3641

Timex, as an American, it should be blindingly obvious that first past the poll DOES NOT serve the will of the people. In fact due to gerrymandering, the geographic splits, and general way that seats are doled out the makeup of our politicians is profoundly altered from representing the people.

We bitch about all that stuff, but we still have control over who we send to Washington. Things like gerrymandering or political campaign funding doesn’t change your vote. You still get to go to the poll and vote for exactly who you want.

Most voters are stupid though.

Your notion of ‘vote to change the government’ are laughable when the reality bends that way.

So instead, you’d put your faith in an international government who you essentially have no influence over at all? But within which dictators and tyrants have immense influence?

How exactly does that make sense?

3642

I don’t exactly put faith in that international body. Never stated that I did. I just want to point out that for us Americans using the vote to change government is a non starter.

Yes most voters are stupid, after all with congressional approval rates in the low double digits yet retention rates north of 90%, but the system is explicitly designed to disenfranchise large blocks of voters. After all why vote and petition for change in representation when the current person is guaranteed an ironclad victory.

The main point in favor of working within the framework of international bodies I see, as an American, is that the days of American hegemony are likely coming to a close within my lifetime. China is a burgeoning superpower, their economy has passed ours now, and they will likely start to throw their weight around internationally more. India has the potential to do the same. Both fueled by populations triple the size of ours. Given that it is highly likely that America will not be indefinitely able to act with impunity and act unilaterally on the global stage it would benefit us long term to foster less hostility now. Better that than to be brought low by our own hubris when the day comes where we need to work with others.

3643

I don’t exactly put faith in that international body. Never stated that I did. I just want to point out that for us Americans using the vote to change government is a non starter.

Only it’s not, really.
Hell, some kid named Troiano came out of nowhere here in the middle of PA, and ran a (pretty poor) campaign based on ‘Fuck the government’, and actually managed to pull 12% of the vote.

The reality is, folks bitch about how congress sucks, but they buy into the “third party votes are a waste!” and perpetuate the system.

Regardless, the discussion’s moot since I totally favor something like a run-off system that would empower third parties more.

The main point in favor of working within the framework of international bodies I see, as an American, is that the days of American hegemony are likely coming to a close within my lifetime. China is a burgeoning superpower, their economy has passed ours now, and they will likely start to throw their weight around internationally more. India has the potential to do the same. Both fueled by populations triple the size of ours. Given that it is highly likely that America will not be indefinitely able to act with impunity and act unilaterally on the global stage it would benefit us long term to foster less hostility now. Better that than to be brought low by our own hubris when the day comes where we need to work with others.

But international bodies don’t actually do anything to help that stuff. Certainly, things like the ICC don’t actually provide real, meaningful power to enforce laws or anything.

Here’s how the world works:
Nations can sometimes come to agreements that are mutually beneficial.
When they can’t if the issues are important enough, they go to war.

That’s really it. There seems to be some idea that some kind of magical land of rainbows and unicorns could exist, where there’s some universal global government which makes laws and enforces them… but that world doesn’t exist.

What we have now is a world of separate sovereign nations, which participate in international bodies which are essentially impotent. They may serve some minor purpose as a place to discuss things, but they don’t really serve any useful purpose as a place to mediate differences and act upon them. The only time when international organizations can act on things like security or law enforcement issues is when all the big players agree on something… but in such cases, they don’t really need to the international body to do it. They just need an agreement among the big players.

3644

International Organization help keep governments accountable for the things they do, if only at the margins. If you are a believer of real politiks, where only the state matters, than it seems insane to put anythought or power into an outside force. If on the other hand, you realize that like trickle down, real politik is hopelessly simplicitic, and false, and that a single state is just a combination of influences both inside and outside of itself, you realize that forcing the US to join a international body is as legitamate use of.our influence as voting or.holding office. It is just one more way make your will and.opinion known.
That begin said, we certainly look like hypocrits who will say anything, but never follow.up with real action, and that will be fine up until the point we realize we are a second rate power compared to China or India, with out the back of.international organizations, like the EU HAS.

3645

Yes, this is part of the issue. While I lived in the US for six years and thus I do love the country in many ways (I might be critical on some stuff, but overall I have a very high opinion of it as afunctioning civil society) this respect and love is something that is not common at all among the general public of, say, Spain. There’s a strong, widespread dislike of the US among all sectors of the population, maybe it’s not the majority, but it feels really close. And this is in a democratic, developed government generally allied with the US, and a huge consumer of their products, both technological and cultural. I don’t even want to imagine how it might feel when you leave the American sphere of influence. Anti-Americanism is a real thing, and a bully-like behavior on the international sphere does nothing to diminish it (and is, based on anecdote around me -that is, asking people I know-, one of the main reasons of this negative perception). It’s relatively uninportant now, but indeed IF the state of the US as the only superpower changes, it might have consequences.

3646

International Organization help keep governments accountable for the things they do, if only at the margins. If you are a believer of real politiks, where only the state matters, than it seems insane to put anythought or power into an outside force. If on the other hand, you realize that like trickle down, real politik is hopelessly simplicitic, and false, and that a single state is just a combination of influences both inside and outside of itself, you realize that forcing the US to join a international body is as legitamate use of.our influence as voting or.holding office. It is just one more way make your will and.opinion known.

But international organizations, as you’re describing them, are just places where people go to babble and “make opinions known”, but not where anything actually gets done. At least not stuff that folks don’t already agree upon, like feeding hungry people.

As soon as it crosses into the realm of a nation’s sovereignty, it falls apart.

When the individual states in the US decided to give up sovereignty to a federal government, the exchange actually benefited them. That is, they were actually gaining something in exchange for giving up control over themselves. The federal government was actually more powerful than the states, and in a position to enforce laws and settle disputes. It was able to act to defend the whole against outside forces.

A group like the UN provides none of that. You get nothing for ceding power to the UN, since the UN is unwilling and incapable of enforcing laws or settling disputes. The enforcement arm of the UN is, effectively, the US military anyway… so why should we bother ceding control to such an organization, when we already have the full benefit of its enforcement powers already?

Now, for OTHER nations, I can see why they’d want the US to buy into such a thing… because then they would get increased control over things like the US military, without actually having to PAY for it. But you know what? Fuck them.

3647

ShivaX - So sorry I’m not an American.

legowarrior, CraigM - I agree entirely.

3648

Nope. Parliamentary Sovereignty. The UK Parliament retains the power to cancel any and all treaties entered into. Period.
And again, yes, I have zero (0) power at UK level, and some power at EU level. Proportionality!

And you don’t see how this basically makes it moot?

Laws don’t work if the parties being held accountable to those laws can voluntarily withdraw from being prosecuted whenever they want.

In cases where the government wants to prosecute someone for something, then they can… and they don’t need to be party to the ICC to do it. And in cases where the government doesn’t want to prosecute someone for something, then they can just withdraw from the ICC.

So it’s a pointless exercise.

Also, you’re confused. Take the UN. The UNGA is certainly a talking shop, as you describe, as is, say the ITU. But then there’s the UN agencies which do work - UN Peacekeepers, FAO, UN-Habitat, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, UNICEF, WFO, WTO, ICAO, IMF, WBG and there’s then other organisations like the IAEA and OPCW, both of which America is a signatory to, etc.

Read my post again. You missed something.

3649

Yes, I missed your bad faith argument. My bad!

3650

The Nuremburg trials were us punishing the guys whose ass we had just whooped in a war. They didn’t AGREE to be party to those trials. Those trials were IMPOSED on them, through military might.

And yes, evidently I missed the part where you’re not reading my posts - never mind those international bodies. Because America. (Certainly the fact I have representation at the EU level makes nothing “moot”, for starters!)

You missed the part where I specifically stated:

But international organizations, as you’re describing them, are just places where people go to babble and “make opinions known”, but not where anything actually gets done. At least not stuff that folks don’t already agree upon, like feeding hungry people.

3651

So it’s a might-makes-right thing for you.
And bad faith arguments all the way down.

3652

I think some part of that second sentence got screwed up. I can’t quite parse the meaning.

3653

Facts, screwed up.

3654

I don’t think he’s talking about the sentiment, Starlight. I believe it’s the comma-trapped “thus” that makes it confusing. “And I don’t see you agree to feed hungry people, or any of the other functions of UN bodies I talked about” makes sense in the context - is that what you meant to say?

3655

Hmm…

It’s grammatically fine in British English. But makes no difference, Timex is using it as a bad faith argument to avoid the real discussion.

3656

Ah - could be one of our (many) weird across-the-pond-isms. Don’t mind us.

3657

Yeah, i meant that the sentence literally didn’t parse. I wasn’t being sarcastic or arguing. I think there is just some typo or something.

3658

?

But it means what you intended?
Because what it means, grammatically, is that because you don’t see, i agree to feed hungry people.

That doesn’t make any sense.

3659

Dan - Unfortunately, that would only make sense if I was willing to admit Timex was arguing in bad faith when this thread makes it plain I he is not because I’m not American.

3660

I honestly don’t understand what it means.
Are you saying I agree to feed hungry people?