I don't have enough time to carry the analogy out with good enough writing, but hopefully, this will be able to be followed. Ironically, back some time, I used the same analogy to argue the opposite point (although not nearly in as entertaining of a manner):

###

It seems to me that to abandon law for vigilantism is a dangerous precedent. Unchecked, it naturally devolves into gangsterism and rule by the strongest war lord.

Granted, if that war lord is a nice guy, it might not be so bad, but it is still rather undemocratic.

A large part of the reason the government, and by extension the police force, was put into place was to prevent that from happening. If they're not doing their jobs, they need to be motivated or replaced.

This can range from a threatening petition, to planning to vote them out, to civil disobedience such as withholding funds and services, to overthrow/ignoring them and replacing them with a new government.

By fixing the government and having the fixed government do what they're supposed to do, such make sure neighbors don't terrorize the neighborhood and outsiders don't come in and invade your homes, one maintains the rule of law and principles of democracy (providing the fixed government is democratic in nature).

By simply ignoring the government and resorting to gangsterism, law and democracy go out the window, and it becomes rule by he with the strongest arm.

###

Law and Democracy generally take somewhat longer than simply doing what you want right now, but the end result is typically quite a bit more stable.

"This can range from a threatening petition, to planning to vote them out, to civil disobedience such as withholding funds and services, to overthrow/ignoring them and replacing them with a new government."

Let me see if I understand this. . . if the Iraqi people had simply threatened to petition, or planned to vote out, Saddam and Co., or *gasp* threatened to withold some sort of imaginary funds and services, or just had the plain gumption to simply overthrow or ignore them, well, Saddam and Co. would have been duly humbled?

What planet do you live on? No, wait, don't tell me. . . I don't want to know where it is. It's too crazy of a planet to know its whereabouts.

Re: Ryan

Two things:

1) I was following Mitch's analogy. The non responsive police and city attorney in question are the UN. If the UN isn't doing their job, we should make them do their job or replace them.

2) In response to your stated understanding, actually, yes, that would be correct.

Some options wouldn't have worked: Voting was rigged, Petitions would be an execution list, Ignoring Saddam and his cronies would be asking to die. If enough people were willing to die while withholding funds or services in a general strike, something may have been accomplished, but Saddam would have been a hell of a lot more brutal than the British were in India.

However, if the Iraqi people had overthrown Saddam, I'm guessing he and his cronies would have been, as you say, duly humbled. Actually, they would most likely have been dead.

###

But, it is true. Sometimes, an oppressed people just don't have the power to overthrow their oppressor. That's one of the things the UN is supposed to be there to help take care of.

If the UN isn't doing their job, they must be made to do their job, be replaced, or be "overthrown".

One nation becoming the police force for the whole world in lieu of an international government is antithetical to the concepts of Democracy. It is, in effect, governing over people who have no voice in that government.

If the UN doesn't work, fix it, but don't abandon Democracy just because they current version isn't working right.

Oh, and Ryan, I live on Earth. Same as you.

Surely you can debate without the insults...

You're right, Jason, the insult wasn't fair. I've been conditioned by months and months of mixing things up over at Strip Mining For Whimsy which can, shall we say, get kind of nasty. Again, I apologize.

Back to the debate, I'm reminded that an attempt at overthrow following the first Gulf War didn't go to well for the people of Iraq. Something to do with gassing the populace and mass graves and such things. Overthrowing a government is kind of tricky when the government in question has no problem with mass extermination of the population. I'm also reminded that Bush I's hand was stayed from knocking out Saddam after the first Gulf War thanks to U.N. pressure. Given the propensity towards death and torture exhibited by Saddam and his sons, I tend to think the gradual Democratic change you champion would have taken somewhere in the realm of three decades, assuming it would happen at all. That's a lot of patience for torture and experimentation with weapons you have there.

I've grown to have little but contempt for the corrupt monolith known as the U.N., so I'm all for overthrowing it. Retooling the U.N. until it becomes the humanitarian body it was envisioned to become, likewise, would take an impossible amount of time. In today's charged world environment, with North Korea tinkering with nukes, Iran doing the same, and terrorists cells operating worldwide, I just don't think we have the luxury of time you're advocating here.

Well, it looks like there two or three things to debate here: past, present, and possibly future.

In the past, I have some questions about a couple of the points you made. I seem to remember that Bush I supported the decision not to go into Iraq, but I could be wrong on that. I do seem to recall that the military thought it was stupid not to finish the job. The failed overthrow was tragic, not least of all the fact that we had basically promised them aid and then did not come through. I also think that the sanctions had the effect of increasing Saddam's power over the Iraqi people.

As far as the failure to retool the UN in the intervening years - did Clinton even try? It seems like the we used the UN when it was convenient and ignored it when it wasn't. I don't think we've ever tried very hard to fix its problems. Not an effective way to improve the organization.

In the present: As far as fixing the international government, I do think it would be best to try a couple other things first if possible. I'd imagine if we and our close allies threatened withdrawing funding, support, and troops unless a list of grievances were fixed, it may have some effect. If not, I did include forming a new government and ignoring the UN as well as "overthrowing" it for a reason.

For the future: I would note that it seems like we are talking about more than a humanitarian UN. For example, keeping countries from having nukes is more reducing military threat than taking care of humanitarian needs (although keeping the world from nuclear war certainly has humanitarian benefits)

I would think that if they are going to keep North Korea and Iran from having nukes, they'd also have treat us equally. If it is based on non-proliferation treaties, it would just be preventing everyone from developing more. If it is based on reduction treaties, then they would have to enforce that for everyone.

If it is going to be Democratic, everyone needs to have the same rights, just like the dirtiest crack whore is supposed to have the same rights as Donald Trump here. In a similar vein, I also think that giving some countries permanent positions on certain councils as well as giving only some countries vetoes is unfair, and most likely, unwise.

Re: apology/insult : accepted and forgotten.

All this civility is making me ill! Actually, it's incredibly refreshing. Good work gentlemen.

"In the past, I have some questions about a couple of the points you made. I seem to remember that Bush I supported the decision not to go into Iraq, but I could be wrong on that."

He went along with the U.N., because the U.N. was a key factor in building the coalition he had at the time. Many of the nations were *only* on board because of the UN support. This was before the French had a government that was beholden, in many ways, to Hussein.

" I do seem to recall that the military thought it was stupid not to finish the job."

Some did, some didn't. There was difference of opinion there.

" The failed overthrow was tragic, not least of all the fact that we had basically promised them aid and then did not come through. I also think that the sanctions had the effect of increasing Saddam's power over the Iraqi people."

Correct on both counts.

"As far as the failure to retool the UN in the intervening years - did Clinton even try? It seems like the we used the UN when it was convenient and ignored it when it wasn't. I don't think we've ever tried very hard to fix its problems. Not an effective way to improve the organization."

The problem is, the problems aren't fixable under the current regime. Of the five permanent security council players, one is a passive-aggressive enemy of the US (China) that uses the UN as it is, as a forum to counterbalance US influence. Two more are shadows of former powers - Russia and France - who correctly see the UN as the one forum in the world that can give them pretensions to parity with us.

Many of the rest of the nations - whose votes in the General Assembly are equal to ours - are run by tinhorn dictators who use the UN to give them a veneer of legitimacy. And while freedom has made huge strides in the past twenty years, many of the nations (or at least their diplomatic corps) see the UN as a place to counterbalance US strength.

What's the impetus to reform?

"In the present: As far as fixing the international government, I do think it would be best to try a couple other things first if possible. I'd imagine if we and our close allies threatened withdrawing funding, support, and troops unless a list of grievances were fixed, it may have some effect. If not, I did include forming a new government and ignoring the UN as well as "overthrowing" it for a reason."

I agree.

Here is my take on my neighbor, from January. Probably easier to follow since it doesn't name names.

http://www.bovious.com/archives/main/000196.html

Actually, I found Mitch's version quite enjoyable and easy to follow. I think it was a somewhat closer analogy as well. Saddam had the nastiest impact on his own nation, and wasn't capable of projecting much force in the past few years although he was an unpleasant neighbor.

Re: Mitch

"The problem is, the problems aren't fixable under the current regime. Of the five permanent security council players, one is a passive-aggressive enemy of the US (China) that uses the UN as it is, as a forum to counterbalance US influence. Two more are shadows of former powers - Russia and France - who correctly see the UN as the one forum in the world that can give them pretensions to parity with us."

I recommend two fixes: Get rid of permanent membership and get rid of veto powers.

One side thought - would we rather have China as a passive-aggressive enemy or an aggressive-aggressive enemy? I do not relish the idea of war with China.

"Many of the rest of the nations - whose votes in the General Assembly are equal to ours - are run by tinhorn dictators who use the UN to give them a veneer of legitimacy. And while freedom has made huge strides in the past twenty years, many of the nations (or at least their diplomatic corps) see the UN as a place to counterbalance US strength."

I have a similar concern, and it is my thought that shifting towards something akin to our own congress may make sense. Our Senate gives everyone an equal voice and our House gives weight to each nation's population.

Of course, this means that in the legislative arena, China and India will have somewhat more influence than us.

"What's the impetus to reform?"

Well, if it the option is that the US may no longer support or feel bound by the UN, and if some allies join us, there may be some impetus. If there is no reform, then we and our allies should secede and form a new international confederacy. Of course, we should invite every other nation to join us if they wish.

I do think that there should be some basic founding document (constitution) which every member nation is bound to accept that outlines fundamental rights and responsibilities of the members. I think that document should be firmly enforced.

Now, one obvious question is, is every nation forced to be a member?

If not, if a nation isn't a member, how does the international body interact with it?

Some examples:
What if a non-member nation invades another non-member nation?
What if a non-member nation locks up or enslaves some racial minority within their own nation?
What if a member nation invades a non-member nation?

(Yes, I realize we've shifted substantially from the original post, but these are ideas I've been dying to discuss...)

Actually, I found Mitch's version quite enjoyable and easy to follow. I think it was a somewhat closer analogy as well. Saddam had the nastiest impact on his own nation, and wasn't capable of projecting much force in the past few years although he was an unpleasant neighbor.

Re: Mitch

"The problem is, the problems aren't fixable under the current regime. Of the five permanent security council players, one is a passive-aggressive enemy of the US (China) that uses the UN as it is, as a forum to counterbalance US influence. Two more are shadows of former powers - Russia and France - who correctly see the UN as the one forum in the world that can give them pretensions to parity with us."

I recommend two fixes: Get rid of permanent membership and get rid of veto powers.

One side thought - would we rather have China as a passive-aggressive enemy or an aggressive-aggressive enemy? I do not relish the idea of war with China.

"Many of the rest of the nations - whose votes in the General Assembly are equal to ours - are run by tinhorn dictators who use the UN to give them a veneer of legitimacy. And while freedom has made huge strides in the past twenty years, many of the nations (or at least their diplomatic corps) see the UN as a place to counterbalance US strength."

I have a similar concern, and it is my thought that shifting towards something akin to our own congress may make sense. Our Senate gives everyone an equal voice and our House gives weight to each nation's population.

Of course, this means that in the legislative arena, China and India will have somewhat more influence than us.

"What's the impetus to reform?"

Well, if it the option is that the US may no longer support or feel bound by the UN, and if some allies join us, there may be some impetus. If there is no reform, then we and our allies should secede and form a new international confederacy. Of course, we should invite every other nation to join us if they wish.

I do think that there should be some basic founding document (constitution) which every member nation is bound to accept that outlines fundamental rights and responsibilities of the members. I think that document should be firmly enforced.

Now, one obvious question is, is every nation forced to be a member?

If not, if a nation isn't a member, how does the international body interact with it?

Some examples:
What if a non-member nation invades another non-member nation?
What if a non-member nation locks up or enslaves some racial minority within their own nation?
What if a member nation invades a non-member nation?

(Yes, I realize we've shifted substantially from the original post, but these are ideas I've been dying to discuss...)

Sorry about the double post. Mitch, can you delete it (and this) if you get the chance?

Could you delete this, too, just for good measure?

Oh, and delete this one too.

Whoops, I suppose you should probably delete this one. What was I thinking?

Shoot! There I go again! This better get deleted.

You did delete that last one, right?

Good. Be sure you delete this one though.

What? What did I do?

Okay, I'm done now. I'll just amble on back over to Instapundit.

If I have to stop the car, someone's going to get in TROUble!

*smirk*

The patients are running the asylum.

The UN is too far gone to fix. You would have to get too many tyrannies to go against what is in their best interests. It won’t happen. I read where Iran actually felt that the former head Mulla of Iran should be the next replacement for Annan..

Is it just me or is there some sort of vile pro-Polish/anti-Irish thing going on here? WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST THE IRISH, MR. BERG? Ms. McDegaulle? The McEspinosas? The O'Schmidts? Why are all your villians IRISH? YOU RAN THE IRISH OUT OF THE MIDWAY IN '03. IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

O'Daddypants,

Just trying to make the story germane to St. Paul. Half the characters have to be Irish.

Although there should have been a "Nguyen" or a "Xiong" in there somewhere, now that I think about it...