Friday, July 6, 2007
Blogswarm
Do blogswarms work? Here's a cause where it's worthy to put it to the test! The AP needs to explain why they report thinly sourced (and later debunked) massacres and don't report on other substantial reports. Dean has more on the subject and is calling for the blogswarm. I'll add my audience to the blogswarm! Okay... so that's mostly just me... still, it's the thought that counts!
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Alliance of Democracies
I think NATO and the UN need to go away, however it is probably best that we don't abandon them. We should keep a nominal presence in both, and cut our monetary support of the UN as much as possible, and have its headquarters moved to some other country. I think the UN is too corrupt, and will be as long as it is dominated by non-democratic powers, and I think that will always be the case. NATO has served its purpose, but I have in mind a new organization that would replace both NATO and the UN in terms of function.
We need an Alliance of Democracies. Membership is only possible for those countries that have as law the equivalent to our 1st amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
About the only change I'd make is that all citizens must be regarded as equal, without regard to race, religion or gender.
Any country that doesn't allow religious freedom, free speech, free press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the goverment cannot be granted membership. Any member country that passes a law abridging these rights will forfeit their membership.
Why make this the membership criteria? I think democracies (and by the above criteria, I amend that to 'liberal democracies') will have a much higher desire to form a consensus with other countries and will try to find all means possible to resolve problems, saving military action as a last resort. These liberal, or 'open' democracies allow for much more vigorous debate and will represent the will of their people much more accurately than those countries that curtail these inaliable rights. Such an alliance would not want to make war on another country, but if they did it was because all other avenues had been exhausted.
What is the function of this alliance?
1. Economic - by forming an alliance they could give each other favorable market standing so that trade between the countries is increased, helping the economy in the member countries.
2. Self-Defense - just like NATO, should one country be attacked, it would be viewed as a declaration of war on all member countries and they would be required to respond militarily to the defense of the attacked member.
3. Foreign Policy - the foreign policy of each nation will remain their own, but the group can agree upon sanctions (though I'm dubious if these have ever worked) and negotiations with non-member countries/groups. Positions towards countries/organizations that are hostile to one or more member countries would take priority. All member countries would be expected to maintain a military that is capable of contributing toward defensive and offensive capabilities.
4. Openness. I think the reasons for a country being denied entry to the alliance should be made clear to the world. I also think that any marks against a member country should also be made clear to the world. All evidence of a hostile countries acts against a member country should also be listed and backed up. Such evidence gathering and advertisement builds a case for war, which will either make it easier to declare war when necessary, or cause the hostile entity to amend its actions so as not to incur military hostilities.
This is just high level, I realize a lot more detail would be required - such as would voting require majority, super-majority, or unanimous assent? Would there be any veto capabilities? Consider this just an initial draft of an alliance I'd like to see happen.
We need an Alliance of Democracies. Membership is only possible for those countries that have as law the equivalent to our 1st amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
About the only change I'd make is that all citizens must be regarded as equal, without regard to race, religion or gender.
Any country that doesn't allow religious freedom, free speech, free press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the goverment cannot be granted membership. Any member country that passes a law abridging these rights will forfeit their membership.
Why make this the membership criteria? I think democracies (and by the above criteria, I amend that to 'liberal democracies') will have a much higher desire to form a consensus with other countries and will try to find all means possible to resolve problems, saving military action as a last resort. These liberal, or 'open' democracies allow for much more vigorous debate and will represent the will of their people much more accurately than those countries that curtail these inaliable rights. Such an alliance would not want to make war on another country, but if they did it was because all other avenues had been exhausted.
What is the function of this alliance?
1. Economic - by forming an alliance they could give each other favorable market standing so that trade between the countries is increased, helping the economy in the member countries.
2. Self-Defense - just like NATO, should one country be attacked, it would be viewed as a declaration of war on all member countries and they would be required to respond militarily to the defense of the attacked member.
3. Foreign Policy - the foreign policy of each nation will remain their own, but the group can agree upon sanctions (though I'm dubious if these have ever worked) and negotiations with non-member countries/groups. Positions towards countries/organizations that are hostile to one or more member countries would take priority. All member countries would be expected to maintain a military that is capable of contributing toward defensive and offensive capabilities.
4. Openness. I think the reasons for a country being denied entry to the alliance should be made clear to the world. I also think that any marks against a member country should also be made clear to the world. All evidence of a hostile countries acts against a member country should also be listed and backed up. Such evidence gathering and advertisement builds a case for war, which will either make it easier to declare war when necessary, or cause the hostile entity to amend its actions so as not to incur military hostilities.
This is just high level, I realize a lot more detail would be required - such as would voting require majority, super-majority, or unanimous assent? Would there be any veto capabilities? Consider this just an initial draft of an alliance I'd like to see happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)