To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 20103
20102  |  20104
Subject: 
Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 20:51:25 GMT
Viewed: 
741 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<big snip>...

I'll stand by my assertion. The US is superior to the DPRK(2) by this
prosperity based metric. The DPRK system isn't working now and has no
prospects of working better in future. It's also superior to the DPRK by a
human rights metric. Therefore, to say that the US and the DPRK ought to be
equal (for example both having one vote on the UN HRC, or both having one
vote on how UN funds ought to be spent) strikes me as false. I found an op
ed yesterday (but can't find it now) arguing this very point...that based on
what is being decided, different countries ought to get different sized
votes... the one I like was a vote based on proportional contribution to the
UN budget.

Uh, Lar, that may not be such a good idea - the US has a long history
of failing to pay US dues.  If the vote was based on current, true,
paid-up dues, there would
be many times when the US would have ZERO votes due to being in arrears.

The idea makes sense to me, but with our past history, it wouldn't
bode well for the US.

That's part of the original argument. If we don't get a vote unless we're
paid up, we (and other nations as well) will be falling all over ourselves
to pay up. ESPECIALLY if we get a 25% or so vote because of it.

I think there are a lot of possible schemes that could be considered that
are superior to "one country, one vote"... this is one of them. There are
others.

Is this 'payment' to a "revamped" UN dependant on number of citizens in the
country?  GNP? Or just a flat rate?

What payment scale would you set up to a 'better' United Nations so that all
countries would be represented fairly?



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
 
(...) Everyone pays whatever they want and then votes in direct proportion to how much they paid in order to decide what to do. So to implement the onion-vision all the US has to do is pay 51% (and that will work as long as the whole rest of the (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Break Out the Cristal (trickle-down economics explained with champagne!)
 
(...) That's part of the original argument. If we don't get a vote unless we're paid up, we (and other nations as well) will be falling all over ourselves to pay up. ESPECIALLY if we get a 25% or so vote because of it. I think there are a lot of (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

79 Messages in This Thread:






















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR