http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3783

Several interesting ideas presented in this issue of FP, I've been waiting for it to make it online so we could discuss it. Should any of you actually read some of the articles I'll feel accomplished

My favorite was the solution to...

Dicatorships- A Global Magna Carta

"Terrorists and dictators are welcomed to the arena of polite diplomacy, despite their contempt for what Western civilization represents. Engagement and appeasement are failing as they always have. Today, a new framework is required to replace the old structures and agreements that dictate global diplomacy. I do not refer to reforming the United Nations. It is now so outdated that suggestions to reform it are themselves past their time. The United Nations was formed to freeze a crisis—the Cold War—not to solve crises. Our war today is a hot one, and it is not about territory, ideology, or commerce. It is about the value of human life. The world needs a new organization based on a global Magna Carta, a declaration of inalienable human rights that all member nations must recognize."

global magna carta? great idea. who's gonna enforce it?

http://www.theskyiscrape.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=65669



I get that it was written by different authors, but it's funny how one section trashes the ultra rich (saying no one should have more than 50x the average salary) and another section praises the work the Gates Foundation has done. This is the real kicker in that section:

"If the average worker makes $40,000, the top compensated individual may keep $4 million a year. Any income in excess of that amount must be contributed to a charity or returned to the government, either as a general gift, or targeted to a specific line item"

.

There is no enforcement, and it is not necessary. Signatories would be accepted of their own volition assuming they recognize certain inalienable rights and grant them to their citizens. This could be done in exchange for formal diplomatic relations or economic incentives. If the U.N. member nations along with the United States were to adhere to such a policy they have the economic and political clout to "enforce" such an idealistic proposition.

Next.

I don't think those arguments are mutually exclusive. In fact, they complement one another. One could easily use the success of the Gates foundation as evidence that gratuitous wealth should be given directly to charity, and that it should be required by law. The Gates foundation is just one charitable entity, imagine if every billionaire was required, by law, to establish a non-profit charity.

if it's going to be a "members only" thing, it wouldn't solve the problem of dictatorships, who would still have the option of not joining

The part of that sentence I was referring to was the "returned to the government" part, which would imply that all income is derived from the government and we should give it back to them if we aren't spending it.

They are somewhat exclusive in that if there was a maximum amount of wealth around 50x the median income then there would be no billionaires to force into funding charities. Which is a bit sick anyway. Why should the government use violence to force people to use their property in ways they don't voluntarily choose too? I'm going to hazard a guess and say that must billionaires have funded charities because it's the right thing to do, free from the threats of the entitled masses. How would you even determine that limit? I mean what if there was a recession and the median income dropped 25%. Would the government then swoop in and take the difference from people who suddenly over the cap?

By that same logic, why not take every dollar earned in the US economy over 50x the median per capita GDP of a nation-state, and put it into a charity to distribute around the world? Surely that's a more fair distribution of resources.

To begin with you are clearly missing the point. Its meant to eliminate dicatorships, not recognize them. Your arguments against membership and enforcement are, therefore, completely irrelevant. Dictators would not even have the option of joining into such an agreement (nor would they want to).

Currently even the most liberal of western technocratic societies deal with, on a fairly regular basis, rogue nations of questionable ethical backgrounds. Coincidentally this is the same group of nations that is most likely to adhere to international law. Why wouldn't one want to forge an agreement between these countries stating that they are, both morally and ethically, opposed to dealing with nations who do treat their citizenry inhumanely?

What it could do, should the E.U. members, Japan the United States and others choose, is essentially unite western civilization behind an established ethos. Together these nations would be powerful enough. economically and militarily, to encourage reform in any nation.

It would work a bit something like this:

"Hello, I am a dictatator." says Dictator

"Wuh? My apologies dictator, but your human rights record and political system are abhorrent, I am bound, by international agreement, to refrain from discourse until economic and political reforms are completed " replies Civilization.

"My dear", says Dictator "It might be in my interest to give some rights back to the people".

So, I assume, you are again going to point out "but who will enforce it", thus missing the point once more.

I don't know what kind of violent behavior you are referring to, as that was not even alluded to. Secondly, the effect of a median income drop of 25% would be negligible as market factors would naturally redistribute over time, its economics.

Your last point, however, is splendid. Why not? Well, aside from the geopolitical turmoil caused by bankrupting the world's lone superpower it isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison. Median income inside the United states can be calculated quite accurately. Globally, not so easy. The GDP of a nation is really only a modest indicator of economic health, there are so many other factors that tying the number to GDP wouldn't work. I still like the idea though. Thanks, thats one to ponder.

I don't see how there would not be violence. Do you think that multi-millionaires are just going to hand over their money because some law has been passed? What's to stop them from taking their money and leaving the US? There are plenty of places where the rich can go and hide from what Bastiat called "The legal plunderers". Hell dude, if OJ Simpson can figure out how to hide his millions from the government, surely investment bankers can too.

I was being half serious with the second idea. Global socialism is the only kind that would work. Everyone must be forced to participate or the system breaks down. If they dont, well... to the gulags for those who disagree.

No, I actually flirting with the idea its just that there are very few pure market economies, so calculation of GDP would have to be adjusted. I think I just found a subject for my dissertation. If I can figure out how to balance out the averages, maybe by multiplying by some arbitrary "the broken iris" constant.

I guess I'm too ignorant to follow this... huh? Are we still discussing the same thing, the article you posted?

I'll back to part of my original point, the idea of capping income or wealth is wrong because the value of property is not static and it assumes that those with the 'gratuitous wealth', whatever that means, do not use that wealth in the most economically optimal way. Let's also not forget that taking something of value from someone without consent, whether or not they need it, is wrong.

I appreciate that large gaps in wealth between the rich and the middle class are one of the main drivers of recessions, but when has bureaucracy driven redistribution of anything been successful outside of the short term?

I just wanted to say that I want to participate in this thread, and I think the thread topic is very stimulating, but I haven't had the time to devote to really reading and understanding the issues before writing. Hopefully soon.

Next, really? That statement sounds nice, but what are the inalienable rights recognized by the signatories? And why do you automatically conclude that there is enough economic clout among the US and UN member nations?



Why?



He isn't missing the point. Dictatorships could perceivably still exist outside the sphere of the agreement. As I mentioned above, why do you assume there is enough clout to do much of anything against nations that do not adhere?



One argument against forging such an agreement is that those countries sometimes provide very tangible benefits to the "idealistic" ones.



Why is this assumed? Is there any proof of some level of power possessed by these nations that would allow such an assumption? Reform, and human interaction in general, is a very complex thing to assume. Is it possible that the reforms would turn out differently than the "idealistic" countries might want? Is it possible that those countries would disagree on what exactly the reforms would be or to what level they should be inacted?



The violent behavior alluded to is the government's exclusive monopoly on being able to use force to accomplish its ends.

Simply saying "market factors would naturally redistribute over time" doesn't say much at all. What level would they redistribute to? Would this redistribution be beneficial or harmful to some or all groups in society? More detail is needed. Also, economic models are, by their very nature, overly simplified views of the economy. They do occasionally go wrong.



Please name one pure market economy in the world's history.

Now that's an epic return that I approve.

First of all I said U.S. and E.U. member nations. If you had read the article you would have seen that the U.N. is dismissed as a Cold War relic, an opinion I share. Second, because they constitute the two largest economies on earth. Third, because they are the most powerrul entities bodies as well. Lastly, they represent the only nations with ideologies liberal enough to support such an agreement.

To give you some perspective on this:

GDP (in millions):
Global 48,144,466
U.S. 12,455,068
E.U. 14,527,140

Combine the U.S. and E.U. and you have more than the rest of the world combined. Thats where the clout comes from.






Of course dictatorships will exist outside of such an agreement, thats the very reason for its existence. The agreement is cxclusionary not inclusionary. A global magna carta would not recognize, or in any way legitimize, a dictatorship. It would preclude the signatories from supporting these regimes, tacitly or otherwise. That is greatest fault of the U.N., which recognizes nations which regularly engage in incorrigble behavior. Who has the clout to accomplish this you ask again? As I stated above, the U.S. and E.U. are the most powerful political and economic entities, their signatures could alter the course of history. Now, getting everyone on board I'll admit, thats quite a task in itself.





We are not even arguing about the same thing here.



Yes, anything is possible. What an incredible observation.



You caught me, should have put "pure" in quotes. You are right about making assumptions though, I assumed most of you would read the articles before posting so that we had baseline to start from.

To get a background-type thing out of the way, I could care less what the article says. I am all for truth and understanding.

Ok, so you share the opinion of the UN being a Cold War relic. Also, the US and EU have large GDPs. So what? If you had studied history instead of just reading an article, you would see that all powers rise and eventually fall. Also, you assume economic factors are the only fundamental things going into a people's calculation of a course, which I think is absurd.

You still haven't told me what these "inalienable rights" are.



Ok, so what? What does that do for the people living under dictatorships?



Sure we are. You asked why the free countries would associate with dictatorships, and I replied that those dictatorships provide benefits from time to time.



It's not an incredible observation. It's a statement that central planning doesn't have enough information to predict outcomes.



I assumed you could communicate your thoughts effectively. If you wrote something in a sloppy manner, then you are the only person to blame.

i have nothing to add here other than quad has been sorely missed in this forum

How is this "Magna Carta" any different than the present United Nations? You could seemingly interchange the two on a number of your comments in here DBF. "Together, they have the clout and economic power to make dictatorships magically dissappear!" Wrong.

Everything that you suggest here has been tried and done by the UN. Everything from shows of force, to use of force, to economic sanctions. It sure hasn't done a whole lot to hinder the Ahmadenijad's and Kim Jong Il's of the world has it?

The other problem that you'd be facing is that inevitably, you'd have conflicts of interest, and nations within this body that would violate it. Just as we've seen within the UN. How many EU nations had direct relations with Saddam? Why don't you look up their involvement in Darfur? Eyeball some of Russia's positions over the course of the last few years.

What about Israel? How would such a pact impact the conflict there?

Right now, America is seen is imperialist and meddling. Guess what, such a position would simply further that. To go further, Europe has taken an "I'm not touching that issue with a twelve foot pole" for about twenty years to avoid this perception. What makes you think they would change their attitudes and foreign policy? Especially when the organization you describe is almost exactly the same as the UN?

As for forcing people through law to give up their excess wealth... Let's sign the death warrant of the US economy eh?