5 ms·

Ask HN: How different would the world be without the U.N.

5 points by luckyland 16y ago

It seems the price of admission for even the mildly powerful state in today's world is a perfunctory explanation before the body for unsavory, unilateral transgressions. Would the geo-political landscape be much different without the United Nations? How

jacquesm 16y ago
I figure there would be a lot more small wars than there are right now. That said, the UN could be a lot more even handed than it is today. This letter by Einstein is quite an eye opener: http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstei... It's from a different era but surprisingly accurate even in todays environment.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Jacques, thanks for sharing that link and I'm upvoting you. But you know what's funny? I have almost exactly the same set of premises of as that piece, but I come out to almost exactly the opposite position. > The United Nations now and world Government eventually must serve one single goal the guarantee of the security, tranquillity, and the welfare of all mankind. I think a world government would rapidly become filled with the most politicking, vicious, corrupt, oppressive people unless it was incredibly decentralized and powerless - I don't think you can have a large, powerful government wtih broad-sweeping powers and no opposition that is kind and benevolent. The only large governments/empires in history that were secure, tranquil, and with high levels of general welfare were decentralized. Every powerful centralized government example I can think of committed all sorts of gross and widespread abuses - I think this is because once you create a mechanism for unchecked power, it inspires the most ruthlessly ambitious power-hungry people to attempt to control it. Those people eventually find themselves their way into high positions - democracy or not. Many brutal madmen believed they were doing the will of the people, and were sometimes legitimately elected. When you create a huge unchecked power structure, you're creating a bright light that attracts the most vicious sort of moth. Eventually one comes into power, and all hell breaks loose. Decentralization seems to be the only way in the long term, even with the equilibrium costs of a minimal defensive military force and coordination problems.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Compare those centralized powerful governments with the not so powerful governments in large parts of Asia and Africa and tell me where you'd rather live. Governments are wasteful by definition, but corruption is rampant in other places as well. The difference really becomes to pay backshees (sp?) vs paying taxes. Longer term there may be a solution to some of this as we find (finally) a successor to democracy that improves on what we've got, but a democratic world government would be an improvement over the silly nation states that we have today (which, even in their most advanced forms are a holdover from a time when there were more kinds of people). Corporate domination of politics is one of the hardest things that we need to take care of, this planet is not here for corporations, it is here for all of us, including other species. A late friend of mine had some pretty good ideas on that: http://www.extent.nl/articles/entry/interview-with-eckart-wintzen/ http://www.extent.nl/articles/entry/interview-with-eckart-wi... His taxation scheme would be a very large step in the right direction.
    - lionhearted 16y ago
      > Compare those centralized powerful governments with the not so powerful governments in large parts of Asia and Africa and tell me where you'd rather live. I think that's a false dichotomy - but for the record, I was thinking USSR and Nazi Germany as powerful centralized governments, and thinking of Rome, Height of Britain, America before Spanish-American War/World War I/World War II as decentralized governments. The last powerful centralized African government was Shaka Zulu's bloodbath. By contrast, the two most successful African Empires I'm aware of were much more decentralized - Cartage and Mali. > Longer term there may be a solution to some of this as we find (finally) a successor to democracy that improves on what we've got, but a democratic world government would be an improvement over the silly nation states that we have today (which, even in their most advanced forms are a holdover from a time when there were more kinds of people). This I agree with entirely, yes. > Corporate domination of politics is one of the hardest things that we need to take care of, this planet is not here for corporations, it is here for all of us, including other species. Here's an interesting thought experiment for you - try replacing "corporations" with "organizations" in any corporate-bashing you read for the next week: You'll find all the statements pretty much hold true. Voting blocs, political parties, religious organizations, even nonprofits often do as much to corruptly impose their agenda on other people as for-profit corporations do. I agree with you that organizations, coalitions, and other blocs of people shouldn't be able to trample individual's rights - but I think power should be primarily start at the level of individual people, and be reserved to them first and gradually upwards. So authority on decisionmaking goes first to individuals, then to communities, then to towns and city districts, then to large cities, then to states, then and only then to countries - from small to large. Large shouldn't be able to impose on small, whether it be Whole Foods Corporation, or the New York Yankees, or PETA, or the Conservative Party in England, or the Democrats in the USA, or labor unions, or General Motors, or anything. Individuals are the way. > His taxation scheme would be a very large step in the right direction. I like some of the ecological merits of it and I agree that taxing productive work is a stupidly bad idea. I bet there'd be some really nasty unanticipated secondary effects with that idea, though. Still would be an improvement over taxing people for doing productive work, which is just crazy on almost all levels.

5 points by luckyland 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

I figure there would be a lot more small wars than there are right now. That said, the UN could be a lot more even handed than it is today. This letter by Einstein is quite an eye opener: http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstein.html http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/ws1997-letter-einstei... It's from a different era but surprisingly accurate even in todays environment.

lionhearted 16y ago
Jacques, thanks for sharing that link and I'm upvoting you. But you know what's funny? I have almost exactly the same set of premises of as that piece, but I come out to almost exactly the opposite position. > The United Nations now and world Government eventually must serve one single goal the guarantee of the security, tranquillity, and the welfare of all mankind. I think a world government would rapidly become filled with the most politicking, vicious, corrupt, oppressive people unless it was incredibly decentralized and powerless - I don't think you can have a large, powerful government wtih broad-sweeping powers and no opposition that is kind and benevolent. The only large governments/empires in history that were secure, tranquil, and with high levels of general welfare were decentralized. Every powerful centralized government example I can think of committed all sorts of gross and widespread abuses - I think this is because once you create a mechanism for unchecked power, it inspires the most ruthlessly ambitious power-hungry people to attempt to control it. Those people eventually find themselves their way into high positions - democracy or not. Many brutal madmen believed they were doing the will of the people, and were sometimes legitimately elected. When you create a huge unchecked power structure, you're creating a bright light that attracts the most vicious sort of moth. Eventually one comes into power, and all hell breaks loose. Decentralization seems to be the only way in the long term, even with the equilibrium costs of a minimal defensive military force and coordination problems.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Compare those centralized powerful governments with the not so powerful governments in large parts of Asia and Africa and tell me where you'd rather live. Governments are wasteful by definition, but corruption is rampant in other places as well. The difference really becomes to pay backshees (sp?) vs paying taxes. Longer term there may be a solution to some of this as we find (finally) a successor to democracy that improves on what we've got, but a democratic world government would be an improvement over the silly nation states that we have today (which, even in their most advanced forms are a holdover from a time when there were more kinds of people). Corporate domination of politics is one of the hardest things that we need to take care of, this planet is not here for corporations, it is here for all of us, including other species. A late friend of mine had some pretty good ideas on that: http://www.extent.nl/articles/entry/interview-with-eckart-wintzen/ http://www.extent.nl/articles/entry/interview-with-eckart-wi... His taxation scheme would be a very large step in the right direction.
  - lionhearted 16y ago
    > Compare those centralized powerful governments with the not so powerful governments in large parts of Asia and Africa and tell me where you'd rather live. I think that's a false dichotomy - but for the record, I was thinking USSR and Nazi Germany as powerful centralized governments, and thinking of Rome, Height of Britain, America before Spanish-American War/World War I/World War II as decentralized governments. The last powerful centralized African government was Shaka Zulu's bloodbath. By contrast, the two most successful African Empires I'm aware of were much more decentralized - Cartage and Mali. > Longer term there may be a solution to some of this as we find (finally) a successor to democracy that improves on what we've got, but a democratic world government would be an improvement over the silly nation states that we have today (which, even in their most advanced forms are a holdover from a time when there were more kinds of people). This I agree with entirely, yes. > Corporate domination of politics is one of the hardest things that we need to take care of, this planet is not here for corporations, it is here for all of us, including other species. Here's an interesting thought experiment for you - try replacing "corporations" with "organizations" in any corporate-bashing you read for the next week: You'll find all the statements pretty much hold true. Voting blocs, political parties, religious organizations, even nonprofits often do as much to corruptly impose their agenda on other people as for-profit corporations do. I agree with you that organizations, coalitions, and other blocs of people shouldn't be able to trample individual's rights - but I think power should be primarily start at the level of individual people, and be reserved to them first and gradually upwards. So authority on decisionmaking goes first to individuals, then to communities, then to towns and city districts, then to large cities, then to states, then and only then to countries - from small to large. Large shouldn't be able to impose on small, whether it be Whole Foods Corporation, or the New York Yankees, or PETA, or the Conservative Party in England, or the Democrats in the USA, or labor unions, or General Motors, or anything. Individuals are the way. > His taxation scheme would be a very large step in the right direction. I like some of the ecological merits of it and I agree that taxing productive work is a stupidly bad idea. I bet there'd be some really nasty unanticipated secondary effects with that idea, though. Still would be an improvement over taxing people for doing productive work, which is just crazy on almost all levels.