United NAtions Parlamentary Assembly

[lastroots]

I'm gonna ignore the troll. If anyone has real questions or constructive comments to make ... don't bother.

Just one comment to the troll: The planned UNPA does not want to have any influence on your country. And if you read our points, you would have realised that only countries with a constitutional parliament will be in there. The UNPA only will make sure that noone will a?start another war out of oeconomic and natinal interests.

And from your comments about islamic countries I read out of it that you have never been to one nor been in contact to people who live there... Nothing against good arguments ... but, trolls, please shut up. If you have nothing to add to the topic, please stay calm.

Thank you!

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

what about the security council ?

what is the point of involving the "people" if in the end the 6 decides.

i'd rather have the "poor countries" in the SecurityCouncil.

[lastroots]

A good point. A lot of our subscribers are parlamentarians from African countries. It is obvious that they supprt a stronger UN.

The security council will be involved. The first step, a UNPA as a new body of the UN will be involved in all decision making processes, along with the security council.

In long terms, the veto powers will be disabeled to secure a 100% democratic decision process. If the goal of a parlamentary world assembly will be achieved, the UNPA will have the last say on all resolutions. The most positive side is, that the members will include opposition members of the different countries. The demoxcratic unfluence on non democratic countries would be bigger than ever, since everyone who does not have a constitutional democratic parliament will have less or no influence at all.

This could be a way to spread democracy WITHOUT WEAPONS - and, by the way, the past few years have shown that spreading democracy with weapons is an illusion. It's simply not possible, it only strenghthens the hate. 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Sounds good on paper.
i would agree.

But, many poor countries are represented in the UN right now, altho they don't have democratic system, ruled by "dictators" that will not let power go "just to get a voice in the UN".
trading voice against quick democracy will lead these countries into chaos ( iraq ...)

Democracy is not a miracle you lay upon uneducated countries. we don't even know if it's the best option, it's just *our* option.
and frankly, we don't really live in a democracy.
neither in France, USA or Germany. so we need a reality check.

Then, do you really think China, France, Russia, the UK and the United States will get rid of their permanent seats ?

In some way my views on the UN is that it needs to go *above* countries.
we cannot have a worldwide economy without rules, huge companies that have NO nationality and still try to get everybody's vote to change something.

USA says no all the time.
France says no when it needs to.


i think spreading Democracy in a world that is ruled by money, competition and greed is an illusion.

We need to take capitalism down first


(ps: sorry if i shocked some the sensible americans souls here ....)

[polluxlm]

i think spreading Democracy in a world that is ruled by money, competition and greed is an illusion.

We need to take capitalism down first


(ps: sorry if i shocked some the sensible americans souls here ....)

And replace it with what?

Capitalism isn't the problem. In fact it's the best way to exploit our human instincts into growth. The principle is great, but our system running it isn't. Big monopolies needs to go, secret ownership needs to go, lobbying definitely needs to go, the media needs to become free again and most of all we need to stop letting ourselves be ruled by voters that don't know shit.

Making health, media, politics and eduction into profit enterprises is the biggest mistake of man kind.

[lastroots]

I agree with you in most points.

I think you got the idea of a world parliament. And, of course, a lot of non-democrat countries (and I count Germany, USA, France and others as semi-emocratic, not full democracies) will not be willing to letz their national power go. There is where our idea counts in to realise free elections for the members of the UNPA. Most opposition members of non-democratic countries are counting on real democracy, That is why we have so many subscribers from non-democratic countries. Our guess is, that most countries, who are not "real" democracies" will be represented in the UNPA in the first time via their opposition members. They would gather more influence on resolutions to realise more democracy.

For our own countries - the idea includes "one" world of humans, not divided by their governments and / or national / economic interests. Every country will still have its own government. But on the inernational
 ground, the UNPA would have the last say, which would be absolutely fair to everyone, since its members will be elected parlamentarians from every country.

Also we are planning to grive minorities a say. To give everyone a say.

[lastroots]

polluxlm, I agree with you completely. Capitalism isn't the problem , just our current system of running it. A social capitalism could be a great fortune.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

i have to go read and sleep but i still do think capitalism is the problem. and many of the issues people put ahead "blaming the system" but not "capitalism" (what is the difference?) are actually a consequence of capitalism.

Big monopolies? ... so you want the State to rule over companies ... how wait ??!!!

Media needs to be free ?
Well, in a capitalistic world, with my money i can build a Media Empire and as i have money i can eat my enemies and do what i want, then Politicians will need my help ... and then .... oh wait ?!!!

i predict the world will be a very violent place soon. nothing we've seen before.
and you'll have have to be VERY rich to continue owning hot jeans and cool cars.


good night all.

[lastroots]

i have to go read and sleep but i still do think capitalism is the problem. and many of the issues people put ahead "blaming the system" but not "capitalism" (what is the difference?) are actually a consequence of capitalism.

Big monopolies? ... so you want the State to rule over companies ... how wait ??!!!

Media needs to be free ?
Well, in a capitalistic world, with my money i can build a Media Empire and as i have money i can eat my enemies and do what i want, then Politicians will need my help ... and then .... oh wait ?!!!

i predict the world will be a very violent place soon. nothing we've seen before.
and you'll have have to be VERY rich to continue owning hot jeans and cool cars.


good night all.

Agreed in most points. As you can think - another reason for our actions. Wy try to use the existing system to make things better, since we know that pouring down the system would be an attempt to suicide.

[polluxlm]

i have to go read and sleep but i still do think capitalism is the problem. and many of the issues people put ahead "blaming the system" but not "capitalism" (what is the difference?) are actually a consequence of capitalism.

Big monopolies? ... so you want the State to rule over companies ... how wait ??!!!

Media needs to be free ?
Well, in a capitalistic world, with my money i can build a Media Empire and as i have money i can eat my enemies and do what i want, then Politicians will need my help ... and then .... oh wait ?!!!

i predict the world will be a very violent place soon. nothing we've seen before.
and you'll have have to be VERY rich to continue owning hot jeans and cool cars.


good night all.

No, in this world you can do all those things. The capitalism we got today is more communism than it is real free trade. It's just a front for the rich elite to get even more wealth and control.

What we need to do is cut all ties. Say to all of our corrupt politicians, judges and interest organizations that they can fuck of and do something else. We don't want their dirty little fingers messing up justice anymore. And the corporations and sugar daddys can also fuck off. We don't want their 'contributions' and neither should they be allowed to make them. Hell, if I see a rich guy walking the halls of justice or having lunch with a politician I want that guy and the one he's meeting jailed, for life.

Our government should only do a few things:

Set up a defencive military. And under no circumstance should that military be used for anything other than defence. No pre-emptive or secret ops. Defence, end of story. The contracts should be issued under the competitive principle, and all aspects of the selection should be open to the public. If one contractor gets a suspiscious amount of deals it should be investigated. And under no circumstance should too much responsibility be layed on one corporation, it needs to be spread out.

Health, for all, free of charge. The payment for these services should be funded by what people expose themselves to. You want to smoke cigarettes? Fine, the tax you pay on those will go to potential future treatment. What remains will be covered by other taxes. No insurance, no indirect control over your life. Live it as you wish and we will do what we can to help you, irregardless.

Education, also free. And no government control over what your kid shall learn. You as parent will pick it, and when the kid is old enough he can too. Schools also need to focus on social, spiritual (not religious, no religion in school, none) and creative learning.

No income tax. Direct taxation of your body is slavery. The government can collect it's taxes on the products and services you buy.

No Federal Reserve and National Debt. A country can and should print their own money. There's no need for bankers with shady intentions.

One might ad a few more things, but those are the basics. No more interfering on what you eat, smoke, inject, read, drive, learn, watch, listen to, where to work, where to attend school, the freedom to open a business or take a loan.


And of course, I don't have the answers to how we should do these things. I'm merely going from a philosophical point of view. We need to let our intelligent and knowledgeable take care of it. The ordinary guy in the street is not smart enough to know what is good for society.

[25]

I refuse to ever allow another nation dictate the terms of my domestic policy.  I'll be damned if some 3rd world country has a say in what is acceptable in America.  I swear to God I will use every resource available to me to make sure the UN and its leaders never have a say in my country.

You don't have a domestic policy, you are one man. You let the Federal and State government dictate what is acceptable in your society - if you were part of, say for example, a global society wouldn't it be equally appropriate for a global body to govern it?

The U.S. isn't forced to have any involvement in the UN. Apparently your Federal government chooses to participate. If a UNPA ever became reality your government could always opt out, which would be pretty amusing in and of itself.

[polluxlm]

I refuse to ever allow another nation dictate the terms of my domestic policy.? I'll be damned if some 3rd world country has a say in what is acceptable in America.? I swear to God I will use every resource available to me to make sure the UN and its leaders never have a say in my country.

You don't have a domestic policy, you are one man. You let the Federal and State government dictate what is acceptable in your society - if you were part of, say for example, a global society wouldn't it be equally appropriate for a global body to govern it?

The U.S. isn't forced to have any involvement in the UN. Apparently your Federal government chooses to participate. If a UNPA ever became reality your government could always opt out, which would be pretty amusing in and of itself.

He don't, but as it is now he could always move if he don't like it. When the whole world is under one rule and that rule becomes corrupt (it will) then what are you going to do?

[25]

When the whole world is under one rule and that rule becomes corrupt (it will) then what are you going to do?

I'll already be long dead, I won't do a thing.

Theoretically, a corruption of leadership is more difficult if the leadership is comprised of a large field of people of equal station if only because the ambition and authority of the many ought to prevent the consolidation of power among a smaller group within those ranks. Obviously, a quick perusal of the current UN and its "Security Council" suggests the opposite but the existence of an exclusive body with veto power like the Security Council also disproves the notion that all current members of the UN hold equal station.

Frankly, a global government in effect creates a global principality and its composition and distribution of power will dictate its problems. In all probability the real obstacle would not be the corruption of government, which is both inevitable and irrelevant, but the combining of a world of different peoples with different customs, beliefs, and languages into a cohesive whole. Or an at least an obedient one.

[polluxlm]

When the whole world is under one rule and that rule becomes corrupt (it will) then what are you going to do?

I'll already be long dead, I won't do a thing.

Theoretically, a corruption of leadership is more difficult if the leadership is comprised of a large field of people of equal station if only because the ambition and authority of the many ought to prevent the consolidation of power among a smaller group within those ranks. Obviously, a quick perusal of the current UN and its "Security Council" suggests the opposite but the existence of an exclusive body with veto power like the Security Council also disproves the notion that all current members of the UN hold equal station.

Frankly, a global government in effect creates a global principality and its composition and distribution of power will dictate its problems. In all probability the real obstacle would not be the corruption of government, which is both inevitable and irrelevant, but the combining of a world of different peoples with different customs, beliefs, and languages into a cohesive whole. Or an at least an obedient one.

I'm for global cooperation, but no way in hell are we ready for a one world rule. We'd be back in the dark ages if one man were to gain control of us all, and that will happen if there's a system governing us all. A place to start is a global government with very limited powers, like upholding disarment and free trade. But in no way do I want someting like that in control of policing, culture, education etc.

[25]

A place to start is a global government with very limited powers, like upholding disarment and free trade. But in no way do I want someting like that in control of policing, culture, education etc.

I think we already have that, I think it's called the UN. And since it's not in control of anything more than upholding lofty principles, it's relatively powerless.

I suppose that you could say that the good reason behind a legitimate global government is the fact that "global co-operation" doesn't work. Unless an individual nation has something tangible to gain there's no reason to co-operate with anyone. Which is why the UN has been so very marginally "successful" in channeling the resources and good-will of major nations to help the poorer ones. I'm of the opinion that global equality is probably not something you can organize from a clubhouse, you do need a seat of power to force the world into doing good things.

Would I support  a UNPA, world government type of idea? Not really. I don't think that we really believe in the ideals that we so love to parrot; Libert?, Equalit?, Fraternit?! Just words, feel-good nonsense on par with "don't worry, be happy!"  I largely believe that people should be left to their own devices and allowed to live as they choose, and let their children pay the price. That, I think, is fair.

[polluxlm]

A place to start is a global government with very limited powers, like upholding disarment and free trade. But in no way do I want someting like that in control of policing, culture, education etc.

I think we already have that, I think it's called the UN. And since it's not in control of anything more than upholding lofty principles, it's relatively powerless.

I suppose that you could say that the good reason behind a legitimate global government is the fact that "global co-operation" doesn't work. Unless an individual nation has something tangible to gain there's no reason to co-operate with anyone. Which is why the UN has been so very marginally "successful" in channeling the resources and good-will of major nations to help the poorer ones. I'm of the opinion that global equality is probably not something you can organize from a clubhouse, you do need a seat of power to force the world into doing good things.

Would I support? a UNPA, world government type of idea? Not really. I don't think that we really believe in the ideals that we so love to parrot; Libert?, Equalit?, Fraternit?! Just words, feel-good nonsense on par with "don't worry, be happy!"? I largely believe that people should be left to their own devices and allowed to live as they choose, and let their children pay the price. That, I think, is fair.

Well that would be the idea, to give that government a limited amount of indisputed powers. The UN doesn't have any powers.

But anyway, who cares. This won't happen in our lifetime or the next. It's just sports to feed an ego. Our system sucks, but as long as I got the ability to make money I really don't care what happens to the less fortunate.

[25]

Our system sucks, but as long as I got the ability to make money I really don't care what happens to the less fortunate.

Surely the question should be "why should the less fortunate seek to imitate or become a part of our system, a system which serves only to benefit itself at the cost of those less fortunate?"

There will always be "those less fortunate" than ourselves, which can only be a good thing for the proponents of equality because what value has equality if there is no inequality to rectify? Like many virtues (or vices) equality is a meaningless idea if everyone is equally virtuous. If an idea isn't self-sustaining, isn't it a silly thing to base a philosophy on? Same goes for an idea which is inherently flawed; what value has equality if all men are equal but some men  are more equal than others? If I can't suggest or vote for the ethics of the society in which I live, but can only vote for a small group of people to suggest and vote for our ethics, how am I equal to them? And what sort of democracy is that anyway? And does it matter if that system is local or global?

[25]

Well that would be the idea, to give that government a limited amount of indisputed powers. The UN doesn't have any powers.

And a small point before I forget again; If the UN is "given" any sort of power by the member states, that power is conditional upon the continued support of those states. Meaning that either the UN would have to use that power in agreement with the wishes of those who granted it or risk losing it by angering those who granted it. Such "power" is clearly not worth having.

[eddie_dean]

Rather than call me a troll and reply only to those who support your cause, try to answer the real questions that you'll be forced to answer before anyone takes this idea seriously.? Why should a soverign and strong Nation like the US (UK, France, China, Japan etc..) submit to a government where weak nations like Nigeria, Afghanistan, Venezuela and Poland have an input on their economies and social systems?? Weak and poor nations will support this idea because they'll be able to profit off the 1st world nations.? If you fools think for a second any of the major nations in the world would subscribe to this bullshit you have another thing coming.? This is some fantasy by an individual with no real understanding of the world and certainly nothing invested to put at risk.? There is a reason why only college students and poor countries support this shit - none of them have anything to lose.

Edit:  Organizations like the Un can pass resolutions until they're blue in the face, but how will they enforce it?  They require US money and might to run most things now.  Do you think that the US would ever let a bunch of 3rd world dictators pass a law that would turn the US own power against itself.  The same can be applied with any other 1st world nation.  They have nothing to gain from this and won't sign.

[freedom78]

lastroots:

I have some questions I'd like to have answered:

1.) According to the strategy paper, "The Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations should be open to all member states of the United Nations which are provided with a constitutionally embodied parliament." 
---My question here is one of semantics.  To have a parliamentary form of government generally means to have a representative legislature, out of which a prime minister is chosen.  I contrast this with a presidential form of government, where the executive and legislature are separately elected.  Does this paper mean "constitutionally embodied parliament" as I am interpreting them, or does it mean, more generally, any representative form of government? 

2.) You mentioned that you consider many countries "semi-democratic."  Are you contrasting these with any fully democratic countries, or just commenting that "true" democracy has yet to be realized?