Thoughts on the UN

The United Nations was founded on the paving stones to perdition...good intentions. The problem I have with the UN has to do with moral authority. The UN lacks moral authority, not because of moral relativism, nor because of immorality. The problem with the UN, is it is amoral, it does not recognize morality in any form. Well, that is not strictly true...it holds certain things to be immoral, at least in theory. Activities such as slavery, torture, and nuclear proliferation rank high on the UN's list of no-no's. Unfortunately, the UN does not, and will not, take action to censure member nations that openly practice these activities. In fact, in the attempt to seem fair, the UN allows nations that act this way to chair its own commissions that investigate those activities! The UN is hampered by its own success. In response to the failures of its predecessor, the League of Nations, the UN is permanently staffed, and openly inclusive. This means that there are always delegates at the UN conferring on practically any matter, and that the member nations share no ideal or goal beyond being members of the UN. Once your government (regardless of its origins or methods of staying in power) is recognized by the UN, you are "legitimate". You can now pretty much act in any way you choose; pillage, rape, torture and loot your subjects in any manner you wish; bully, oppress, and threaten your neighbors through every method (short of outright invasion) and you will be left alone. Oh sure, individual nations may withdraw recognition or impose sanctions, but no one is likely to attack or overthrow you. Wait a minute, you might say. The US was founded in revolution and warfare. Yes it was. What of it? When the revolutionaries threw off British rule, they did not set themselves up as despots, nor did a junta of military commanders seize absolute power. No, the revolutionaries took their time and their own fortunes, to create a system of government where the power rested, not with themselves, nor the upper classes (although some did want power to be vested there) but with the individual citizens of the entire country. Compare that with...Liberia, Syria, Libya, Cuba, Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran, Belarus, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Compare that, even, with the contemporary revolutionaries in France, in 1789. The difference between all those examples and the revolutionaries that broke the American Colonies from British rule were the ideals of altruism and selfless service. The UN, however, grants equal status to all of the above, just as it would have given equal status to the government of France under Louis XVI or under the Committee for Public Safety under Robespierre. This is not an ideal system for world governance. In an article for Townhall.com, Jonah Goldberg puts forth an alternative multinational body, the League of Democracies. This would limit membership to only those governments that vest power in the people and operate under the rule of law.