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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103339)	6/28/2003 8:59:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, being a Liberal, act.org.nz act.org.nz liberal.org.nz liberal.org.nz I should therefore come up with the framework for the UN Reconstitution Conference. It's quite easy really. It starts with property rights. It ends with property rights. The right to own one's self, property and to freely associate with who the heck one chooses. The idea that relationships shall be based on voluntary exchange of value. Similarly, countries would have rights like that as though they are individuals. Building from that, a reconstituted UN would include only those countries which can demonstrate that We the Sheeple are the rulers of their country. China would therefore be excluded. India would not. Japan would not. Taiwan would not. China might not like that = we shall tell Hu Jintao that that is his problem, not ours or Taiwan's. Fiji, if it included a racist constitution would not. New Zealand, with a racist electoral system would be excluded. Myanmar, Arafat, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and other barbarian countries would be excluded. They would be beyond the pale. The constitution would be very limited. Limited to control of things which affect other countries. Such as spectrum spraying out of a country interfering with others would be restricted. Pollution of oceans would be restricted. Pollution of air would be restricted. Something like 80% majorities would be needed [to avoid unreasonable impositions on others such as unproven Kyoto CO2 controls]. Stuff like that. My definition of Liberal [and the NZ definition] is almost opposite in meaning to that in the USA. But oddly, Act is seen as an extreme right wing party in NZ. Labels seem to have little accurate meaning these days from one person to another. Maybe there is room for simply starting a new organisation in competition with the UN and see which one gets most support. The USA is doing that with the formation of the COW and right to pre-emptive strikes against rumoured weapons of mass destruction - but seems not to be gaining global support. [COW = Coalition Of Willing, pronounced as in, "Don't have a cow"]. We the Sheeple RULZ OK, Mqurice PS: Actually, I should probably see if I can get Act to take it on as a project. I'm a long-time member and might be able to get it going. It's about time somebody got a round tuit.