Well, beyond trying to mention the UN as a distracting element, it is a form of non-binding contract organization made up by its member Nations by treaty. As such it has no higher power than accountability between those Nations for what they agree to via such non-binding contracts. Sovereignty includes the ability to limit such non-binding contracts or even leave them at will: while it takes both a President and Senate to sign up to a treaty, a President has final say over it and either can end it. That is the sovereign powers we vest in that set-up so that we are not party to treaties that abuse our sovereignty and freedom to act independently as a Nation.

Thusly, the US or any Nation is free to do as it pleases with the UN. Sign up and support it. Sign up and not support it. Sign up and abuse it. Sign up and not care about it. Or not sign up at all. There are as many options and choices as there are Nations, that is clear by the Law of Nations.

It is interesting that the Progressive Teddy Roosevelt played around with the idea of a ‘League of Peace’, but ultimately disavowed the idea as it is unworkable in international affairs. The idea, however, would start the era of Wilsonianism and Transnational Progressivism and seek to erode sovereign governments representing their people’s intersts (no matter how well or poorly they did so) with one of a communal ruling structure of elite bureaucrats. It is interesting to read Chapter XV of Roosevelt’s autobiography to see him recount this, and why treaty organizations are not of necessity a good thing and may even harm National interests. He was disabused of the notion that a universal treaty organization was possible and would even campaign against the very League of Peace idea he had proposed.

Thusly I do not support the treaty vehicle that creates the UN as it does not reflect the values of liberty and freedom of this Nation and often works at direct opposition to those values. I would support a review of the treaty and amending or withdrawing from it until such values are supported. If we are to be just one Nation amongst all Nations then all members need pay an exactly equal share, otherwise you seek to put a skewed economic basis to the mechanism which warps its viewpoint. Further I see no reason to give dictators, tyrants and despots a global forum on which to expound their ill-formed visions and repressive attitudes as they are ultimately uncivilizing in their basis and devalue human liberty and freedom.

I do have problems with other treaties and organizations. That is not down out of malice: I have no ‘hate’ of the UN or G-20. It is done out of our common and shared values of liberty and freedom, and men instituting sovereign governments in which to enjoy the fruits of their labor and have active intercourse with other Nations as they will. That means I do not believe in free trade as a sovereign good, as even Adam Smith recognized that the Law of Nations makes the Wealth of Nations possible and that the latter most wholly conform to former and not the other way around. Thus free trade should only be with friends and allies who support our common values of liberty and freedom so that we can be stronger, together, in those shared values than we are separately. Institutions that I see as misguided or that debase those values I speak against as that is my duty as a citizen of a Nation that upholds them.

That means I come to harsh breaks with both liberals and conservatives, because I stand beside the common ideals that empower us as individuals and keeps Nations on the short leash to those who have liberty and freedom. This basis I find in our common and shared history, culture and the reasoning put forth for them I find eminently sound.

I can personally find a politician ‘likeable’ but detest his or her policies. Mostly I find politicians to be the bottom feeders in the great river of liberty, but they are a necessary part of that eco system if you can ensure there are enough of them to keep each other small. Thus I support a much wider and, indeed, the widest possible representative democracy so that the multitude of voices can be heard in their richness in DC, and that will stopper up steamrollering any bad laws through just through multiplicity of views and the hard ability to make ‘voting blocks’. In the UN there is absolute inequality because it is a tertiary representative organization and does not have necessary safeguards to choose accountable bureaucrats. And while I value liberty and freedom, I note that some very populous Nations are very illiberal and offer little freedom to their peoples… and really wish those peoples would come to their senses and do something about it.

Unlike a Nation of free men, the world has distinct organizational differences that are due to culture that is reflected in their Nations. That is ‘multi-culturalism’ at its highest form, we need no laws to enforce it as it is how we form Nations and separate ourselves into agreeable sub-groups. Within a free Nation we must come to common accord and divisiveness needs to be put aside for the common good. That cannot be achieved on an international scale due to the way we see ourselves and how we create forms of government.

That is a scale-free view of the world, allowing different organizational levels to have their own basis, but then examining each with the same viewpoint. From hand-shake agreements to international treaties, the view is the same.

That is reasoned opposition to a treaty using a described basis and then demonstrating how that basis then gives a view to goals and aims. You don’t set policy based on ‘good feelings’ or ‘what should be’, but on the principles you endorse and stand behind. I disagreed with the previous President on a host of issues, but I keep my stances civil. I did the same with Clinton. H.W. Bush. Reagan. Even reviewing past office holders, I keep that stance of civility. And I continue to do it with this current occupant. I must separate my personal feelings for the individual and examine their policies separately so I can find the good for my Nation or see where I think such an office holder has erred and say so. If I like Teddy Roosevelt the man, and detest his policies but recognize his later wisdom, where would that put me with modern Liberals… or even Conservatives for that matter? And I will grant TR that absolute courage to write his autobiography unstintingly to offer us insights he held when he held them and why he changed his views… that is very rare in US politics. Mind you, I still detest many of his policies…

I do wish that modern critics could do the same and stop the yelling and attempting to manipulate my emotions. It doesn’t work and makes you look authoritarian by nature to reach for such base emotions and not for higher reason. That makes those critics look no good at all, being supporters of unreasoned irrationality to gain a way that is not backed by our shared history and how we make the structures of governance around us. That comes to no good end at all. Ever.

ajacksonian on May 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM