arma virumque cano (et alia)
Good. Why should we be responsible for 1/5 of their budget anyway? Let all of those countries that voted for the resolution pay for it.
FWM, what would happen if only those who vote for something pay for it? That is not democracy. If we did that........why vote at all? The whole point is that we agree to support the outcome of votes, whether we win or lose on what we want.That is the essential agreement in the social contract of representative government. It is the strongest and one of the most important parts of it.C'mon, you know that!
dog gone you are right about that being the social contract in representative government but the US citizenry did not get a say in the vote at the UN. the UN is made up of Member States not individuals. we do not have a social contract with the UN, the UN is the equivalent of a private club if you don't agree with a sub committees in that club and you have the weight to throw around you have the ability to throw it around.the problem with admitting Palestine to the UN or even UNESCO is that it can not even govern its self. allowing it access to WIPO which being a member of UNESCO grants means you have an ungoverned state able to run amuck in the intellectual property world, as just one example of what problems there are with allowing Palestine in to UNESCO.
DAG:Do you work at being as dense and obtuse as you seem to be?"dog gone you are right about that being the social contract in representative government but the US citizenry did not get a say in the vote at the UN.".I have no idea what sort of town or village gummint you have, but I sincerely doubt that they give you a call every time they want to float a bond issue or raise the property taxes. Sure, maybe your alderman or whatever has a phone number that you can call to ask him for some help or try to convince him that your opinion is the one shared by the majority of your fellow voters in the ward; good luck with that--unless you're a major contrtibutor to his political campaign or have some "suck" with the local party.You don't get a direct say at the U.N., the U.S. Congress, your state or county lege and probably your own local gummint. We live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. We elect representatives who, supposedly, act on our desires for whatever.The U.S. has been delinquent in its dues to the U.N. for a good part of it's history since the late 40's. It's a carrot AND a stick that the U.S. pays a disproportianate share of the U.N.'s operating budget. Have you noticed where it's located. It ain't in Palestine.The U.S. gets the U.N. to help out with pesky dilemmas;being a buffer between the Palestinians and the Israelis so we don't have to send our own troops in there OR watch the Israelis shooting folks indiscriminately on the nightly news OR watch the Palestinians dragging the bodies or OUR soldiers through the streets of Gaza is but one of the "services" that we receive in exchange for our dues. It's a two-way street and the U.S. refusal to pay it's dues is hyprocritical and cynical.
It's a two-way street and the U.S. refusal to pay it's dues is hypocritical and cynical.Why yes, yes it is, but it is also completely within the bounds of the law and until you get the senate to ratify a treaty saying otherwise, go pound sand.
DAG wrote:"but the US citizenry did not get a say in the vote at the UN. the UN is made up of Member States not individuals. we do not have a social contract with the UN,"Sorry, but you are wrong.Our constitution IS a social contract, and that social contract, in Article VI provides for agreements and treaties and memberships with other countries."This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.So, yes, it IS part of our social contract, and about supporting what we agree on through our representative government. We may not vote on it, but we do have representative government involvement in it, and our representatives to the UN DO vote.
So where is the treaty that bind us to pay 20% of UNESCO's Budget?
Thomas, you gunzloonz always tell people to go pound sand OR change the law--unless it's a law you don't like; then of course you whine like children.The agreements between the U.N. and the U.S. involving funding are actually enforceable, but the U.N. picks which fights to get into. I'm just gonna go out on a really stout, kevlar reinforced, carbon graphite limb here and say you think the U.N. should be disbanded.
It would be unladylike Thomas, for me to go pound sand, so I decline your suggestion.It is always a pleasure to educate you Thomas; one of the purposes of blogging is to correct this kind of ignorance.from:http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/funding/us-dues-and-contributions.htmlU.S. Dues and Contributions to the United NationsThere are two sources of funding for the UN and its agencies: Assessed contributions that finance the UN’s regular budget, peacekeeping operations, and specialized agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and Voluntary contributions to funds and programs such as the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) as well as subsidiary organizations of the UN.Assessed ContributionsAssessed contributions are payments made as part of the obligations that nations undertake when signing treaties. Assessed contributions are vital as they are the primary source of reliable funding for UN core activities, such as peacekeeping. For example, the U.S. is assessed 22 percent of the UN’s regular budget and 27 percent of the UN’s peacekeeping operations budget. However, an outdated Congressional mandate caps U.S. expenditures at 25 percent of the UN’s peacekeeping budget.Voluntary ContributionsVoluntary contributions are, as the name implies, voluntary rather than assessed payments left to the discretion of each individual Member State. U.S. contributions, as a Member State, finance most of the UN’s humanitarian relief and development agencies including the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP).These UN agencies undertake activities critical to U.S. national security interests that would be difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to undertake alone. U.S. voluntary contributions are financed through the State Department’s International Organizations and Programs account.
The US may not have to pay 20% of the budget, but what might the US have which falls under The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's budget for which the US receives funding?UNESCO’s stated aim is "to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information".Anything dealing with culture and education is, of course, anti-American. In fact, UNESCO sounds about as anti-American as you can get in its goals.I wanted to find the answer to Thomas's question,but came up with this article that Iowa City remains City of Literature after U.S. cuts UNESCO support.I am amazed that Iowans could tolerate the influence of the "one world government" and "New World Order" enough to not have nuked Iowa City. The citizens of this "City" are obviously un-American by even acknowledging this status.How many more US citizens are closet supporters of the "one world government" and "New World Order"? These people need to be immediately rounded up and shipped to FEMA concentration camps.They are the reason that the US needs to pay 20% of UNESCO's budget-the un-American leeches!
So, as that last paragraph, my preceding comment demonstrates - we vote on the amount we provide, in our own interests, through the funding approved by our representative government to the State Department.You just don't apparently understand our representative social contract government very well.Happy to sort that out for you.
Laci wrote:"How many more US citizens are closet supporters of the "one world government" and "New World Order"? These people need to be immediately rounded up and shipped to FEMA concentration camps."Hurry up Thomas! Go look under your bed! There might be one of those UNESCO UN New World / One World Order people that scare you so much lurking there....right next to the dust bunnies and the communist hiding there since the cold war McCarthy era.Sweep them out from under your bed and put them securely in your Bloom County-style swollen amygdala Anxiety Closet, where you can lock them in, where they more properly belong, LOL!Yes, we ARE laughing at your paranoia.
Some day, I want to get my blue UN helmet (or beret) and UN Brassard and some army buds to go to some US loonie right wing haven and start talking about how we are getting ready to invade. It would be even funnier if I can find some other nationalites ex-UN forces for some fun and games.Is the US really that close to becoming a failed state like Somalia and Afghanistan the these headcases are worried?
The myth that meets with the most resistance for examination, however, is that upon which modern "democratic" political systems are founded: the "social contract" theory of the state. According to this view, best developed by John Locke and woven into the fabric of the Declaration of Independence, human beings are free by nature, and may take whatever action is necessary for sustaining their lives, consistent with a like right in all others to do the same. This includes the right to protect one’s life and property from attacks by others. The individual enjoyment of such a right carries with it the right of individuals to join together for mutual protection, creating an agency – the state – to act on their behalf in this regard. At all times, however, this arrangement is understood as one of a principal/agency relationship, with individuals being the principals, and the state their agent. This, in theory, is the rationale for the modern state.Of course, there is no evidence of any state having come into existence through such idealistic means. Being grounded in force, all political systems have been created through conquest, violence, and disregard for the rights of those who do not voluntarily choose to be a part of the arrangement. Even the origins of the United States of America – which provides us a great deal more empirical evidence – reveals the absence of any "contract" among its citizenry to participate in the system. As best I can tell from my reading of history, the Constitution was probably favored by about one-third of the population, strongly opposed by another one-third, and greeted with indifference by the remaining one-third.The sentiment that "We the People" spoke, as one voice, on behalf of the new system; the idea that there was a universal agreement – which a contract theory demands – for the creation of the American state, represents historic nonsense. The Constitution did not even reflect the wishes of a majority of the population, much less all. Those who persist in the "social contract" myth are invited to explain how, once the national government came into being, Rhode Island was threatened with blockades and invasions should it continue to insist upon not ratifying the Constitution. Rhode Island was, after the majority of Americans themselves, the second victim of "American imperialism!"If the origins of the United States government do not persuade you of the mythic nature of the state, then your attention is directed to the Civil War, wherein the southern states made a choice to opt out of the "social contract" by seceding from the Union. Lincoln – in my mind, the worst president this country ever had, including all the McKinleys and Roosevelts and Wilsons and Trumans and Bushes, none of whom could have inflicted their damage without Lincoln’s embracing the principle of the primacy of the totalitarian state – negated any pretense to a "social contract" justification for the United States. (If you would like further evidence on this, I direct your attention to two books: Richard Bensel’s Yankee Leviathan, and Thomas DiLorenzo’s just-published work The Real Lincoln.)Those of a totalitarian persuasion have had to stumble all over one another to salvage the "social contract" myth – without which, the state is seen for what it always has been by its nature: a corporate body that employs force, threats, and deadly violence to compel individuals to participate in whatever suits its interest to pursue. Somehow or other, people are "free" to contract to set up a state as their "agent" but, once established, there is some kind of unexplained conversion by which the state becomes the "principal," and individuals the "agents."
we signed a treaty to recognize and participate in the UN that is not in dispute but the USA citizens do not have a SOCIAL CONTRACT to be part of the UN we have a LEGAL contract there is a difference. our representatives still vote on passing laws based on authorized UN Resolutions, UN Resolutions are not Law in the USA as soon as they are passed because its not a SOCIAL CONTRACT that we as citizens of the USA have with the UN its a LEGAL contract.so tell me how does allowing a what is curently non country state into WIPO when they have no set IP law, and a government that is split and until 3-4 months ago at war with itself, has no constitution, and is in conflict with its neighbor on boundary lines?DemoCommie how adult of you to whip out the name calling. I honestly am fine with vigorous disagreement but it has been implied in past posts of yours that i am part of the KKK by you, I have been called Insane by you, and now called Dense, so why should I bother to discuss something with some one who has no interest in acting like an adult.
Leave it to anonymous to just go and cut and paste something which can be found here.Are you able to state the meaning of this in your own words, anonymous? Or do you just like to show that you can cut and paste comments?We can already get this is horseshit when we come to:I continue to get e-mails from readers who either do not understand – or do not want to understand – how the 13th Amendment to the Constitution nationalized slavery rather than ended it. Military and jury duty conscription, taxation, compulsory school attendance, are just a number of manifestations of how government is engaged in the practice of slavery. But the root explanation for this phenomenon is traced back to the rejection of "contract" as a basis for the state. Being a citizen comes with responsibilities under whatever system you are in--except for anarchistic systems.Libertarianism is basically anarchy.Once again, Anonymous demonstrates that he is an anarchist, but too fucking stupid to realise that fact.
cite your source Anonymous.When you write:"The sentiment that "We the People" spoke, as one voice, on behalf of the new system; the idea that there was a universal agreement – which a contract theory demands – for the creation of the American state, represents historic nonsense. "you are quoting some lunatic fringie who distorts and rewrites U.S. history.No one ever reasonably claimed that there was 100% agreement about anything, rather that this was a compromise founded by an effective consensus.Maybe you should read up on how the Constitution came about, the provisions we had before that. As to our government arising out of violence?NO, our government came out of the constitutional convention (snarky at times but not particularly violent) AFTER the regrettable but necessary military action separating from England.As to the civil war - the Constitution has provisions for putting down insurrection, which is what the actions of the South were in firing on Fort Sumter and taking up arms. You are trying to put lipstick on a pig to call it a revocation of the social contract.Any legitimate secession would have to be agreed to by both those they secede from as well as those who secede, and go through the parliamentary - and probably judicial as well - process.Geeze, how you right wing nuts like to skate through the facts that contradict reality - and your position.
in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven't even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I've never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal. I, the party of the first part (“the ruler”), promise: (1) To stipulate how much of your money you will hand over to me, as well as how, when, and where the transfer will be made. You will have no effective say in the matter, aside from pleading for my mercy, and if you should fail to comply, my agents will punish you with fines, imprisonment, and (in the event of your persistent resistance) death. (2) To make thousands upon thousands of rules for you to obey without question, again on pain of punishment by my agents. You will have no effective say in determining the content of these rules, which will be so numerous, complex, and in many cases beyond comprehension that no human being could conceivably know about more than a handful of them, much less their specific character, yet if you should fail to comply with any of them, I will feel free to punish you to the extent of a law made my me and my confederates. (3) To provide for your use, on terms stipulated by me and my agents, so-called public goods and services. Although you may actually place some value on a few of these goods and services, most will have little or no value to you, and some you will find utterly abhorrent, and in no event will you as an individual have any effective say over the goods and services I provide, notwithstanding any economist's cock-and-bull story to the effect that you “demand” all this stuff and value it at whatever amount of money I choose to expend for its provision. (4) In the event of a dispute between us, judges beholden to me for their appointment and salaries will decide how to settle the dispute. You can expect to lose in these settlements, if your case is heard at all. In exchange for the foregoing government “benefits,” you, the party of the second part (“the subject”), promise: (5) To shut up, make no waves, obey all orders issued by the ruler and his agents, kowtow to them as if they were important, honorable people, and when they say “jump,” ask only “how high?”Such a deal! Can we really imagine that any sane person would consent to it?
To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
Geeze Louise, anonymous!You need to come up with someone who isn't a Right Wing Authoritarian lunatic fringie for any kind of credence - and that is not Rockwell and it sure as heck is not Butler Shaffer.What a nut job!!!!!! What a Koch Brothers Sock puppet!!!!!!!!!!!!Thanks for the laugh.
Anonymous--move to Somalia. It is your paradise on earth.No functional government and lot of guns.It's only behind the US in the number of guns in civilian hands!You won't be governed because there is no Government!Otherwise, you have to accept that you are a citizen with rights and RESPONSIBILITIES in any normal country with a functioning government.BTW, admit you are an anarchist and stop bullshitting us that you aren't.You also hate capitalism,but are too dumb to know what capitalism really IS!Enjoy Somalia and send us a postcard when you get there.Go to Hereford, England and ask what pub you need to go to get your expenses paid to move there and have a job where you can tote a gun.
Some moonbat said:"Any legitimate secession would have to be agreed to by both those they secede from as well as those who secede, and go through the parliamentary - and probably judicial as well - process."Evidently the secession by the colonies wasn't legitimate.Sheesh!
It wasn't legal.The Declaration of Independence was a historic document that justified the separation of the North American Colonies to the citizens of those colonies. There were four main purposes of the Declaration:1) Getting reluctant colonists on board2) Explaining the colonists' position on the purpose of government3) Listing the colonists' grievances against King George III 4) to show the legitimacy of their actions to othersGeorge III never saw the document until far later (if ever). On July 4th, 1776, George III, king of England, wrote in his diary, "Nothing of importance happened today."Had the French not stepped in, 4 July (or another similar date) could be analogous to England's bonfire night where the traitors are burned in effigy.What made the US separate from Britain was The Treaty of Paris of 1783. Actually, it would be more correct to say Treaties of Paris since there was one between Great Britain on the one hand and the United States of America and its allies on the other. The other combatant nations, France, Spain and the Dutch Republic had separate treaties.The Treaty between the US and Britain had 10 points: 1. Acknowledging the United States to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof; 2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America; 3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence; 4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side; 5. The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]"; 6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists; 7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves); 8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River; 9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation; 10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.It was the acknowledgement that the US was independent under the Treaty of Paris which was the legal basis for US independence, not the Declaration of Independence.
Wow, what a discussion. I just wanted to support Palestine, since they're the underdog and all that.
Anon quoted the idiot Shaffer writing:"The sentiment that "We the People" spoke, as one voice, on behalf of the new system; the idea that there was a universal agreement – which a contract theory demands – for the creation of the American state, represents historic nonsense. "You are aware I trust Anonymous, that the decision to secede by the insurrectionists in the south over their, you know, 'God Given Rights to Own Other Human Beings' as slaves, which at least is more genuinely 'god given' because it is in fact approved and codified in the Bible, was far from unanimous, right?So we have the treasonous South failing to properly withdraw from the Social Contract with the United States as specified in the Constitution, we have them claiming a God Given Right while failing to observe that Blacks were full and equal human beings......and then we have this fundamental flaw that is common to the American Revolution, the forming of the United States, and to the treasonous white supremacists in the Confederate states.You DO acknowledge that those who supported the institution of slavery and who denied the full humanity of blacks WERE RACIST WHITE SUPREMACISTS, don't you Anonymous? Too bad, because it does make them far less sympathetic in this appeal of yours and Shaffer's to the emotion rather than to reason and fact.When you can find a source which is not so bogus and which does not have thees enormous internal flaws in reasoning, we might begin to have a reasonable discussion.Until then,consider the message, not the messenger, slaughtered, dissected, dismembered, burned and the ashes buried with the garbage.I'm waiting for Laci the human to wander back from walking Laci the canine, to call me on the phone, laughing, saying just one word into his phone:Squirrel!and then laugh some more.
If our anonymous friend would do his homework rather than copy other people's work he would find that there is very little difference between Anarchy and Libertarianism.In fact, Libertarianism is at times referred to as "anarchism", and certain of its adherents call themselves "anarchists", e.g., the economist James Buchanan.In fact, your hero Rothbard has written a (unpersuasive) essay on this topic. As well as other libertarians, since anyone who knows what libertarianism claims to believe knows there is an extremely thin line between the two systems.The problem is that a true libertarian believes in the free market system, which anonymous does not. He despises bankers.Additionally, you have made it clear that you despise the responsibilities of citizenship.So, anonymous, like it or not, you are an anarchist.
THIS pretty much sums up what is wrong with Anonymous's failed attempt at reason, as well as what is wrong with Butler Shaffer's line of faux reasoning. It is from the summary of Altemeyer's research on Right Wing Authoritarianism:"Table 3: Faulty reasoningRWA's are more likely to:Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.Hold contradictory ideas leading them to `speak out of both sides of their mouths.'Uncritically accept that many problems are `our most serious problem.'Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.Use many double standards in their thinking and judgements.One logical flaw which reflects both on misunderstanding of others and themselves, is RWAs elevated tendency to commit what's called the "Fundamental Attribution Error" (FAE)--over-explaining others' actions in terms of personalities and under-explaining them in terms of situational factors. This what lies behind uncritically trusting people who tell them what they want to hear--they believe what the person is saying is a true expression of how they feel, and ignore the contextual evidence that they are simply pandering. This also helps to explain why they trust unscrupulous leaders, such as Nixon and Bush.As for self-knowledge, although RWAs have a number of character flaws consistent with group identity politics generally and religious fundamentalism [already mentioned] specifically--see Table 4--they're remarkably blind to their own failings--see Table 5.Table 4: Profound Character FlawsRWA's are more likely to:Be dogmatic.Be zealots.Be hypocrites.Be bullies when they have power over others.Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.
Pooch said, "What made the US separate from Britain was The Treaty of Paris of 1783."Not correct, we already were separate. The treaty was merely the terms to ending the war, terms we didn't abide by, anyway.
Dog gone said,Voluntary contributions are, as the name implies, voluntary rather than assessed payments left to the discretion of each individual Member State.Then divide up the 60 million equally among the 107 yes voting member states and let them "volunteer" to pay it. they are in a "social contract", right? Be sure to get Canada on board.....http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/01/john-baird-unesco-funding_n_1070137.htmlDoC said,I'm just gonna go out on a really stout, kevlar reinforced, carbon graphite limb here and say you think the U.N. should be disbanded.No, I think that they could be a again be a really useful organization.... When they stop being a resolution mill for the we hate Israel coalition....
Sorry to burst your blissful bubble of ignornance (pop!), anonymous, but the US was not independent until the Treaty of Paris.The US came very close to defeat and probably would have been defeated had it not been for the aid of the French (and Spanish and Dutch).The US had no industrial manufacturing base during this period and couldn't manufacture enough weapons to fight the British.It is a well accepted fact that the British would have eventually defeated the US without its having had foreign Aid (in particular French) during the War for Independence. The combined strength of the Americans and the French virtually guaranteed victory against Great Britain.So, your comment is totally without basis--The Treat of Paris is what brought the US international recognition and legitimacy.Until it was signed, the United Colonies were still British.
Let's see, which document allowed slavery in the US? Oh, the Constitution. Which flag was that under? Oh, the Stars & Stripes. Please don't try to play some morality card over the issue.And since it was in the Constitution, you legal nuts should be happier than hell.Being a capitalist business person I really don't think I hate capitalism. But what I really do hate is morons confusing the corporatism/fascism we have today being called capitalism.
Somebody said: "Until it was signed, the United Colonies were still British."Oh, so the French were aiding the British. Yup, that makes sense.
No, the French were aiding a rebellion against the British, one which the British could fairly call treasonous.Or do you not understand the word Revolution in the phrase American Revolution.The British did not provide a mechanism for secession, unlike the new, replacement social contract which formed after the revolution. Therefore there was no parliamentary means to secede, no legal option. That was not the case in the U.S. Civil War.Full and legal separation did not occur until the treaty was signed, and England acknowledged that we were separate, and until that treaty was signed they could have reopened hostilities at any time. Had they done so, we would have lost, eventually,so that separation was not such a done deal as you suggest until the treaty was concluded.You don't have much exposure to concepts of diplomatic process do you?
Anonymous wrote:"Anonymous said... in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven't even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration."Really? Do you vote? Then you agreed to join the contract in progress through representative government. Do you benefit from any if not all the provisions of this country - security, schools, roads, etc.? Then you agree to the social contract by accepting its benefits. "I've never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts."The social contract does not include sending you an engraved invitation. You decide to be a citizen - or not be a citizen, with the attendant duties and privileges of either choice. Take it or leave it, but please, spare us the whinging about it.Too bad, but you weren't one of the original drafters of this particular contract. You have the input of one man one vote to alter it, but you don't personally get to undo the consent of anyone else to those terms. It is,for better or for worse, the way one citizen, one vote works.
Anonymous said... Let's see, which document allowed slavery in the US? Oh, the Constitution. Which flag was that under? Oh, the Stars & Stripes. Please don't try to play some morality card over the issue. And since it was in the Constitution, you legal nuts should be happier than hell."Ah,what a laugh watching you cherry pick history and then try to contort it into your own revisionist form.The colonies which became the first 13 states were not unanimous about slavery; those areas which were the Union during the Civil War had largely opposed it from before the writing of the U.S. Constitution, and opposed slavery being included in that document.They were stuck with the whole issue because slavery had been legal under the British, who btw, got rid of it before we did, for the correct reasons. Slavery was immoral, and unethical, and the social contract was changed to correct and reflect that.Which does not change a word that I wrote about the moral high ground. The north and west recognized that blacks were fully and equally human being long before the Southerners who attempted insurrection did - and I'm sometimes not persuaded that those who are so pro-Civil War points of view have caught up even now. "Being a capitalist business person I really don't think I hate capitalism. But what I really do hate is morons confusing the corporatism/fascism we have today being called capitalism."Stop being stupid Anonymous; corporations engage in capitalism; you don't get to define it as only small business is capitalism, big business something else, any more than I can fairly and objectively say a Yorkie or Chihuahua is not a dog, but a Great Dane is because of size.You just made another ignorant statement. Consider the message skewered to the blog wall, doused with an accelerant, set on fire, and peed on by the canine Laci when the ashes and embers fell on the ground afterwards.
Anonymous demonstrates he does not understand either English or history when he says:Oh, so the French were aiding the British. Yup, that makes sense.That comment is clarified further down in the comment that Anonymous fails to comprehend:It is a well accepted fact that the British would have eventually defeated the US without its having had foreign Aid (in particular French) during the War for Independence. The combined strength of the Americans and the French virtually guaranteed victory against Great Britain.Its would refer to the US.Your failure to understand that the US was a British Colony until the Treaty of Paris was signed and gave the US international recognition as an independent nation.
Well us damn Americans don't much care for legalities. We went wrote us up Article of Conferderation and the Perpetual Union, went and had it ratified by the 13 STATES, we even had the audacity not to call 'em colonies, went and created us a Continental Congress and a Continental Army. And when that treaty came up most of the representatives were home and didn't attend Congressional sessions cuz they were at home mindin' their business. But even with that old Articles of Confederation they carried on diplomacy with Europe even though I guess it wasn't legal, they didn't have a permit from Britain. No other countries much seemed to care, about permits though.Now had you been there, we would have had to get a permit to start a country, build an army and start a war. If you people would have been in charge we'd still be waiting fer our permits and the regulations that went with 'em. Yup, we weren't no stinkin country till George said so.
Being a capitalist business person I really don't think I hate capitalism. But what I really do hate is morons confusing the corporatism/fascism we have today being called capitalism.Then why do you dislike bankers, who are "the circulatory system of the capitalist body?"And that's an even more amusing comment given that you think that government should deregulate business.Who will regulate business then, business?If anything you are the confused moron, anonymous.You have made it abundantly clear you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about on pretty much every topic you have discussed here.
I wrote:"Voluntary contributions are, as the name implies, voluntary rather than assessed payments left to the discretion of each individual Member State."Anonymous wrote:Then divide up the 60 million equally among the 107 yes voting member states and let them "volunteer" to pay it. they are in a "social contract", right? Be sure to get Canada on board.....From my previous comment:"These UN agencies undertake activities critical to U.S. national security interests that would be difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to undertake alone. U.S. voluntary contributions are financed through the State Department’s International Organizations and Programs account."We voluntarily commit the funds above because it serves our own interests to do so. Some of the funding for UNICEF comes from our membership, and represents an obligation rather than a voluntary contribution.We are not responsible, nor do we have the authority over any other country's contribution or membership obligation.That would include Canada. So, no, I don't have to get Canada on board or do anything else other than correct your ignorance.
Who will regulate business? Well, any real capitalist knows the answer to that - the market, their customers. But, when you have corporatism/fascism that isn't so possible when government keeps propping up cheaters it is in be with.
Anonymous amusingly sez:Well us damn Americans don't much care for legalities.Then goes forth to contradict himself.The problem is that the Rebellious colonists knew full well that what they had done was illegal. Benjamin Franklin made the point more tellingly when, as he was about to sign the Declaration, he remarked, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall hang separately.” The fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence were all fully aware that the punishment for treason was death by hanging or dismemberment. Five Southern delegates were captured by the British, arrested as traitors and brutally tortured. Twelve had their homes ransacked, looted, burned and other property destroyed. One signer, Thomas McKean, observed in an early case that came before him as a judge post-independence, “In civil wars, every man chooses his party; but generally that side which prevails arrogates the right of treating those who are vanquished as rebels.”As I said, one of the Purposes of the Declaration of Independence was to give an air of legitimacy to the Independence movement.But,even in their dislike of British Rule, the North American Colonists knew that government and law was necessary. Without some form of government, the rebels would have been unable to have functioned. The Articles gave legitimacy to the Continental Congress to direct the American Revolutionary War and conduct diplomacy with Europe.So,without government, I seriously doubt the US would exist. If the early colonists had truly been libertarians, the rebels would have been hanged (or worse) and the colonies would have remained British since there would have been no unifying force that would have given legitimacy to the rebels.Franklin said:I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.Now, try to wrap your tiny brain around that one, anonymous!
We voluntarily commit the funds above because it serves our own interests to do so. Some of the funding for UNICEF comes from our membership, and represents an obligation rather than a voluntary contribution.Does it not serve the interests of, Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe....Why is it only in the intrests of the USA none of these other countries?We are not responsible, nor do we have the authority over any other country's contribution or membership obligation.Somebody does, somebody presents the bill.....how else do we know how much we should "voluntarily" contribute?
"No, I think that they could be a again be a really useful organization.... When they stop being a resolution mill for the we hate Israel coalition....November 2, 2011 7:12 PM"I already knew you were an idiot but statements like that one will convince anyone who has a functional brain that you're a neocon stooge. Are you also one of the fundamentalist KKKristian shitheads that wants to see Israel secure in its homeland, just in time for Armageddon (the fabulistic notions of the idiots who wrote "The Book of Revelations" are beyond paranoid)?
DAG:You're upset? Obviously. I see that you're far too upset to offer any rebuttal beyond "You're a meanie.".Rebut my comments, if you can.
Anonymous, explain this statement in the light of pre-regulation product alteration:Well, any real capitalist knows the answer to that - the market, their customers.For example,in the US pre-Pure Food and Drug Act any drugs had been sold as patent medicines with secret ingredients or misleading labels. Cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and so on. The most famous example being the cola drinks, in particular Coca-Cola, containing cocaine.There were other acts of adulteration as well, such as watering down milk, use of sawdust in bread, and so on for the less noxious cases. Other materials could be plain out toxic, caustic, and otherwise dangerous.SO, what does the consumer do when they have been sold a toxic product in your world? Die?You have already closed off the court system to "frivolous lawsuits", which these fall under.Your comment is plain out ignorant of reality.
I already knew you were an idiot but statements like that one will convince anyone who has a functional brain that you're a neocon stooge. Are you also one of the fundamentalist KKKristian shitheads that wants to see Israel secure in its homeland, just in time for Armageddon (the fabulistic notions of the idiots who wrote "The Book of Revelations" are beyond paranoid)?Hows about we see some resolutions regarding....The Egyptian Military's Crimes Against Humanityhttp://www.raymondibrahim.com/10498/the-egyptian-military-crimes-against-humanityhttp://www.youtube.com/user/thecopticmartyrs?gl=US&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2Fthecopticmartyrs%3Fgl%3DUS#p/u/28/IXYgzHRYRxQ&has_verified=1http://bikyamasr.com/45280/egypt-state-television-admits-to-making-up-news-over-soldiers-deaths/DoC, how about we allow Palestine UN representation right after China does the same for Taiwan.
pooch said, "SO, what does the consumer do when they have been sold a toxic product in your world? Die?You mean like a drug that's approved by the FDA that is unsafe and toxic. Yeah, you die. Most businesses aren't interested in killing off their customers, you know repeat business, word of mouth advertising and such.
SO, what does the consumer do when they have been sold a toxic product in your world? Die?Well you don't look to the US Govt to try and remedy the situation.....http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=1465349462704650674http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/chinesemade-drywall-destr_n_523748.html
The most famous example being the cola drinks, in particular Coca-Cola, containing cocaine.Right an ingredient that was for all purposes removed 3 years prior to establishment the FDA....
Oh, Tommy:The egyptian military? How about Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and on and on. You were all over the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush deuce on this stuff, Right? See, I got a problem with all of you morons that only saw a problem with U.S. foreign policy in the years when the Rethublicans were out of power. But revisionist history IS the GOPricks' strong suit, donchaknow?
"The whole point is that we agree to support the outcome of votes, whether we win or lose on what we want.That is the essential agreement in the social contract of representative government. It is the strongest and one of the most important parts of it.C'mon, you know that!"No, there is no social contract. There is no democracy or representative government here. We are talking about the UN which exists at our pleasure and purse.
The Egyptian military? How about Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and on and on. You were all over the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush deuce on this stuff, Right? See, I got a problem with all of you morons that only saw a problem with U.S. foreign policy in the years when the Rethublicans were out of power. But revisionist history IS the GOPricks' strong suit, donchaknow?Has the smell of Perperation H and Dentu-Cream made you mentally defective, I am talking about the treatment of people within their own borders...... the Egyptian government is murdering their own people....You effing-smelly-hippies are all over the Israelis, like stink on patchouli, yet not a peep out of the Useless Ninnies about human rights violations, when it is an Islamic nation doing the oppression.So, UNESCO can go piss up a rope kick the "Palistinians" (because they are not a nation) out or pay for it their-effing-selves.
Tommy Trolltone:You're not foolin' anybody, son. I know you're trying to appear reasonable and reasonably intelligent--it's not working. Whereas the Egyptians, Syrians, Russians, U.S. and other countries might be doing this that or the other to their own citizens--Israel is, in point of fact, doing some fairly nasty shit to people who are NOT Israelis and who don't LIVE in Israel. And, perhaps you've missed it but the U.N. has been involved in getting in between groups of people bent on killing each other since at least 1950.I know you really, deep down, hate the U.N. and I'm pretty sure it's because your daddy and your grand-daddy hated the U.N. That's your privilege, we live in a free country. Please don't waste your time or ours trying to dress up your hatred of the U.N. with some sort of reichwing babble about the organization being a clique with the sole purpose of punishing Israel--it's bullshit and we all know it.