Work within the UN?

Should libertarians, independents and Constitution-minded folks try to sway UN policies? Or should we spin our wheels to try to get the US out of the UN?

I ask because a UN official recently blamed the genocide in Darfur (Sudan) on “global warming,” and I immediately thought, “what BS. We should try to reform that organization.”

What do y’all think?

28 Responses to “Work within the UN?”

  1. matt Says:

    I think leaving would be more productive than an attempted reformation. Leaving would send a message to other countries in the world that their expensive membership in this world organization is truly optional; that they don’t have to spend their citizens’ money listening to Libya lecture them on human rights, etc.

    Besides, any attempted reformation would be difficult beyond belief and expensive. Leaving is free, and follows the founding father’s example of avoiding entangling alliances.

  2. globalist_elitist Says:

    Genocide in Darfur is due to historical global protectionism.

    The U.N. is virtually irrelevant. Our membership or non-membership matters little.

  3. matt Says:

    Except that it costs money.

  4. matt Says:

    You’re 100% right about protectionism and Darfur, though.

  5. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    How much does it cost?

  6. matt Says:

    We pay dues every year, and the total is in the millions. It’s 22% of $ 4.19 billion. That’s chump change when compared to the national dept, but otherwise not so much.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations#Financing

  7. matt Says:

    Sometimes the congress withholds part of the dues as a protest. I don’t know the details, but in any case that money is a total waste, or at least barring UNICEF and the refugee aid it is, and you can bet that’s a small percentage.

  8. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Around $1 billion a year? That means it costs me about $4 a year for the U.S. to be in the U.N. I haven’t studied the issue much, but there is some benefit to being in the U.N. There would be fallout, “blow back,” from our exiting it, would there not? Hey, the U.N. was smart enough to oppose the Iraq War, weren’t they? I don’t see how we lose any sovereignty at all to the U.N. What does it stop us from doing? $5 a year? Whoopee doo. It’s probably worth it for the international P.R.

  9. Michael Says:

    The US needs to do a David Spade from SNL and say, “BYE-BYE!!

  10. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Oh and Matt, if you’re skimming my whole page, don’t forget to scroll up and see my taxing and spending planks.

  11. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Whoops, wrong thread.

  12. Paul Wayne Snyder, PhD Says:

    Citizens For A Better Veterans Home has differing opinions on the United States of America [as a 48 state contiguous ‘nation’ or an illegal, unconstitutional fascist global empire] should leave the UN. But we pretty much all agree that the United Nations [Executive] should leave New York City!

    2007 is a LONG WAY from 1945! Let the United Nations resettle in some third world back water or south of the Equator or on Formosa! Bloomberg would become an instant hero and a legend for the ages if his city building inspectors locked out the delegates [of a condemned structure] and his PD starting arresting law breaking officials and impounding illegal parked or moving automobiles!

  13. Joe Says:

    I agree we should not try reforming the UN, just get out.

  14. Andy Says:

    “Work within the UN?
    Should libertarians, independents and Constitution-minded folks try to sway UN policies? Or should we spin our wheels to try to get the US out of the UN?”

    Of course we should get the hell out of this socialist, interventionist, gun grabbing, instrament for world government. Anyone who says otherwise does NOT belong in the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party.

  15. globalist_elitist aka G.E. Smith Says:

    Why?

  16. Cody Quirk Says:

    Of course we should get the hell out of this socialist, interventionist, gun grabbing, instrament for world government. Anyone who says otherwise does NOT belong in the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party.

    Damn straight! Joey, red my lips WE CANNOT REFORM THE UN AT ALL! It would only move us closer to NWO. America should be concerned about it’s own problems, not the worlds!

  17. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Maybe individuals should be concerned about their own problems as individuals.

    I don’t see what harm our membership in the U.N. does. Would there not be “blowback” from our pull out? What exactly does the U.N. do to hurt us now that it wouldn’t continue doing if we weren’t members? Isn’t the international P.R. worth the $3-5 a year it costs us as individuals?

    I am not asking these questions rhetorically, nor speaking from an authoritative position. I want a better reason for getting out of the U.N. than have been given.

  18. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
    Maybe individuals should be concerned about their own problems as individuals.

    I don’t see what harm our membership in the U.N. does. Would there not be ‘blowback’ from our pull out? What exactly does the U.N. do to hurt us now that it wouldn’t continue doing if we weren’t members? Isn’t the international P.R. worth the $3-5 a year it costs us as individuals?”

    The UN was set up to bring the world into global socialism. It is a complete was of money and its goals go against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

  19. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Okay, but you’re still not answering my question.

    What advantage would leaving the U.N. give us? If it’s just about money or “morals” then I’m not convinced. $1 billion is NOTHING. And there would be blowback from us leaving. Remaining a member of the U.N. can help prevent it from doing anything we don’t like. But our membership does not prevent us from doing anything that is in our “interests” either, as evident from Iraq.

    This is more right-wing bullshit if you ask me. Cato says U.N. membership is not a big deal. I’m with Cato. You guys can go off and give circular handjobs with Lew Rockwell. Play your game of biscuit and make the loser give me a better reason.

  20. Andy Says:

    “This is more right-wing bullshit if you ask me. Cato says U.N. membership is not a big deal. I’m with Cato.”

    Yet another reason to distrust the Cato Institute!

    It is not “right wing” to oppose the United Nations. The UN is another layer of government, and a very socialist one at that. This alone is reason enough for any libertarian to oppose the United Nations.

  21. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 10:51 am
    Okay, but you’re still not answering my question.

    What advantage would leaving the U.N. give us? If it’s just about money or ‘morals’ then I’m not convinced. $1 billion is NOTHING.”

    One penny is too much money to send to this socialist organization!

    Also, I wonder how much money the US government gives in subsidies to other nations that are in the UN, because this could be factored in with what the US pays directly for membership dues. In other words, how much in does the US supplement the dues of other countries in the UN?

    What advantage would leaving the UN give us? The US would no longer be involved with an organization that promotes global gun confiscation from regular people (as in those who are not in government positions), global taxation, global wealth redistribution, and forced population control.

    The United Nations charter is in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Under the Declaration of Independence and Constitution the governtment recognizes unalienable rights and limited powers are granted to government, with the provision that government can’t violate individual rights. Under the UN charter the government GRANTS PRIVALEDGES and does not recognize unalienable rights. The UN charter is pure socialism.

    “And there would be blowback from us leaving. Remaining a member of the U.N. can help prevent it from doing anything we don’t like. But our membership does not prevent us from doing anything that is in our ‘interests’ either, as evident from Iraq.”

    There wouldn’t be any blowback from the US leaving. The UN would just move to Europe, and it might even collapse without the US tax revenue supporting it.

    If anything, the rest of the world would actually benifit from the US leaving the UN because it would be a rejection of socialism.

    The reason that the UN couldn’t “stop” the US from going to war with Iraq is because the UN is a phony organization that was set up to herd other countries into accepting global government. It is basically a debating society to rule & control the third world. The dominant countries like the US, the UK, and Israel can basically do whatever they want.

    The war in Iraq as it relates to the UN is a classic case of “good cop vs. bad cop”. The US (along with the UK and Israel) played the role of “bad cop” and the UN played the role of “good cop”, nevermind the fact that they are all controlled by the same people.

  22. G.E. Smith Says:

    Andy - At least that was a legitimate answer. Not convincing, but at least it wasn’t just more platitudes.

    U.N. = No power. Therefore, no big deal. Who cares? Let’s lower taxes.

  23. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith Says:

    June 20th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
    Andy - At least that was a legitimate answer. Not convincing, but at least it wasn’t just more platitudes.

    U.N. = No power. Therefore, no big deal. Who cares? Let’s lower taxes.”

    How about start lowering taxes by cutting off funding to the United Nations?

    Also, it should be noted that while the United Nations may not seem like a great threat now (at least not to some people anyway), it doesn’t mean that it can’t become a great threat in the future. When the Internal Revenue Service first came out a lot of people didn’t see it as a big threat either. Fast-forward to the modern era and the IRS has its hands in everyone’s pockets and is most definitely a threat to liberty.

  24. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    $1 billion. The Department of Defense spends loses more change down the seat cushions of baby-killing tanks. Big deal.

  25. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 21st, 2007 at 2:11 am
    $1 billion. The Department of Defense spends loses more change down the seat cushions of baby-killing tanks. Big deal.”

    $1 billion is a lot of money. Sure, it may not be a lot of money compared to the total federal budget, but this is besides the point. The point is that the United Nations is an organization that goes completely against the documents on which this country was founded, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The UN promotes socialism, is filled with fraud, and is in general a complete waste of money.

    Myself and a lot of other Americans do not believe in the United Nations, so why should we be forced to finance it through our taxes, especially since the UN is blatantly against the Declaration of Independence and Constitution? Even if our individual share of this tax burden is only something like $5 per year each I sure as hell don’t approve of my $5 being spent on this UN garbage. Also, as I indicated above, the amount of money that the US government spends on the United Nations is probably higher than this due to the fact that the US government doles out tax subsidies to other countries that are in the UN (some of which those countries could use to pay their UN dues).

  26. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 19th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
    Maybe individuals should be concerned about their own problems as individuals.”

    Yes they should. However, the UN certainly doesn’t believe this. They are global busy bodies. They believe that UN bureacrats should run everyone’s lives.

  27. G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - Not disagreeing with you. To me this seems more like the LP “purists” or “radicals” leaving the LP because it is too “moderate.” Or better yet, losers like Kurt McManigal going off into the mountains because they disagree with the government. I don’t see any way in which the U.N. threatens our sovereingty. I understand that $1 billion a year is nothing. And I disagree with you—I DO think there would be blowback from exiting. I am not pro-U.N. But I think this is about the 10,000th biggest deal on the list. The U.N. is an impotent little self-aggrandizing social club.

  28. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Smith aka globalist_elitist Says:

    June 21st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
    Andy - Not disagreeing with you. To me this seems more like the LP ‘purists’ or ‘radicals’ leaving the LP because it is too ‘moderate.’”

    I don’t think that this is a valid comparison because there are MUCH BIGGER differences between what the United Nations believes and the principles on which this country was founded - as in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution - than there are between radical Libertarians and moderate Libertarians. The United Nations Charter is the polar opposite of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

    “Or better yet, losers like Kurt McManigal going off into the mountains because they disagree with the government.”

    Why do you deride Kurt McManigal? How do you know that he’s a loser? Kurt seems like a good guy to me.

    “I don’t see any way in which the U.N. threatens our sovereingty.”

    As I said above, at one time a lot of people didn’t see the IRS as a threat, but now the IRS has its hands in everyone’s pockets.

    The United Nations is certainly a threat to sovereingty and freedom. They are in favor of world government. They want world gun control. They are pro-interventionist. They want world taxation. They are in favor of Marxist wealth redistribution on a global scale. They want forced population control. The UN is a corrupt, anti-freedom organization.

    “I understand that $1 billion a year is nothing.”

    That is at least $1 billion that could be shaved off of the federal budget.

    Why give money to an organization whose goals are in opposition to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution?

    Also, it is a matter of principle. Back in the 1700’s some people could have said something like, “Who cares if the King puts a 2% tax on tea? 2% is nothing. We should just pay it.” Fortunately there were enough good principled people who thought otherwise.

    “And I disagree with you—I DO think there would be blowback from exiting.”

    Oh sure, the US is going to get attacked just for leaving the UN. This would indicate that somebody has a gun to “our” head and is forcing us to join, which is all the more reason to withdrawl from this organization.

    “But I think this is about the 10,000th biggest deal on the list. The U.N. is an impotent little self-aggrandizing social club.”

    I’d say that withdrawling from the United Nations is a heck of a lot more important than some of the issues that you get hyped up over, like gays getting state marriage licenses or gays joining the military.

    Also, while the UN may appear to be impotent now, it probably won’t be that way in the future. As I’ve already indicated, at one time the IRS seemed impotent.

Leave a Reply