Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Rand Simberg responded to my comments to Matt Welch. I replied:
I agree that the mere number of people who believe something does not make it right. But it does make it a position that should be taken seriously, and I did not see anyone doing so.
Also I agree that the U.N. is somewhat anachronistic, although probably not as much as you. What should change about the U.N. however, depends on what direction you believe globalization should take. It seems to me that there are three possible options:
1. Stop it. That is what the anti-globalization folks want.
2. Subject all international organizations to the beneficial guidance of the U.S. The "American Empire" option.
3. Work toward the eventual creation of a democratic world government. Americanize planet Earth.
I am guessing you prefer option 2. Options 1 & 2 both tend to see the U.N. as meaningless.
I support option 3. Obviously strong steps can not be taken toward this goal until China falls to democracy on its own. In the meantime we have to put up with the U.N. as the voice of international law just because it is what is there, just as the world currently has to put up with America as world cop because were are the only ones who can be.
A lot of thoughtful people support eventual world democracy, but to not speak up too loudly because the other voices are so loud, and frankly, it is not currently a viable option. What the poll I cited shows is that many more American support international law than most people might suspect, and when the time comes for us to make our case (ie. China becomes democratic), we might have more support than those of you on either extreme expect.