United Democratic Nations

[Gdstark]

That's certainly the most comic example.

Hey, would any of you who are worried about defining democracy be willing to go out on a limb and say "North Korea is not a democracy"? The reality is that you probably do value democracy. All you need to do now is live it. That's the whole point of the United Democratic Nations idea. If somebody has a better idea for increasing world peace, they need to tell everybody.

Hegemonic stability.

Also, may I reccomend the book,"from voting to violence" by Jack Snyder of Columbia University, in which he challenges the view of democratic peace theorists that increasing democratization will inevitably make the world more peaceful.

To quote a review of the Book by G.John Ikenberry, by:

Marshaling an impressive body of empirical evidence, both historical and contemporary, Snyder tests his hypotheses by first looking at turning points in British, French, and German history. The following survey of the transition in the postcommunist and developing worlds also shows similar connections, concluding that recent nationalist and ethnic violence stems not from resurgent ancient hatreds but from elites struggling to maintain authority. A timely reminder that democracy can produce violence as well as peace.

While the book concedes that stable, liberal democracies are unlikely to go to war, there are historically salient precedents which demonstrate that emerging, unstable democracies can actually be detrimental to peace; especially when that instability is infused with revolutionary ideological sentiments or nationalism (see for instance late 18th century France), further exarcebated when those passions are channelled towards an external enemy or/and for the purposes of domestic consolidation (the French revolutionary wars apply here as well).

Anyways, as to your proposed "United Democratic Nations"; the way I see it (All the while appreciating the benefits of the spread of liberal democracy in the long term as a secular trend) external pressure on autocratic regimes to democratize by proxy of an international organization, is to isolate and antagonize those regimes, that the democracies need to partner and work with, if they care about their economic and security interests. China being an obvious example.

Let's examine a hypothetical case in which the UNDC has been established and the foreign policy of liberal democratic states operate by ideologically prioritizing the spread of democracy while ostracizing and putting pressure on "illegitimate" autocratic regimes to change to a "legitimate" representative one. Consider the American relationship with Saudi Arabia, in which the former relies on the latter to act as a swing producer of oil, in order to maintain a low price, in return for which the Americans provide the Sauds with military protection against other gulf states.

What would happen if the U.S policy shifted to no longer maintaining this deal, in consideration of the fact that S.A is an absoloute monarchy and follows suit by cutting off its oil imports and declaring that they will no longer maintain their bases until Saudi Arabia democratize and meet the criteria to join this nascent organization of yours?

I mean other than consolidate the locking of the Saudi-Iranian relationship into an escalating security dilemma (hey, I thought you said you were worried about Nuclear proliferation), since the Saudis no longer have guranteed American military protection, and sending the price of oil skyrocketing which would hurt the U.S economy, their consumer demand, corrolarily the economies of those countries which rely on exporting their goods to the U.S, what would it accomplish exactly?

(And if you think that actual democratization in S.A would neatly avoid such a situation, you would be ignoring the Salaafist grip over their domestic institutions and social paradigms (come to think of it any democracy here would be extremely transient anyway), which are hostile to the Shi'ite and hostile to American interests and would thus be unlikely to maintain the oil for security deal that is currently the status quo, with the consequence that they would be left to their own devices to face Iran. Anyway, the question I want to ask you is, what's the point in being ideologically commited to democracy in all instances, if the effects are pragmatically deleterious?)

Oh, I'm not too worried about overall world peace at the moment, given the trend that overall world conflict has been on the decline for a while. But I would kindly like to ask the United States to stop pushing for regime change in Syria, which I think would be a disaster for the regional peace of the Middle East (not to mention the religious minorities in Syria.)

I think the Hegemonic stability theory is nonsense. And it is unlikely I would have enjoyed living in Roman times. Or in a nation occupied by the British Empire. I think you confuse peace with domination.

As for some reviewer concluding that democracy causes violence, that's fairly nonsensical as well. There will always be bad people in the world. There will always be violence, trains blown up, race problems, and all that. But not because of democracy, but because it's an imperfect world. I don't need to here anyone tell me that democracy is not the best system unless they are willing to point out a better one. Pretty much what Churchil said...

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-- Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

And when you do find problems with democracy, here's the solution...

"The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy."
-- Mencken, H. L.

> to isolate and antagonize those regimes

I have no doubt that dictators will sometimes be frustrated with the UDN, for no other reason than they dislike the example it sets. But think about it...at least you can sleep at night knowing you didn't betray the poor people living under these tyrants. So it's really a tradeoff. Your argument that dictators would not like the UDN is more unconvincing that you realize.

As for our support support of the Saudi princes, all I can say is that I'm ashamed as an American. Ultimately we make a lot of people justifiably angry with that undemocratic shit. Absolutely embarassing. And while I disagree with you that the politics would override the global oil market, I would do the right thing regardless.

> locking of the Saudi-Iranian relationship into an escalating security dilemma

I don't know if you're watching middle east politics these days, but it's the dictators that are on the run. No need for us to escalate anything.

> ignoring the Salaafist grip over their domestic institutions

It's my opinion that you are underestimating the S.A. people. They are discovering that they want television. They want to send their kids to school. Same stuff everybody wants. They're not looking to build new cults or new dictators. They watch the news now. IMO your concerns are unfounded in the internet age. The current crop of uprisings will show that.

> I would kindly like to ask the United States to stop pushing for regime change in Syria

Let's go with Syria as an example. I would want the UDN to help keep the internet free and alive. Fight against the IT people working for the dictator and make sure that all phone videos of soldiers beating civilions are widely published. And cell networks still work. And, although this probably goes without saying, Syria would NOT meet the UDN membership requirements. I would also imagine that the UDN would participate in a world court which would prevent the king from vacationing in UDN member nations without being handcuffed.

But let's stop there. Suppose the UDN did nothing else. No missiles, no predator drones. Would that be a foreign policy position more to your liking?

> what's the point in being ideologically commited to democracy in all instances, if the effects are pragmatically deleterious?

Of course I can't answer your question because I don't buy the premise.

gary

[Gdstark]

Okay, let me try this a different way since you don't follow exactly. In your video, you say that insurrection against a dictator is somehow bad, according to some rule of ethics that the world enjoys but the revolutionaries don't. If they did possess this same ethic, they wouldn't have revolted. Do you see how tyrannical this sounds? A revolutionary is exercising his right to liberty in rebelling (I would say even by violent means as every State on earth exists by violence against the individual) against a perceived oppressor. I'm saying that his liberty is subjective to his perspective, not yours. I am saying that you, even assuming the existence of a UDN, are in no position to judge the legitimacy of his claim to liberty - which is what you are doing by claiming that revolution (which is not necessarily violent) is antithetical to world desires.

A people that have not risen against their dictator have not risen against their dictator. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. For whatever reason, they haven't. Be it fear or satisfaction, they haven't done so and therefore, be it fear or satisfaction, they give tacit approval to the gov't under which they labor.

This tacit approval stems from the very social contract upon which ALL gov'ts are founded. Being founded upon such a premise is precisely the tyranny you insist you oppose. B/c the only way a person can be truly represented is to allow them to be in firm control over their political rights at all times. The social contract assumes that a person born under a democracy gives tacit approval to the democracy (or vice versa a dictatorship) and is therefore subject to its rule. But this is tyranny. It denies individual choice and freedom of political rights. Moreover, even were every person granted the right of self-determination at birth, they would be oppressed in the same manner by the very nature of time. In order to grant them the right to political freedom at all possible times, they must be able to vote for their gov't every second of every day. Since this is impossible, your position is undermined. Any denial of the right to self-determination at any point in time invalidates your claim to speak for "truly" representative gov't.

Since you presume to speak for the world on the issue of "true" representative gov't, then it behooves you to understand that it is not peace that is in the best interest of the world, but individual liberty.

*(A side point for the more perceptive reader, yes I am an anarchist saying that not rebelling against the gov't you view as oppressive is tacit approval... no, that does not include me as I am actively engaged in legal activities to undermine the legitimacy of the gov't I perceive as oppressive.)

> In your video, you say that insurrection against a dictator is somehow bad, according to some rule of ethics that the world enjoys but the revolutionaries don't.

I'm not sure what you heard with my video, but I'm happy to set you straight. I'm glad that people in the middle east and beyond are revolting against their dictators. I'm sorry that people die in the process. I'm proud whenever I feel that my nation supports the rebels, even if only morally. And I'm sad when my nation still clings to other brutal dictators in the world out of economic and political convenience. I like the UDN idea because, if it results in the end of dictators, no further people will need to die in violent uprisings. They can vote instead. It's an important component of world peace.

Does that clarify my position?

>A people that have not risen against their dictator have not risen against their dictator. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. For whatever reason, they haven't. Be it fear or satisfaction, they haven't done so and therefore, be it fear or satisfaction, they give tacit approval to the gov't under which they labor.

Hold. Stop right there. BS on your "tacit approval. They gave no approval at all. None. Zero. I don't know how else to say it. So stop pretending you can read minds.

[Gdstark]

Allow me to clarify. In a fully democratic world, revolutions would be through the electoral process, not through the use of arms. In dictatorships...well...just open a newspaper. My point is that dictatorships lead to violent revolutions, which works AGAINST the cause of world peace.

And I am saying that world peace is not a cause for the world. The world is not a single existing organic thing. It is a collection of sovereign individuals who sometimes cooperate. Speaking for an amorphous aggregate is the epitome of collectivist idealism. You walk dangerous ideological grounds reminiscent of the French Revolution.

I can't argue with someone who doesn't think we should seek world peace, sorry. The distance between our positions is just too vast.

[Gdstark]

Since you believe that the status quo is fine, I suspect that I cannot convince you.

Yes, the status quo is fine. Countries are the way they are because the populace allows them to be.

So other than giving the UN a greater ability to kick butt, you have no other thoughts on how to improve it?

A few. I believe there should be no permanent Security Council, and the individual member nations should be elected to it via majority vote within the General Assembly, it should create and maintain a fighting force, and it should have greater power over individual member nations.

How about the security council? France is 20th in nation populations and holds a permanent seat on the powerful Security Council, including veto authority. India is the 2nd most populous nation, the worlds largest democracy, yet has no such position. How would you explain the fairness of this to an Indian citizen?

"The UN was created shortly after WW2. At the time, India was a colony of Britain. The powers that be saw it fit to give Britain a seat over you." Should the system be changed? Yes. But the UN is by large a good organization.

No, I disagree strongly with you. We can do so much better.

So? That isn't how geopolitics works. You can't make it better without making it much worse. Reform takes time.

Even if we disagree on the extend, I'm glad to see that we both favor democratic reform of the UN.

On the armies and kicking butt thing...I don't think we'll need that for real world peace. Speculation on my part, I admit.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Even if we disagree on the extend, I'm glad to see that we both favor democratic reform of the UN.

On the armies and kicking butt thing...I don't think we'll need that for real world peace. Speculation on my part, I admit.

The ability to put a blue helmeted paratrooper up the ass of a threatening country is a prime motivator for peace.

[Gdstark]

So you approve of our ambasadors checking their demoratic principles at the door of the UN? There would be no greater dismissal of democracy than to pretend that dictators are legitimate.

You can maintain a position that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, while maintaining a pragmatic approach to foreign relations. What you're suggesting -- isolating and demonizing half the world

No, demonizing is not how it works. The primary goal is to set a good democratic example. You don't convince by demonizing. That's so George Bush. Look, if you fail to coax nations over to democracy, you fail the mission.

-- is a recipe for decreased cooperation and increased conflict. The point of establishing the United Nations was to bring together all states, regardless of their forms of government, and foster cooperation with them. Through that cooperation, the world would be able to integrate economies, provide a forum for peaceful discourse, and establish international law with actual authority.

That's all well and good. And now it's time to step it up. Achieve a peaceful world...a world where all of that wasted military spending can go to solving energy problems, improving transportation, exploring the solar system. Look, when nuclear proliferation is moving in the wrong direction, it's time to reevaluate the workings of your global political institution.

If you remove all the non-democratic states, then you're left with a pro-democracy echo chamber. Liberal democracies already cooperate economically and diplomatically. It's the non-democratic states that are really affected by the United Nations. The process of democratization is certainly slow, but it is also working. Through the United Nations, the world has consistently progressed in the area of human rights. We have the United Nations to thank for the development of the Responsibility to Protect, which is the most significant shift in promoting democracy in centuries.

Do you really think all that could have been done without an inclusive United Nations? Why would the non-democratic states cooperate with this UDN? Why wouldn't they hunker down and become even more authoritarian? Since there's now a big bad group of United Democracies trying to assert their authority over the world, they're going to have huge incentives to do just that.

"big bad"? Oh, you're too funny. The UDN would be small and not bad. I distinctly remember writing that.

The United Nations definitely needs to be reformed. Nobody really denies this. The Security Council should be expanded. But the problems with reform aren't because of any organizational issues within the United Nations. The problems with reform lay at the feet of activists. There simply aren't enough social actors out there demanding reform. The Security Council won't expand because (a) there aren't any incentives to do so, but there are plenty of disincentives and (b) since there's not any major push for expansion, individual UNSC states aren't going to voluntarily decrease their share of the power.

btw, this is why I suspect that the UN will never reform and that the UDN will need to be created on a parallel track.

The taboo of nuclear weapons developed in response to a global social movement against their use. While the norm of non-use still exists, there is no effective global social movement for total disarmament anymore.

I suspect that will change immediately after the first nuclear terrorist attack, don't you?

Nuclear deterrence theory still makes sense to a lot of people in and out of government, and there's really nobody out there challenging the logic.

The odds today that we just happen to need to kill a million people that just happen to be standing within a ten mile radius are growing increasingly remote. Nuclear weapons are incompatible with the rule of law. There...now somebody's challenged the logic.

(You have the debate happening in IR theory circles, but not in the public square.) The fault of stalled disarmament doesn't lay at the feet of the United Nations, but at the feet of everybody who isn't demanding disarmament.

Scrapping the United Nations isn't going to fix any of this. It probably will only make things worse. United Nations reform depends upon social demand for it. Trying to create a social movement for a new IGO is a just really bad idea.

Make matters worse? And if it gets worse with the status quo, you may be the one looking for an alternative. Watch when China becomes more militarily assertive...see how well that plays at the UN...

[Gdstark]

So pick your side. Democratic or authoritarian. If your choice is not to make the distinction, then you did make a choice...you have decided that democracy is not that important to you. And that's pretty much what we have now with the UN. So if you're not concerned about nuclear proliferation, the buildup of the Chinese military, and all that, then you're right...no need to change.

What? You can't view the world in black and white.

Just to clarify, democracy is NOT black and white. And it is possible to measure quantities, even when they are not binary.

How do you plan on having this UDN control nuclear proliferation if it cannot even negotiate with states who are most likely to pose a problem in that regard?

Cannot ever negitiate? I think you misunderstand. Just because a nation fails the democracy test does not mean all dialog is terminated. It just means that we no longer pretend that those in charge are legitimate representatives of the citizens, but instead hold their positions by force. If negotiation as an example lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons on both sides, that would benefit all. So don't assume a lack of dialog. That's too simplistic.

I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but if you alienate the government and cut ties, won't that hurt your cause? If the government decides the UDN is a threat, won't it clamp down on the flow of information from democratic states? Won't that make it harder for pro-democracy forces within China to organize and garner support from abroad?

We want the same things but disagree on how we get there. Don't go French Revolution on us, that was pretty ugly for a while because of blind idealism.

How you equate the French Revolution and the United Democratic Nations concept, I will never understand.

[Gdstark]

If somebody has a better idea for increasing world peace, they need to tell everybody.

Respect all nations' sovereignty and stop saying that some forms of government are illegitimate? Most current international wars were caused by ideology (at least officially), so it obviously would increase international peace.

Here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose a bunch of international terrorists and all-around bad guys took over Holland. They put Holland'd leaders against a wall and shoot them. The next day one of the badguys shows up at the UN and insists that he represents Holland. Would you let him sit down behind the "HOLLAND" nameplate? If not, why not? You just said we should respect all forms of government.

[Gdstark]

So, ignore all basic human rights? Would you like to be tortured to death? North Koreans and Chinese people don't, yet their dictatorial goverment tortures them, jails dissidents and maintains a secret police. And you're defending them?
Seriously, how can you do that? How can you actually defend nations that do not respect democracy and basic human rights AT ALL?

I - unlike you - know that human rights are a human invention. Everyone SHOULD have basic human rights, but I don't say that everyone actually HAS them.

Wow. Really weak answer to a very good question.

[Gdstark]

Yeah, everyone should have them, but they don't. That is why something has to be done.

There is not much that could be done, you can tell to those nations regimes and dictators that the way they run their countries is bad but thats about it.

That's about it? Very uncreative response. Here's an idea...care about internet censorship.

[Gdstark]

Even if we disagree on the extend, I'm glad to see that we both favor democratic reform of the UN.

On the armies and kicking butt thing...I don't think we'll need that for real world peace. Speculation on my part, I admit.

The ability to put a blue helmeted paratrooper up the ass of a threatening country is a prime motivator for peace.

In my vision of the future, you won't have entire countries threatening anyone, the rule of law will be sufficient to handle any badguys, and wars will be a relic of the past. The way I see it, our future is whatever we want to make of it.

[Francis Fitzgerald]

I would favor this if it was an additional organization/body. But disbanding the UN in replace of it, or forcing countries to pick between the two? Hardly practical.

[Distruzio]

> In your video, you say that insurrection against a dictator is somehow bad, according to some rule of ethics that the world enjoys but the revolutionaries don't.

I'm not sure what you heard with my video, but I'm happy to set you straight. I'm glad that people in the middle east and beyond are revolting against their dictators. I'm sorry that people die in the process. I'm proud whenever I feel that my nation supports the rebels, even if only morally. And I'm sad when my nation still clings to other brutal dictators in the world out of economic and political convenience. I like the UDN idea because, if it results in the end of dictators, no further people will need to die in violent uprisings. They can vote instead. It's an important component of world peace.

Does that clarify my position?

It does. But I didn't ask for clarification. I asked if you understood how tyrannical you sounded?

In assuming that you know what is best for others, you engage in a do-good moral adventurism that parallels the French Revolutionaries in their quest to eliminate the european monarchs. It is a dangerous position to take in the name of freedom.

>A people that have not risen against their dictator have not risen against their dictator. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. For whatever reason, they haven't. Be it fear or satisfaction, they haven't done so and therefore, be it fear or satisfaction, they give tacit approval to the gov't under which they labor.

Hold. Stop right there. BS on your "tacit approval. They gave no approval at all. None. Zero. I don't know how else to say it. So stop pretending you can read minds.

Me? I'm not the one presuming to speak for the world, my friend. I'm not the one insisting that everyone everywhere wants democracy. In fact I don't want to live under a democratic regime. I would much prefer monarchy to democracy, and an anarchy to that. As far as I am concerned, democracy is a step towards decivilization and tyranny. Democracy, to paraphrase Bastiat, is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at everyone else's expense. Even were your UDN created, you would oppress those who think like me by forcing democracy on us. Those people you speak for, the oppressed masses living under totalitarian regimes, gave you no explicit - since you now change gears and insist explicit is required - approval to "defend" them.

Again, just so we are clear... I'll quote myself...

This tacit approval stems from the very social contract upon which ALL gov'ts are founded. Being founded upon such a premise is precisely the tyranny you insist you oppose. B/c the only way a person can be truly represented is to allow them to be in firm control over their political rights at all times. The social contract assumes that a person born under a democracy gives tacit approval to the democracy (or vice versa a dictatorship) and is therefore subject to its rule. But this is tyranny. It denies individual choice and freedom of political rights. Moreover, even were every person granted the right of self-determination at birth, they would be oppressed in the same manner by the very nature of time. In order to grant them the right to political freedom at all possible times, they must be able to vote for their gov't every second of every day. Since this is impossible, your position is undermined. Any denial of the right to self-determination at any point in time invalidates your claim to speak for "truly" representative gov't.

Since you presume to speak for the world on the issue of "true" representative gov't, then it behooves you to understand that it is not peace that is in the best interest of the world, but individual liberty.

Since you have no explicit request from the non-democratic peoples, you are assuming tacitly that they desire democracy. I am not disputing this position. I am saying that if you are saying this, then you invalidate your own position by your own admission. In other words, trying to force integration onto people is anti-democratic since you believe that everyone should be free to choose their own lives for themselves. You should, instead, support voluntary segregation.

[Voerdeland]

Respect all nations' sovereignty and stop saying that some forms of government are illegitimate? Most current international wars were caused by ideology (at least officially), so it obviously would increase international peace.

Here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose a bunch of international terrorists and all-around bad guys took over Holland. They put Holland'd leaders against a wall and shoot them. The next day one of the badguys shows up at the UN and insists that he represents Holland. Would you let him sit down behind the "HOLLAND" nameplate? If not, why not? You just said we should respect all forms of government.

If they were actually controlling Holland and able to enforce their laws on the Dutch territory, then yes, I would let them.

[Distruzio]

Respect all nations' sovereignty and stop saying that some forms of government are illegitimate? Most current international wars were caused by ideology (at least officially), so it obviously would increase international peace.

Here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose a bunch of international terrorists and all-around bad guys took over Holland. They put Holland'd leaders against a wall and shoot them. The next day one of the badguys shows up at the UN and insists that he represents Holland. Would you let him sit down behind the "HOLLAND" nameplate? If not, why not? You just said we should respect all forms of government.

Wait, like the US has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations?

[Gdstark]

> In your video, you say that insurrection against a dictator is somehow bad, according to some rule of ethics that the world enjoys but the revolutionaries don't.

I'm not sure what you heard with my video, but I'm happy to set you straight. I'm glad that people in the middle east and beyond are revolting against their dictators. I'm sorry that people die in the process. I'm proud whenever I feel that my nation supports the rebels, even if only morally. And I'm sad when my nation still clings to other brutal dictators in the world out of economic and political convenience. I like the UDN idea because, if it results in the end of dictators, no further people will need to die in violent uprisings. They can vote instead. It's an important component of world peace.

Does that clarify my position?

It does. But I didn't ask for clarification. I asked if you understood how tyrannical you sounded?

In assuming that you know what is best for others, you engage in a do-good moral adventurism that parallels the French Revolutionaries in their quest to eliminate the european monarchs. It is a dangerous position to take in the name of freedom.

>A people that have not risen against their dictator have not risen against their dictator. Full stop. Period. End of discussion. For whatever reason, they haven't. Be it fear or satisfaction, they haven't done so and therefore, be it fear or satisfaction, they give tacit approval to the gov't under which they labor.

Hold. Stop right there. BS on your "tacit approval. They gave no approval at all. None. Zero. I don't know how else to say it. So stop pretending you can read minds.

Me? I'm not the one presuming to speak for the world, my friend. I'm not the one insisting that everyone everywhere wants democracy. In fact I don't want to live under a democratic regime. I would much prefer monarchy to democracy, and an anarchy to that. As far as I am concerned, democracy is a step towards decivilization and tyranny. Democracy, to paraphrase Bastiat, is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at everyone else's expense. Even were your UDN created, you would oppress those who think like me by forcing democracy on us. Those people you speak for, the oppressed masses living under totalitarian regimes, gave you no explicit - since you now change gears and insist explicit is required - approval to "defend" them.

Again, just so we are clear... I'll quote myself...

This tacit approval stems from the very social contract upon which ALL gov'ts are founded. Being founded upon such a premise is precisely the tyranny you insist you oppose. B/c the only way a person can be truly represented is to allow them to be in firm control over their political rights at all times. The social contract assumes that a person born under a democracy gives tacit approval to the democracy (or vice versa a dictatorship) and is therefore subject to its rule. But this is tyranny. It denies individual choice and freedom of political rights. Moreover, even were every person granted the right of self-determination at birth, they would be oppressed in the same manner by the very nature of time. In order to grant them the right to political freedom at all possible times, they must be able to vote for their gov't every second of every day. Since this is impossible, your position is undermined. Any denial of the right to self-determination at any point in time invalidates your claim to speak for "truly" representative gov't.

Since you presume to speak for the world on the issue of "true" representative gov't, then it behooves you to understand that it is not peace that is in the best interest of the world, but individual liberty.

Since you have no explicit request from the non-democratic peoples, you are assuming tacitly that they desire democracy. I am not disputing this position. I am saying that if you are saying this, then you invalidate your own position by your own admission. In other words, trying to force integration onto people is anti-democratic since you believe that everyone should be free to choose their own lives for themselves. You should, instead, support voluntary segregation.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. I'm not proposing that we force democracy on anyone. I'm only saying that we help those who seek it by keeping the internet free, by making it known to the world when dictators slaughter their own citizens, and such. I'm not proposing any sort of Bush-like "rescue mission" where we charge in and "free" anybody. That decision ultimately belongs to the people. Unlike you I make NO assumption about approvals. I do not pretend that I know what a people want who do not or cannot vote.

[Gdstark]

Here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose a bunch of international terrorists and all-around bad guys took over Holland. They put Holland'd leaders against a wall and shoot them. The next day one of the badguys shows up at the UN and insists that he represents Holland. Would you let him sit down behind the "HOLLAND" nameplate? If not, why not? You just said we should respect all forms of government.

If they were actually controlling Holland and able to enforce their laws on the Dutch territory, then yes, I would let them.

Nobody can say you are not consistent. My response is that, if you design a world where might makes right, you will not have a peaceful world.

[Gdstark]

Here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose a bunch of international terrorists and all-around bad guys took over Holland. They put Holland'd leaders against a wall and shoot them. The next day one of the badguys shows up at the UN and insists that he represents Holland. Would you let him sit down behind the "HOLLAND" nameplate? If not, why not? You just said we should respect all forms of government.

Wait, like the US has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations?

If you assume that the US is a model of democracy, than you don't understand democracy.

[Azhir]

I find it funny how you put USA on that map, made me laugh.... democratic my arse.

[Casta Nal]

Wait, like the US has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other nations?

If you assume that the US is a model of democracy, than you don't understand democracy.

The US is a very functioning government somehow. Best example of democracy is definitely...umm....need help/
The US has had an honest self-serving foreign policy for a long time which is perfectly fine in my opinion. As long as we get our oil we need.

[Autash]

If you assume that the US is a model of democracy, than you don't understand democracy.

The US is a very functioning government somehow. Best example of democracy is definitely...umm....need help

Scandinavian countries tend to dominate the top ten list. Check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index#2010_rankings

[The USOT]

No and UDN sounds like another UN with a biased.

And why should the UN not be biased? To be frank, an alliance of free nations which value democracy seems like a better and more effective alliance than a democratic nations allied with dictatorships who cant even agree amongst themselves...

[Casta Nal]

No and UDN sounds like another UN with a biased.

And why should the UN not be biased? To be frank, an alliance of free nations which value democracy seems like a better and more effective alliance than a democratic nations allied with dictatorships who cant even agree amongst themselves...

The UN is pretty much powerless and is domniated by the big and important nations who can do whatever they want.

[Sawia]

As is NATO and EU, bigger boys tell what will be done and the rest will just come along.

[Great Nepal]

K intelligence.

How do you think this will work? We tried the LEague of Nations which failed....United Nations which failed...

So you want to create an international organization that is only made up of democratic countries? Great pipe dream. What about the totalitarianistic governments? Are they just going to sit back and be left out of an international community? No.

Why do you think this is a good idea?

Who cares about totalitarian goverments? They don't even represent their people. We can leave them in their own mess and let them cry how ''Western imperialists'' opress them.

Sure, when over half of world including Russia and China form USN (United Sovereign Nations) to stand against your dream UDN, it will stand strong...