures online or read his book "The End of Poverty".

[Bob]

Your argument is astronomically ridiculous. When we were discussing programs, you indicated that they fell short because their costs were high, and weren't 100% effective, and were slow etc. etc.

SO. Because they're not perfect, you will erase them completely. "People are dying" as you said because the UN isn't doing as well as it could, but you would remove programs completely ?

It's like saying "a patient died because a doctor made a mistake - eliminate all hospitals".

This line of thinking is a strange combination of illogic and ignorance.

Advocating for abolition of the UN is certainly not the same thing as ceasing all aid programs. Aid endeavours transcend the UN, which is something you're unable to understand. The UN isn't the be-all and end-all of vaccine programs and infrastructure development. It's simply the most prominent institution which contains many prominent subsidiaries that claim to operate in the best interests of impoverished peoples, and this prominence comes at great cost the most needy - who STILL cannot get basics such as running water, sustainable agriculture, disease control, educational development and basic infrastructure. The problem is much bigger than the UN, of course, the structure of aid in most dimensions is a failure - which is perpetuating poverty and causing more deaths than would otherwise be the case.

Why don't you tell us again about how a measles reduction of 40% (without any qualification of location or timeframe) is something to be proud of considering the vaccine likely costs pennies per dose and has been around for half a century? Another UN success! And this is not for lack of funding. While these professional aid architects sit in Geneva and New York with their Italian suits being chauffeured to catered "conferences", they flash a PowerPoint slide with the talking points you parroted while patting themselves on the back and asking for MORE money... maybe in five years, they can reduce measles by another 10%! And useful idiots like you lap it up, buying into the mythology that the UN is an indispensable tool of foreign aid.

[Bob]

Your argument is astronomically ridiculous. When we were discussing programs, you indicated that they fell short because their costs were high, and weren't 100% effective, and were slow etc. etc.

Moreover, I haven't even begun explaining how these aid programs kill economic development and adaptation. We haven't even scratched the surface because the discussion keeps getting dragged down into stupidity with your assumptions and reflexive support for an institution you know nothing about. Your entire line of argumentation is premised on a belief that if such an institution exists, and has persisted for so long, without any mainstream dialogue in our media or politics addressing it, with fancy PR websites proclaiming small victories over measles, then it must be worthwhile.

[DogOnPorch]

.

Edited July 13, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Remiel]

Moreover, I haven't even begun explaining how these aid programs kill economic development and adaptation. We haven't even scratched the surface because the discussion keeps getting dragged down into stupidity with your assumptions and reflexive support for an institution you know nothing about. Your entire line of argumentation is premised on a belief that if such an institution exists, and has persisted for so long, without any mainstream dialogue in our media or politics addressing it, with fancy PR websites proclaiming small victories over measles, then it must be worthwhile.

If you know something you have spent several pages not writing about, I think it is clear that a very large share of stupidity is due to you.

[dre]

If you know something you have spent several pages not writing about, I think it is clear that a very large share of stupidity is due to you.

He has absolutely no idea how the UN even works as far as I can tell. Its really just a voluntary association of member states, and both its successes and failures are the the product of ability those member states to make good decisions, and agree on various issues.

To evaluate the institution has a whole would take a whole pile of research, and a careful study of every single UN intiative since its formation. Nobody on either the for/against sides is willing to do that, but if we did, Id guess that we would find that its a mixed bag, but that the existance of a forum that allows all of its member states to voice their opinions and collaborate on various issues is important.

You would also need to look at all the various sub associations in the UN group... UNICEF, the WHO, UNESCO, the World Bank, and the International Monetary fund, and the Civil Aviation Agency, and the International Telecomm Agency.

All of these different groups perform various functions that require more and more collaboration between member states as our economy becomes more and more "global".

[Michael Hardner]

All you keep doing is arguing a position without knowing anything. You jumped into this topic awhile back when you made unfounded statements alleging "effective" programs administered by the UN, implying disaster in the event of the UN's abolition. You worship at the altar of the UN without knowing anything about it. Your entire line of argumentation is based on assumptions - that the UN must be running "effective" programs, and that these "effective" programs are essential to provide assisted people with the most basic of needs. These were your assumptions when you entered this discussion awhile ago (in an earlier thread), and they remain your assumptions today - without having any knowledge whatsoever. Seriously, the best you could do was a copy-and-paste from a UNICEF public relations website.

I guess we could argue about what "effective" means. I concede that programs could be executed at less cost, and with more effectiveness so in that respect perhaps I should recant on the idea that they are effective. But is that really a discussion we want to have ? Do we want to talk about management metrics and so on ?

Let me concede the point about being "effective" then, but let's say that they have done something, or anything even: removing them would mean a net loss in assistance for those in need. To not consider a transition plan in advance of removing them would be inhumane.

[Michael Hardner]

Your entire line of argumentation is premised on a belief that if such an institution exists, and has persisted for so long, without any mainstream dialogue in our media or politics addressing it, with fancy PR websites proclaiming small victories over measles, then it must be worthwhile.

My point is basic: programs exist now, and the only humane thing would be to transition them.

You refuse to go there in your discussion, which tells me that either you don't care or that you don't have an idea how to do it. I can't think of any other reasons for your stance.

[Oleg Bach]

The UN is now a crimminal orgainzation - people will not get rid of it because it is like asking Satan to cast out Satan..It is a real concern..what started off as a utopian ideal is now international orgainized crime.

[Bonam]

Let me concede the point about being "effective" then, but let's say that they have done something, or anything even: removing them would mean a net loss in assistance for those in need. To not consider a transition plan in advance of removing them would be inhumane.

Why? Who says the current level of aid is "humane" and any lessening in it would be "inhumane"? That seems completely arbitrary.

In any case, there is far from universal agreement on such things. One may well argue that what would be "humane" would be to allow poor nations to develop naturally, without interference from the West. We have caused enough harm in the past with our "humane" intentions, whether it was to civilize the savages, or to save their souls. Who says our present "aid" will be any less harmful in the long run?

[Michael Hardner]

Why? Who says the current level of aid is "humane" and any lessening in it would be "inhumane"? That seems completely arbitrary.

It would be, if that was what I was saying.

To recap: "To not consider a transition plan in advance of removing them would be inhumane."

In any case, there is far from universal agreement on such things. One may well argue that what would be "humane" would be to allow poor nations to develop naturally,

"one" being Bob... and "develop naturally" meaning die in large numbers and in misery...

without interference from the West.

Because we should only interfere when there are resources there for us to make use of, and attendant regimes for us to prop up in order for that to happen...

We have caused enough harm in the past with our "humane" intentions, whether it was to civilize the savages, or to save their souls. Who says our present "aid" will be any less harmful in the long run?

I'm mocking you here, which isn't quite fair. You're a pretty reasoned poster from what I can recall. In fact, I see some merit in what you say. I recall a radio program from NPR, wherein a long-time social advocate and lefty type decried the culture of helplessness that came out of the US Welfare System.

Events around that time - in the 1990s - made me change my mind about workfare and see the value in social engagement from Workfare. So handouts, I agree, shouldn't be a long term plan.

However:

1. The strident and arrogant tone of some posters - exponentialized by puffy language and hyperbole - indicating that the UN should be banned, cut, eliminated - without dialogue and without any kind of plan - is not helpful and puts people off.

2. What we should be talking about, across the board, is reform: pilot projects, and self-help that creates new approaches. Some of these happen on the aid side, and some changes happen with free trader as well.