7 ms·

Coming from the UN, we already know what the answer will be. More governance, more/better management of risk by the UN that is then delegated to its administra

• raspberry1337 5y ago
  I stopped respecting the UN when they said they criticized Elon Musk for not giving them 6 billion dollars so that they could "solve world hunger". That's about as much as the state of Sweden donates to poverty every single year, and that is just Sweden alone. The total amount of charity donations worldwide is in the trillions of dollars yet there's always just more required. Bureaucrats with humanities degrees at the UN don't solve problems, if they were solved, their jobs would be purposeless. And yea, I know they releasased a "plan" showing how they would split the 6 billion to different areas and stop world hunger 2022. Amazing work!
  • Ekaros 5y ago
    If one time donation of 6 billion would be enough to solve the hunger I think the nations with hungry in them could easily lend this much money and solve it once and for all. That would certainly have net positive ROI in long run for them.
  • baisq 5y ago
  • zirobi 5y ago
    They were incredibly disingenuous about the Elon Musk thing. He said he'd sell $6bn of Tesla stock and donate it if they could provide an open source plan to completely solve world hunger. They said they'd written a private plan to reduce world hunger then criticised him for not making the donation. Whatever you think of Elon, I don't think he acted in bad faith here.
    • 2000UltraDeluxe 5y ago
      Definitely not. Musk did not ask for anything outrageous in return for the money. It was a PR disaster from the UN's point of view. Perhaps their perception of the risk of calling Elon Musk out like that was broken?
      • ben_w 5y ago
        While I was less than impressed by what I saw, I think calling it “a PR disaster” overstates the impact. I observed people reading into both parties what I already know they wanted to believe about each of Musk and the UN.
        • 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
          Don't get me wrong; I normally don't like Musk's antics. However, we _know_ we can't end world hunger with 6 billion USD. At best, we can solve some urgent crisis, but an actual long-term solution requires more than billionaires flinging money at the problem. Beasley knew this when he opened his mouth.
    • notahacker 5y ago
      No, Elon responded saying that if they could describe exactly how world hunger could be solved "on this Twitter thread" he would donate $6bn. Nothing to do with "open source", everything to do with making the request undeliverable (UN staff did of course tweet links to already-too-long-for-Twitter UN documents at him)
      • 5y ago
  • Terry_Roll 5y ago
    Charity highlights taxation doesnt work.
  • lm28469 5y ago
    > I stopped respecting the UN when they said they criticized Elon Musk The UN isn't perfect but it sure as hell better than no communication between countries at all. Elon Musk is insignificant compared to that, "I stopped respecting the biggest world forum when they criticised an egomaniac entrepreneur" jeez... > Bureaucrats with humanities degrees at the UN don't solve problems, if they were solved, their jobs would be purposeless. Does it occurs to you that some problems can't be solved but only mitigated ? it's like saying covid lockdowns and vaccines were useless because "hey look, not so many people died in the end". The UN have done more to the world than Musk or any other single individual will ever do. It's not perfect, it's inefficient, it's expensive, it's still the best we can do. What do you imagine ? The UN work for 15 years, solve all of the world problems and retire ? The world is constantly evolving, it's not so hard to grasp
    • newsclues 5y ago
      Have you considered solving problems is hard and ends the gravy train, and if you get an opportunity to personally benefit, most people given the chance take the easy personal profits rather than to go down fighting the system?
      • lm28469 5y ago
        Of course it is hard and of course people will take personal profit, it's the human natures. What's your point ? You can apply the same thing to the US government or the EU institutions, what's your alternative ?
    • raspberry1337 5y ago
      >The UN isn't perfect but it sure as hell better than no communication between countries at all. False equivalence, a typical error to defend something bad that it is in fact better than null, like we wouldnt have intercommunication without such a bureaucratic money sink >Elon Musk is insignificant compared to that, He writes, in a thread where the UN asks Elon for more money >egomaniac entrepreneur" Jealousy is such a pathethic feeling - Tolstoy >Does it occurs to you that some problems can't be solved but only mitigated ? Wrong again, world hunger can and will be solved, but not by the UN. > it's like saying covid lockdowns No proven effect to date Amazing you managed to squeeze this many errors into one post. >The UN have done more to the world than Musk or any other single individual will ever do What has the UN done beside spending money ineffectively? Musk, and other does and practicioners as opposed to bureaucrats, has done far more for mankind than the UN. >What do you imagine ? The UN work for 15 years, solve all of the world problems and retire ? I would imagine that they would be more proffessional than claiming they could solve world hunger with 6 billion extra in a world of trillions for charity.
  • Joeboy 5y ago
    > "solve world hunger" I think the idea WFP promised to "solve world hunger" for $6bn originated with Musk or his fans, not with WFP. WFP's original claim was that they'd be able to prevent 42 million people from starving (a much more achievable goal). I'm struggling to find the original interview rather than dramatized reports of it, though. Disclosure: I've done contract work for WFP.
    • s-lambert 5y ago
      https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1454808104256737289 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1454808104256737289 That's the original tweet where Elon Musk first appeared in the conversation, as you can see the article he's replying to is where the misinformation comes in. Basically the WFP said "we can stop 42m starving for a year with $6b, which isn't a lot for someone like Elon Musk" -> CNN Business reports it as solving world hunger in general -> Elon Musk says he'll give them $6b if they openly show how they can solve world hunger. Which they obviously never claimed they could do, so when they eventually replied about how the $6b would be spent it was just ignored because it didn't solve world hunger, just temporary starvation.
• pedro2 5y ago
  I agree with you but I'm easily swayed by liberal propaganda. What's your opinion on unions?
  • verisimi 5y ago
    I see unions as one part of a 'bigger state' dialectic. The idea here is not that state supports corporations, but that the state supports the workers. Its all still about the government. In fact, that 'argument' is already resolved - we are moving forward with what I think is fascism - government + corporations working together. A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." - Nietzsche. I prefer this as: The governance structure, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, government, am the people."
• blueflow 5y ago
  > let local people decide for themselves what they want to do - use leaded petrol - build fridges using HCFCs - burn trash This stuff had to be forbidden by the government to make it stop. The UN might be some corrupt stuff, but the point of reducing government at all is nonsense. People on their own won't stop doing harmful things if they dont suffer the consequences themself.
  • verisimi 5y ago
    You're right - but also wrong. Governments built the roads - other solutions are conceivable. Tax payers paid once for the roads to be built, and are now paying for roads to made unusable for cars (lane restrictions, pedestrianisation, etc). That's a waste. Did you know that electric cars were very popular 100 years ago - but because of the oil industry + government, they were quashed? Government waves through unacceptable, unenvironmental behaviour by corporations. However, it does want the consumer who bought the fridges, to foot the bill! Consumers are ignorant of course of the unenvironmental impact of the products they were being sold - that's what government was ostensibly there for - all those agencies were meant to assure that we were getting decent products. It hasn't worked as we thought - but it has worked out as corporations planned. A bigger governance system is not the answer.
    • axiomsEnd 5y ago
      Ok, but how removing the goverment will change that we have massive industries? Small groups of consumers will held accounrable companies?
      • verisimi 5y ago
        You say remove - I say rollback. The sentiment should be that we have less government - we should empower individuals, not monolithic state apparatus. It would ideally be rolled back slowly, keeping a steady focus where governmental power is continuously eroded. However, I also think that things are so wildly out of kilter now, that it is far more likely that things could become even more tumultuous. I even think the tumult is planned for - we are in a somewhat artificial and managed crisis - the co-ordinated global response to the virus, was calculate to devastate Western economies. The plan - as I understand it - is for us to be brought to our knees so that we accept/want even global governance as an end to our suffering. At that point, when the deal is done, the crises will disappear as the global technocratic goals will have been achieved.
• axiomsEnd 5y ago
  How do we want to fight global warming, if we have rather big industries and local incentives pushing in favor of fossil fuels..?
  • 10amxn10 5y ago
    I personally see a global tyranical system (quoting the GP) as a far bigger threat than climate change doom scenarios. At least during our lifetimes. Only time will tell.
    • juve1996 5y ago
      Climate change will be an exacerbating factor for the rise of tyranny. if the claims of climate change come true that will mean a lot of people needing to fight for basic resources leading to strongmen and tyranny.
  • MrMan 5y ago
    I dont think these libertarians care about global warming just getting Ruch using their short lives
    • pfkurtz 5y ago
      The opinions on this thread...
• MrMan 5y ago
  we essentially have global anarchy in much of the world, where governments control very little. more of this is a recipe for more destruction.
  • hnbad 5y ago
    We do not in fact have global anarchy in any significant part of the world. That's not what anarchy means. You're thinking of rampant cleptocracies and oligarchies. Anarchy is the absence of hierarchies, not just "the government is dysfunctional or extremely corrupt".
• YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  Assuming a democratically elected government, isn't "less government" a way to take away power from voters to make decisions and manage commonly held resources? Why is that a good thing? Who gets the power when voters lose it? Who gets to say what happens, when we can't all decide together?
  • abecedarius 5y ago
    You can think of the U.S. Bill of Rights as taking "power from voters to make decisions and manage commonly held resources". You might think of the above claim as simplistic, but it's no less so than is "yay democracy".
    • YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      Who said "yay democracy", please?
      • abecedarius 4y ago
        OK, sorry, I take back "yay democracy". The point remains that restrictions on even democratic government are not a novel idea in liberal politics; it goes back to the beginning of written political theory. Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty is excellent on history and background and explores some ideas on modern issues.
• andyjohnson0 5y ago
  > let local people decide for themselves what they want to do. How do we solve big, global problems like climate change, pollution, ecosystem collapse, pandemic prevention, food/water precarity, etc if everywhere is just local people deciding for themselves? Have you heard of the Collective Action Problem [1]? Its basically why we have governments. Now think about about the scale of the problems we face right now: what systems do we need to address them? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
• lapcat 5y ago
  > I want less government in every way - let local people decide for themselves what they want to do. Have you considered that local people might decide to form tribes, arm themselves with weapons, kill a bunch of people, and impose their own new government by force? This is what often, perhaps inevitably, happens when there's a power vacuum. The United Nations was formed in the aftermath of World War II, during which local people decided what they wanted to do was invade other countries and commit mass murder. "If government just gets out of the way, then everyone will play together nicely and peacefully" is never how it works. The key is to maintain a healthy balance between government and personal freedom. It's a difficult balance to maintain, but the alternatives — authoritarianism or anarchy — are always worse.
  • marssaxman 4y ago
    > during which local people decided what they wanted to do was invade other countries and commit mass murder. Perhaps my schooling overlooked some detail of this era, but I had been under the impression that there was at least one megalomaniac fascist dictator involved in the instigation of that process.
    • lapcat 4y ago
      One does not simply become a fascist dictator without a large number of fascist followers and sympathizers. It's not like Hitler invented racism. He was charismatic, and thereby became a leader of the movement, but he wasn't a magical pied piper. He told people what they wanted to hear. Anyway, I'm not sure what the argument is supposed to be, because there's always someone instigating. The Hitler example just reinforces the point about power vacuums and weak governments. Hitler only served 8 months in prison for a coup attempt (the Beer Hall Putsch) against the Weimar Republic, an extremely weak response that did almost nothing to stop his rise to power.
      • marssaxman 4y ago
        The previous poster said "I want less government in every way - let local people decide for themselves what they want to do." You replied that "local people decided what they wanted to do was invade other countries and commit mass murder." I pointed out that there was quite a lot of government involved in this decision, referring to the well-known history of certain WWII fascist dictatorships in which the entire society was effectively subjugated under the authority of a single person. Your response is... to... agree? I'm not sure how your argument counters the original poster's plea for less government.