Newest Freedonia
19-10-2004, 19:21
The idea of the U.N. is inherintly flawed, as is most good ideas. I reference the arguement that The term "Axis of Evil" should be banned. The statement alone suggests that the group which coined the phrase or uses it to there purpose, i.e. the U.N., comes from a moral background. This fact needs to be introduced if my following arguement is to have any basis.
The U.N. promotes peace. Peace is generally accepted by all human life. The devil, though, is in the details. One example of peace is all peoples, living together, in harmony and mutaul agreement. This negates the concept of ambition. Some would argue that ambition would transform or be newly defined as: "A motive to better all surroundings, including those belonging to others." I would disagree. Ambition is fueled by ego, and in a harmonious peace; ego has no place. those who support ego would suggest that ambition and progress are the same.
This introduces the concept familiar to all: Power Corrupts.
At what point would an ambitious ego no longer accept the checks and balances of their peers. At what point do they reject the concept of peers. Once an ego decides to ignore those peoples around them (who need them as part of the harmonious peace) and begin to act on their own authority opposed to the will of the people (under such reasons as: it is the will of the people, who are they to dictate to me, they'll see, etc.)
These egos eventually break from the stock and form their own group (i.e. nazi germany, american colonies, India self rule, etc.). This group is either resisted by the body politic, with the break-away labeled as revolutionaries; or the body politic allows the ego's faction to break-away or offers them land and recognizes their sovereignty.
This is where the concept of United Nations begin. More than one body politic conversing to maintain the status quo, in this case peace. The problem begins when these or many body politics disagree.
I purpose that the U.N. is the Macrocosm to the individual body politic's Mircocosm. And if that is the case, where does it draw it's authority. The answer is simple. The status quo: peace. Those of the moral higher ground wish to expand it to all the willing. Those of a egotistical motive wish to be left alone to commit their power plays.
The term "Axis of Evil" occures when the one (or both) of the two philosophies above no longer feel it is enough that U.N. accepts multipule philosophies in the realm of shared existance. The phrase itself is usually adopted by the moral higher ground just before it commits an egotistical act.
Now, the question becomes: "How do we maintain the status quo abroad when we can't even maintain it at home?" At this point the Macrocosm is confused for the Mircocosm, and any number of excuses are made to commit acts within the authority of the Status Quo. (i.e. The U.N. having an army, genocide, etc.)
The question I would like to purpose is: "Is not the U.N. it's own sovereign body politic?" Is it one nation or many nations? Is it a single republic, disguised as a republic of republics? Are egos in check, or is unity an illusion? Is the United Nations an efficient, pragmatic,and useful tool of maintaining the Status Quo?
There is not an answer I can supply, for my view alone cannot impact where all shared views are respected and heard. This is a question you must ask yourselves, and your fellow delegates if the U.N. is to lead the nations of this world to its eventual shared outcome.
Thank you for your time.
Thomas Robert Moresi, Former Count of St. Charles.
The U.N. promotes peace. Peace is generally accepted by all human life. The devil, though, is in the details. One example of peace is all peoples, living together, in harmony and mutaul agreement. This negates the concept of ambition. Some would argue that ambition would transform or be newly defined as: "A motive to better all surroundings, including those belonging to others." I would disagree. Ambition is fueled by ego, and in a harmonious peace; ego has no place. those who support ego would suggest that ambition and progress are the same.
This introduces the concept familiar to all: Power Corrupts.
At what point would an ambitious ego no longer accept the checks and balances of their peers. At what point do they reject the concept of peers. Once an ego decides to ignore those peoples around them (who need them as part of the harmonious peace) and begin to act on their own authority opposed to the will of the people (under such reasons as: it is the will of the people, who are they to dictate to me, they'll see, etc.)
These egos eventually break from the stock and form their own group (i.e. nazi germany, american colonies, India self rule, etc.). This group is either resisted by the body politic, with the break-away labeled as revolutionaries; or the body politic allows the ego's faction to break-away or offers them land and recognizes their sovereignty.
This is where the concept of United Nations begin. More than one body politic conversing to maintain the status quo, in this case peace. The problem begins when these or many body politics disagree.
I purpose that the U.N. is the Macrocosm to the individual body politic's Mircocosm. And if that is the case, where does it draw it's authority. The answer is simple. The status quo: peace. Those of the moral higher ground wish to expand it to all the willing. Those of a egotistical motive wish to be left alone to commit their power plays.
The term "Axis of Evil" occures when the one (or both) of the two philosophies above no longer feel it is enough that U.N. accepts multipule philosophies in the realm of shared existance. The phrase itself is usually adopted by the moral higher ground just before it commits an egotistical act.
Now, the question becomes: "How do we maintain the status quo abroad when we can't even maintain it at home?" At this point the Macrocosm is confused for the Mircocosm, and any number of excuses are made to commit acts within the authority of the Status Quo. (i.e. The U.N. having an army, genocide, etc.)
The question I would like to purpose is: "Is not the U.N. it's own sovereign body politic?" Is it one nation or many nations? Is it a single republic, disguised as a republic of republics? Are egos in check, or is unity an illusion? Is the United Nations an efficient, pragmatic,and useful tool of maintaining the Status Quo?
There is not an answer I can supply, for my view alone cannot impact where all shared views are respected and heard. This is a question you must ask yourselves, and your fellow delegates if the U.N. is to lead the nations of this world to its eventual shared outcome.
Thank you for your time.
Thomas Robert Moresi, Former Count of St. Charles.