>Hi Keith, > >I do not find any mention or defense of the US in my text
Didn't say there was, but it's your usual drift, isn't it? I said it's "what you seem to think", and indeed it is. >and I agree with >much of what you said. I do still maintain that there are many more >countries represented at the UN that do not meet the Hakan test of a >democracy I don't think Hakan made such a test. I don't think you've understood what he said. Try reading it again. >and If we were to look at it from a one person one vote it would >be even worse. That makes the UN a poor candidate for a Democratic World >Government. Hakan did not propose a Democratic World Government, he specifically didn't say that. He said the UN is the only organisation which somewhat represents a world democracy. No, not just a quibble. And the "somewhat" is important, he also said it's not very suitable in its present form. What difference does "one person one vote" make when non-person corporations that are inimical to democracy and the public interest can buy off the entire political apparatus? It's just a meaningless formula now, it obscures the reality as much as reveals it. How many of those increasingly meaningless votes even get cast? - or how few rather? You think that's what "democracy" means? You have to abandon these formulas and look at what really happens in people's lives. How about a rich country that didn't allow its women to vote until 13 years ago? Probably some backward oil sheikhdom in the Gulf or something, eh? Switzerland, actually. I think it's the oldest democracy in the world, going back to the 13th century, and much admired, though certainly not without its flaws. Everywhere you look you find exceptions to these simplistic formulas, both better and worse. I don't want to interpret what Hakan said, but I believe he was talking about realities, not just empty forms. Switzerland, by the way, modelled its current federal constitution on the US, in 1848. Government there is a very local business, strictly bottom-up, the federal government is tiny and hardly seems to matter. There's no clear division between the governing party and the opposition. The Swiss don't just vote once in four years, they seem to be voting most of the time - in fact they vote whenever they feel like it, it's a citizens' right to organize a referendum on just about anything. Interest and turnouts are high. Not so easy to recognise today's US in that mirror image, is it? >Do please stop putting words in other peoples mouths and we could do with a >lot less of your personal slander. If you used your mind in a constructive >way I think you could make a valid point with out personal attacks. Now there's a thing. I wonder what Harmon thinks of that? You sure slandered him, without either provocation or justification. Slander, yes - what you said about him wasn't true. You were asked some pertinent questions about that, to which you never deigned to reply. Perhaps you should. Maybe they're kind of awkward for you, but at least try, it would help your credibility. Now please tell me who I've slandered, and exactly how? You put words in Harmon's mouth, now in Hakan's, you've misconstrued mine. You're rather heavily tarred with your own brush, Mr Vern. I doubt I'd be very impressed by your views on constructive use of the mind and what constitutes a valid point. Keith >Best regards, >Vern > > > > > > Keith Addison > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: >biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > orever.org> cc: > > Subject: Re: >[biofuel] There's gotta be a better way Was: BP now Direct >Democracy > 11/09/02 04:42 PM > > Please respond to > > biofuel > > > > > > > > > > >For Hakan to be right about the UN the states that are members would have > >to, at least the majority, be democracies and as that is not the case in > >the vast majority of members it causes the concept to not work and is one > >of the main causes of the ongoing failures of the UN to get much done. >When > >you are made up of corrupt states it is hard to not be corrupt. > > > >Best regards, > >Vern > >Funny idea, that the US has been some kind of champion of democracy >in the wide world, which is what you seem to think. Jonas Savimbi, >Mobutu Sese Seko, Pinochet, Marcos, Sukarno, White South Africa, the >Sauds, the Shah... ah hell, I'll save my fingers from typing such a >long list of fine democrats. > >Of course there's now a growing charge-sheet against US-based and >other corporations sowing corruption in 3rd World countries, >corporations mostly stemming from the nations which hogtied the UN in >the first place. Your positioning of "democracies" on the one side >and "corrupt states" on the other is naive in the extreme. > >Keith > > > > csakima > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: > >biofuel@yahoogroups.com > > net> cc: > > > > Subject: [biofuel] > >There's gotta be a better way Was: BP now > > 11/09/02 08:12 AM Direct Democracy > > > > Please respond to > > > > biofuel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "... somewhat represent a world democracy is UN"?? "Democracy must be > >shown at a global level to survive"?? > > > >Pardon if I offend anyone on this list ... but the concept of a "world > >democracy" makes me very nervous. It, by the way it is sometimes talked > >about, implies in an unsaid way .... the existence of a so-called > >"global-level government". ... to which "all" so-called "governments" must > >implicitly be subserveant to its "global-level rules". > > > >This would to me imply that, in the same way we in America have a > >City-n-County level .... State Government level ... and Federal Government > >level, there would be a new level ... a "Global" Government level..... to > >which our "President" (Clinton/Bush/Etc) would relate as a "Governor" does > >to a "President". Only in this case it would be ... what .. a "Global > >President".?? > > > >And then what?? Would President Vladamir Putin also be a "Governor"?? Of > >the Russian Region?? Would Arafat be a "Governor"?? Of the Palestinian > >"region"?? > > > >Then countries wouldn't be countries anymore ... but only "States" (with > >"Governors") .... in a what?? A "Global Country"?? The "one-world > >country"?? > > > >What would happen to our illustrious document .... the Constitution?? > > > >I ....... dunno .... Hakan. I see where you're coming from ... and I > >understand what you mean. But I'm not sure if "that's" the way to handle > >it. It sets a very eerie precedence. And makes me very nervous. > > > >Curtis > > > > > >Get your free newsletter at > >http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Now we have democracies based on countries and different organizations of > >appointment of governments. The only body that somewhat represent a world > >democracy is UN. I really hope that we can show respect this time and not > >repeat history. Democracy will not work, if we do not introduce it on a > >world wide basis and condemn any kind of occupation. > > > >Democracy must be shown at a global level to survive. The way that US and > >some others behave is by no definition to describe as international > >democracy. We must nurture and respect UN as a body at any cost, otherwise > >we will repeat history and democracy becomes a theatric farce. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
