Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (58259)	10/10/1999 1:35:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Hmmm...Sounds like the kind of world government that frightens some people. Let's take Proposal 3, for example: RESOLVED: Any government committing an act of war against its own people or against another nation without the sanction of the Security Council of the UN (or the General Assembly under "Uniting for Peace" in the SC inaction) shall be subject to sanctions or isolation until they submit themselves to the authority of the World Court. I'm all for this, in principle. But: 1) Many governments regard committing an act of war against their own people a sacred prerogative of sovereignty. 2) Many -- perhaps most -- governments commit acts of war against other nations without even asking their own parliaments (this has been true of the US on several occasions, despite our constitution) -- and you expect them to ask the UN for permission? 3) These same governments are all represented in the UN. So what would compel them to relinquish their "prerogatives" to that supra-national body? And why would the UN as a whole be better than the individual national governments represented in it? Why assume,in other words, that the whole will be wiser than its parts? 4) The Security Council is limited to the biggest kids on the block. As a group, it has an interest in preserving the status quo. Thus, I am not sure that its decisions would always be the fairest, the most "just." I really hate the idea that a national government can do anything it likes to people living on its territory, because it is territory over which it has exclusive sovereignty. But because I hate it, I would like to see some practical, realizable way of curtailing this abuse of sovereignty. The above proposal sounds just a bit too utopian to me. Joan

To: nihil who wrote (58259)	10/10/1999 11:09:00 AM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Regarding item 1 - we DO use these courts about half the time. Suuurely we're good for "partial credit".