Jump to content

When Do We Say "No" to More Gov't, U.N. and I.P.C.C.?


jbg

Recommended Posts

When are we going to say "no" to unnecessary governmental functions that accomplish little but "study" on our dime? There are many hard-working taxpayers that would like to know the answer but can't vocalize the problem, or are afraid to without getting hooted down. A significant amount of the U.N. budget, for example, is funded by Western democracies. In return, those countries get little but derision and criticism by globe-toting diplomats. This is but one example of the expansion of government far beyond its legitimate and intended purpose.

Classically, governments exist for certain legitimate purposes:

  1. To maintain public order and accompanying that, to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence;
  2. To build public infrastructure in a common-sense manner, so that highways in one state go end-to-end with highways in another, ditto railroads;
  3. To provide services they do best at, such as education;
  4. To maintain public safety, such as managing air traffic control; and
  5. On the liberal side, to guarantee the rights of minorities.

This list is not meant to be all-inclusive.

With the end of WW II governments were larger than they needed to be in order to fulfill those functions so the redundant functionaries had to be put to work. Many of these people would have made a poor fit in the private sector. The public sector ballooned. This happened throughout the world. That was one of the impetuses for the formation of the U.N. I don't for a minute believe that the main motive was Eleanor Roosevelt's starry-eyed idealism. As an aside, note that after WW I an attempt was made to create a League of Nations. The fact that the U.S. wisely begged off helped kill it in its childhood if not in the cradle since the other countries of the world were largely bankrupt.

The U.N. has mushroomed over the years. Formation of such organizations as the IPCC is one of the grotesque symbols of this process.

If the global-warming hoax were better exposed, there would be no work for these functionaries. "Scientists" have similar incentives. If they scoff at the idea for the BS that it was, they'd talk themselves out of research grants so at least the idea must be "studied." If the solutions are as ludicrous as King Canute's solution to tidal fluctuations, so be it. The fact is, Kyoto, Copenhagen or any such treaty is not worth the paper its printed on. No democratic leader or even despot can hope to survive long in office on a platform of deliberately reducing the citizens' standard of living.

This is but one example. Others are U.N. committees that, over the years, have been devoted, variously, to colonialism, apartheid and Zionism. Whose life, besides their functionaries, have they made better? Has the deligitimization of Israel improved lives? Are people in Zimbabwe living better than in the former Rhodesia? I'll admit, the jury is still out on South Africa.

Is the U.N. stopping the massacres and alleviating the suffering that is so routine that it is no longer news in Syria, Lebanon and similar situations? To ask these questions is to answer them.

The right question is, how as taxpayers do we say "no?"

Edited by jbg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has the deligitimization of Israel improved lives? I'll admit, the jury is still out on South Africa.

Who has delegitimized Israel? Pretty much every member nation accepts the state of Israel. The only questioning is Israel's occupation and annexation of land that does not belong to Israel.

Only a very small number of people question whether life was worse under the apartheid regime for black South Africans. Those select people are either ignorant or they're bigoted racists who believe in fascism and dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is but one example of the expansion of government far beyond its legitimate and intended purpose.

Three points:

1) We need a international forum that allows countries to come together and talk. The talking is useful even if most of the end substance is not.

2) All bureaucracies seek to expand and unaccountable bureaucracies are the hardest to stop.

3) Despite our mutual disgust with the UN there are many taxpayers in developed nations who think it is great that the UN is constantly criticizing their political foes.

I don't have any simple answers other that to say that any attempt by the UN to create a source of funds that is no longer under the control of the democratically elected officials must be stopped. The IPCC and their carbon trading scams is the prime example but others will arise if this one is blocked.

Outside of that the UN can be ignored as a necessary evil.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) We need a international forum that allows countries to come together and talk. The talking is useful even if most of the end substance is not.

Outside of that the UN can be ignored as a necessary evil.

If the U.N. served any useful purpose I'd agree. As far as the first point, we can run debating teams, perhaps at high school, college and adult levels far more cheaply, even with abundant numbers of translators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the U.N. served any useful purpose I'd agree. As far as the first point, we can run debating teams, perhaps at high school, college and adult levels far more cheaply, even with abundant numbers of translators.

It does serve a useful purpose. Look at Syria : without the UN there would be no forum to discuss the problem and conclude that there is absolutely nothing that can be done. If the UN did not exist it would not be possible to so clearly develop the consensus to do nothing. And no, I am not being sarcastic - I am saying a world forum that cannot agree on constructive action is a good thing because it reduces the likelihood of unilateral action.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the U.N. served any useful purpose I'd agree. As far as the first point, we can run debating teams, perhaps at high school, college and adult levels far more cheaply, even with abundant numbers of translators.

Look up the achievements of the UN before you state that it doesn't serve any useful purpose. That's actually a ridiculous statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN has several branches. To say UN is useless is to show the ignorance and superficial understanding of how the UN works and what it does.

The UN feeds over 100 million people in 80 countries. You want to get rid of this?

The UN has helped close to 20 million refugees. They are now doing what they can to help the Syrian refugees. You want to get rid of this?

The UN, UNICEF in particular has helped to decrease the number of deaths for children under the age of 5, from 12 million in 1990 to 7 million to 2011. You want to get rid of this?

Not only is UN helping people to stay alive, but they also have programs that educate people when it comes to reproduction and health. This has resulted in a slow down in population growth. You want to get rid of that?

Safe drinking water, reducing and preventing the spread of AIDS, the eradication of smallpox and polio, clearing land mines, etc etc... And you want to get rid of those.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2005/05/weekly_top_10_l.html

http://www.iwda.org.au/about/commitment-to-child-protection/

http://www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/index_67099.html

http://www.un.org/en/un60/60ways/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look up the achievements of the UN before you state that it doesn't serve any useful purpose. That's actually a ridiculous statement.

of course; invariably, every one of these UN bashing threads ends up with recycled emphasis on those achievements... something the regular bashers conveniently ignore. And, of course, that whole "World Government" boogeyman gets played up again here. Member 'Hudson Jones' has also just highlighted the rather narrow mindset that UN bashers have in terms of knowing just what the UN even does!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course; invariably, every one of these UN bashing threads ends up with recycled emphasis on those achievements... something the regular bashers conveniently ignore. And, of course, that whole "World Government" boogeyman gets played up again here. Member 'Hudson Jones' has also just highlighted the rather narrow mindset that UN bashers have in terms of knowing just what the UN even does!

.

Bashing the UN can be easy enough if that's all one wants to do. As it is to find faults with any big operation, especially one that has so many reps from so many places. I have worked for them in at least 5 or so counties, all of them troubled ones, not on their payroll but as a contractor, and I could probably tell you a story or two about things not going so well. But let's look at what really happens, when the stuff hits the fan, the UN gets brought in to sort it out. The approach has always been peace keeping and as has already been stated here, they have had successes, and some failures, all in tough situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the U.N. served any useful purpose I'd agree. As far as the first point, we can run debating teams, perhaps at high school, college and adult levels far more cheaply, even with abundant numbers of translators.

lf the UN has failed to achieve anything (though it has), then who is to blame but the nations that fund and control it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Hudson Jones not so long ago came on this forum referring to Israel as a cancer to be wiped out. Now you want to pose as if you do not question the legitimacy of Israel only its annexation of the West Bank.

Kind of late in the day for that and its why for me your responses have zero credibility, You have made repeated statements questioning the right for Israel to exist then think if you wait long enough no one will remember and you can pose now as a supporter of Israel's right to exist?

Right.

The thread by the way is about whether the UN is any longer useful.

I personally think the systemic corruption in it has paralyzed it and turned it into an entity it was never intended to be. The blatant corruption and partisan politics has turned it into a club for privilege corrupt officials. It suffers the same disease as the Olympics.

I mean we can pretend its a benevolent organization but its not. Its nasty how it has played with lives and allowed millions to die with its selective biases.

Its silence and ineptitude in Biafra, East Timor, Rwanda,Malawi,Sudan, Tibet and its abandoning Jews after World War Two speak loudly.

It is simply a symbolic administration at this point and a very expensive one. The amount of money intercepted by its corruption before it gets to any charitable project in my opinion renders it a useless parasitic appendage but hey for some it makes them feel less guilty when people starve or are being murdered.

The UN lost any credibility when it had Ghaddafi chair the Human Rights committee and placed North Korea on that council or how it did nothing when Mao wiped out 20 million in a cultural revolution.

Its a joke and a very expensive one at that,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The UN lost any credibility when it had Ghaddafi chair the Human Rights committee and placed North Korea on that council or how it did nothing when Mao wiped out 20 million in a cultural revolution.

Speaking of credibility - you were asked to provide a cite for a claim in this post:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23356-swiss-referendum-on-immigration/page-4#entry946601

So far, silence from you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Hudson Jones not so long ago came on this forum referring to Israel as a cancer to be wiped out.

you have accused hudson and myself of this before. you have been asked to provide proof of any of us saying this and you have failed to show proof.

you continuously do this.

Edited by bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already did Michael Harder twice and I won't do it again. If you now want to suggest Hudson Jones did not come on this board and refer to Israel as a cancer after I in fact reproduced his comment not once but twice when he denied it what are you trying to prove? Go on back for yourself. By the way in the future if you have a comment like that take it off line. Now that its evident where you are coming from and are not able to moderate neutrally amd you want to turn this personal go off line. You are way off base on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already did Michael Harder twice and I won't do it again.

If you now want to suggest Hudson Jones did not come on this board and refer to Israel as a cancer after I in fact reproduced his comment not once but twice when he denied it what are you trying to prove?

I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't think I'm asking too much for a cite on such an egregious comment. I would hope that such a comment would be removed, actually.

Go on back for yourself. By the way in the future if you have a comment like that take it off line.

I don't see why I would have to do that.

Now that its evident where you are coming from and are not able to moderate neutrally amd you want to turn this personal go off line. You are way off base on this one.

I don't have a personal stake in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already did Michael Harder twice and I won't do it again. If you now want to suggest Hudson Jones did not come on this board and refer to Israel as a cancer after I in fact reproduced his comment not once but twice when he denied it what are you trying to prove? Go on back for yourself. By the way in the future if you have a comment like that take it off line. Now that its evident where you are coming from and are not able to moderate neutrally amd you want to turn this personal go off line. You are way off base on this one.

I looked. You're lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Hudson Jones not so long ago came on this forum referring to Israel as a cancer to be wiped out. Now you want to pose as if you do not question the legitimacy of Israel only its annexation of the West Bank.

This is a pretty heavy accusation. You should provide a citation of where this was said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look an intervention on behalf of Hudson Jones by Michael Hardner, Black Dog, Bleeding Heart and Squid.

Its like a Shark Frenzy. Hah.

Go on back to the thread "Hudson Jones" started entitled, Israel's 10 Year Racist Anniversary Law.

First start with post 42 whereby Huson Jones refers to 'sneaky, lying, racist Zionist ideology..."

Then go to post 49 where he states and I quote," I find the Zionist colonialist agenda in the middle eastvto be one of the biggest injustices in the world.

Then go to post 97 where he states and I quote,"Israel is a racist apartheid state."

Now explain to me how none of you knew about these and jhis other never ending diatribe of anti Israel comments.

Go on explain to me how the above is consistent with stating you support a Jewish state of Israel.

You want to play semantics with me?You want to call me a liar? You want to support what he stands for-go ahead.

I doubt any of you have the decency to admit you are all way out of line defending H. Jones who now tries to revise his agenda as supporting the right of Israel to exist.

What he supports is a non Jewish Israel-one where Jews are not allowed to be protected by their state and institutionalize their collective identity in their state no different than Anglicans do the United Kingdom, the Catholics do with the Vatican City and Muslims do with their countless Sharia law states.

Any of you gang bangers have anything else to say to me? Lol.

Tough guys.

Hah.

Talk about pathetic.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look an intervention on behalf of Hudson Jones by Michael Hardner, Black Dog, Bleeding Heart and Squid.

Its like a Shark Frenzy. Hah.

Go on back to the thread "Hudson Jones" started entitled, Israel's 10 Year Racist Anniversary Law.

First start with post 42 whereby Huson Jones refers to 'sneaky, lying, racist Zionist ideology..."

Then go to post 49 where he states and I quote," I find the Zionist colonialist agenda in the middle eastvto be one of the biggest injustices in the world.

Then go to post 97 where he states and I quote,"Israel is a racist apartheid state."

Now explain to me how none of you knew about these and jhis other never ending diatribe of anti Israel comments.

Go on explain to me how the above is consistent with stating you support a Jewish state of Israel.

You want to play semantics with me?You want to call me a liar? You want to support what he stands for-go ahead.

When you say someone said/wrote something they did not write or say, that makes you a liar regardless of whatever else that person believes. This isn't the first time you've made false claims about a poster. The other notable example being your oft repeated claim that I once accused you of being a pedophile. Makes me wonder what else you lie about. Pathetic indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pathetic attempt at a gang up initiated by Michael Hardner comes to an end.

As for Black Dog calling me a liar and claiming he could not find anything its what I have come t expect of him on this forum-he engages in the very thing he accuses others of over and over again and with every comment to me engages in personal attacks.

Take your pathetic little attempt at intervention and go back to the Hudson Jones thread which was entitled Israel's10 Year Racist lack Dog loo

Anniversary.

This thread was but one of many he has started making it clear what his position is and that he does not support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. What he supports is a state that can call itself Israel as long as its not Jewish and if you want to engage with him in that pathetic semantic game go ahead only I reserve the right to call you all out and ridicule your attempts to call me a liar or pretend his opinions that he now states that he recognizes Israel are false. He played the exact same spin on this forum Bud did. They both deny they want to dismantle Israel but then make it clear they do not believe in a jewish state. This is the same pathetic game played by the current Palestinian Authority who claim they will recognize Israel but not as a Jewish state

You really needed me to cite it again Michael H.? How dare you claim I have made this claim without citizing his words in the past.

You Black Dog you call me a liar and claim you checked and he never said such a thing?

You Squid what is your excuse?

Go on. start with post 42 where he uses the words "sneaky, lying, racist,zionist ideology"

Go to o b post 49 there he states and I quote, "I find the Zionist colonial agenda in the middle east to be one of the biggest injustices int he world."

Go to post 97 where he again refers to Israel as and I quote " Israel is a racist apartheid state".

Then go post 211, where he admits to me and I quote in his own words, " I may have called Zionism a cancer that needs to be removed because its a disgusting, racist ideology."

You need me to cite that? What yout hink I made it up? Do any of you have the decency to now admit he said what I accused him of?

Or better still, do you want to play semantics with me and deny the above words mean what they mean? You want to explain to me how some supports the state of Israel by calling it what he did?

Give it a rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...