McCain's League of Democracies

[Mr. Wit]

China. North Korea. Cuba. Iran. That's how I define totalitarian.

That's it?

What conditions in those countries would have to change for you to consider them non-totalitarian?

Political, economic and social freedom - the three things all of those countries currently lack.

[Vermouth]

China. North Korea. Cuba. Iran. That's how I define totalitarian.

That's it?

What conditions in those countries would have to change for you to consider them non-totalitarian?

Political, economic and social freedom - the three things all of those countries currently lack.

What would be the benchmarks that trigger inclusion and how would you measure them?

[Peter1469]

Totalitarianism is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism


My benchmark would be the US choosing the intial members - period. 

[Mr. Wit]

China. North Korea. Cuba. Iran. That's how I define totalitarian.

That's it?

What conditions in those countries would have to change for you to consider them non-totalitarian?

Political, economic and social freedom - the three things all of those countries currently lack.

What would be the benchmarks that trigger inclusion and how would you measure them?

The right to vote for whoever you want without worrying about a government official blowing your brains out.
The right to work for your own interests instead of the interests of the government.
The right to live as you please without worrying about going to prison for life.

Perhaps I'm being too simple, but that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm tired.

[Vermouth]

Totalitarianism is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism


My benchmark would be the US choosing the intial members - period. 

So you would be content to allow the organization to devolve into another UN?

[Peter1469]

Well, no.

I am only speaking as if I were the one making the choices, not the fools we have running the country now.   

Point taken.

[Vermouth]

China. North Korea. Cuba. Iran. That's how I define totalitarian.

That's it?

What conditions in those countries would have to change for you to consider them non-totalitarian?

Political, economic and social freedom - the three things all of those countries currently lack.

What would be the benchmarks that trigger inclusion and how would you measure them?

The right to vote for whoever you want without worrying about a government official blowing your brains out.
The right to work for your own interests instead of the interests of the government.
The right to live as you please without worrying about going to prison for life.

Perhaps I'm being too simple, but that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm tired.

I'm just making the point that criteria like these not only require resources to monitor, but are subjectively defined. It's more trouble than it's worth.

[Peter1469]

China. North Korea. Cuba. Iran. That's how I define totalitarian.

That's it?

What conditions in those countries would have to change for you to consider them non-totalitarian?

Political, economic and social freedom - the three things all of those countries currently lack.

What would be the benchmarks that trigger inclusion and how would you measure them?

The right to vote for whoever you want without worrying about a government official blowing your brains out.
The right to work for your own interests instead of the interests of the government.
The right to live as you please without worrying about going to prison for life.

Perhaps I'm being too simple, but that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm tired.

I'm just making the point that criteria like these not only require resources to monitor, but are subjectively defined. It's more trouble than it's worth.

The concept is that there should be a UN type organization that doesn’t allow totalitarian governments as members- or at least as voting members.  We can certainly argue over the details. 

The UN was made to be a venue for the US and USSR to air their grievances without destroying humanity with nuclear war.  It is comprised of voting members who will veto any meaningful agenda that affects some voting members’ interests negatively- which means that only superficial and unimportant issues get the go-ahead. 

[Vermouth]

The concept is that there should be a UN type organization that doesn’t allow totalitarian governments as members- or at least as voting members.  We can certainly argue over the details. 

The UN was made to be a venue for the US and USSR to air their grievances without destroying humanity with nuclear war.  It is comprised of voting members who will veto any meaningful agenda that affects some voting members’ interests negatively- which means that only superficial and unimportant issues get the go-ahead. 

The UN has come to have a role that's more complex than its original design, some of which is worthwhile. It's completely bloated and corrupt and the current structure of the security council makes no sense, but I would rather not give up so easily on reforming it. Some of the criticisms of the UN could potentially apply to any international organization.

[Peter1469]

I agree, my first post on this subject said that I would not leave it.  Perhaps I don’t support vetoing everything….

The League of Democracies could become the primary tool for democracies to doll out foreign aid in concert. 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

A League of Democracies would be another internationalist organization that would be no better than the UN.

OswaldTheOsprey