top of page
  • fastbrowncar

The United Nations does not serve the interests of the United States

From the United Nations webpage, here's what the UN says they do:

  • Maintain international peace and security

  • Protect human rights

  • Deliver humanitarian aid

  • Promote sustainable development

  • Uphold international law

There's scores of other things of course. The United Nations is the center of the failed global war on drugs. The UN is also the center of dozens of failed initiatives. It's a fountain of major flops. That's no surprise because the UN is very often arrayed against reality.


Start with the top structure of the UN, the top ruling body is called the Security Council. The membership of this council is a permanent. These permanent nations are: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Permanent status of the top ruling body is the most anti-representative structure I can imagine. Oh, sure, there are ten rotating slots for non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. Big whoop! The very fact that the largest, most powerful nations on earth are permanently ensconced in top leadership positions means 'thy will be done'.


The UN is anti-representative in structure.


According to the UN, there are 'human rights' that aren't actually rights. In the much revered "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"there is a mix of rights and things that aren't rights.

Well, what is a right? A right is a description of something that is immoral for someone to do to you without your consent. You have a right to life. No one can morally take your life from you. (I would add that you cannot morally take your own life either. ) You have a right to your property. No one can morally take your property from you without your consent. You have a right to make decisions for your own life. No one can morally tell you how to spend your time, what to eat, what to wear, what to think or believe, what to say, who to associate with, on what terms you associate with others, etc. (This is commonly wrapped into a more poetic phrase 'Right to pursuit of happiness'.)


What is not a right? You cannot have any claim on the property, actions, or pursuit of happiness of others. You can ask for these things. You can make a deal for these things. You can attempt to influence others to terms of association that are more favorable to yourself or others. But you have no claim on them. I have no claim to your life or property. You have no claim to my life or property.


To be more specific about what is not a right, here are a few: health care is not a right. Health care is a service from a person of free will, someone with their own pursuit of happiness. If they don't want to serve someone, and that person forces them to render services, then the healthcare provider just became a slave, forced to serve. Whether or not they are paid does not change the balance of slavery. Slavery is forced labor. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits holding someone in 'slavery or servitude'. Then it adds that "slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." Well, that's pretty broad. "All their forms" means that not a single form of slavery shall be allowed. OK, I guess even the minor forms of slavery? A minor form of slavery is a form of slavery. Minor forms of slavery are either allowed or are not allowed.


You can make an exception for minor forms of slavery. Sure, I think most people would. But then they should amend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to say "minor forms of slavery are allowed. Examples include: forcing doctors to treat people and forcing people to pay for the healthcare of others." Of course, the UN might want to change the wording, but isn't the meaning the same. Shouldn't the words have meaning, and shouldn't the words mean what they say?


Here's another example of what's not a right: you don't have a right to deprive someone else of their food or water, or to force anyone to pay for your food and water.


I like these next rules.


Article 17

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Well, if it says 'all forms of slavery are prohibited', but then people carve out exceptions for making some forms of slavery a right to impose upon some people, and there isn't a specific law that specifically says when, who, how much, under what circumstances, limitations, and another few paragraphs of legalese, then isn't that arbitrary? If you don't specifically say in writing after a full and open debate, but just decide it one day, that's the definition of arbitrary.


Articles 23 and 24 are full of 'not rights'.


Article 23

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.


Unfortunately, this declaration is exceedingly vague. When it says you have a 'right to work' and to 'free choice of employment', does that mean you have a right to offer your labor for sale under the conditions you set forth in a mutual agreement with another person or group? Or does it mean that you have a claim to demand employment? One of those meanings is a right. I do have the right to offer my labor for sale, for which I can set any terms or conditions, and which can be accepted or refused, in mutual agreement or not, by another adult person or group of free will.


Of course there are some limitations. You're not going to make a contract that enslaves someone. I wouldn't sign that contract, but it couldn't be defensible in a court of law in western nation.


OK. My beef with the UN. Arbitrary, ineffective, corrupt, power hungry, abusive, enabling, in-fighting, more corruption, inconsistent, wasteful, snooty, high brow, blowhard-ism supreme.


Does the UN do anything good? Sure, I'm sure it does something good. But it's not enough for the United States to remain a member. It doesn't serve the interests of the United States. Hey, I don't care if they have the office in their office in New York or somewhere else. As long as they pay their rent. Just leave us out of their evil, corrupt schemes. Actually, we should probably kick out the UN as a terror organization.


Would some sort of international body be of benefit to the United States. Sure, I could imagine such a body. But it would need to be chartered with a document that aligned with reality. That's not particularly difficult. I mean, it takes understanding and ability to write such a document, but far greater miracles have happened.





3 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Europe Can Defend Europe

Americans are increasingly struggling financially. This includes daily food insecurity, monthly bills like housing, power, and water. Health care like cancer treatments or other surgeries can send peo

Peace in NATO-Russian War in Ukraine

As President of the United States, I will immediately begin making efforts at peace in what I will call the NATO-Russian War in Ukraine. While no action of the United States can single-handedly brin

Plan for America

People will call me an extremist. I don't think there is any way around that. And in a sense, it's an accurate description. The positions I take are grounded in having a limited government. Limited go

Comments


bottom of page