14 thoughts on “Let’s Get Out of the United Nations”
Instinctively I like the idea. Libya was not long ago the head of a human rights body. Now NATO is flying airstrikes against them to protect Libyan civilians.
Why is collective security foolish? I’d rather characterise it as fragile.
I think we should mostly ignore the UN and give the minimum but quitting doesn’t seem to serve much purpose beyond posturing. It would be more practical to identify the treaties we should withdraw from and promote that course of action.
We have to get out Taya. The UN lovers pull one trick after another to eliminate our sovereignty. Its dangerous to belong for that reason. Take the English. England has now been eliminated as a political entity, by the machinations of shadow government types via the EU.
Remember how they pulled that one world government attempt at Copenhagen? And remember the excuses that the left made for this?
On another note its our membership of the UN that forces us to act in a beastly fashion to refugees. If not for these treaties we could organise a reasonable guest worker program in our interests.
But didn’t Copenhagen show that we have nothing to fear? The Chinese won’t be stampeded into giving up sovereignty- even though I don’t like the Chinese government, they are nationalists, not internationalists! Australia could just say- our major trading partners, like China, aren’t doing it, so we can’t afford to do it; sorry, UN!
Copenhagen showed that they will keep everyones hands full with their relentless usurpation attempts. Look at the global warming fraud. There is no valid science to it at all. It snowed in Miami a few months ago. The UK had to be shown with a dotted line on satellite maps for weeks and months. And they don’t have a valid anomaly to hook their wagon to.
Yet they keep going. The globalist crowd managed to dissolve Merry England without firing a shot. How can Copenhagen neutralise that fact?
Just in passing, people often seem to go to Copenhagen to lock in anti-science mischief.
Sukrit’s case for withdrawing from the UN is based on pacifism and isolationism. That’s not compelling.
Equally, the case for remaining in the UN is not compelling while it remains dominated by an authoritarian agenda.
Sukrit should develop his case based on libertarian principles. (Assuming he still knows what they are.)
Good call.
Is tomorrow too early? We need to get out.
First, the U.N. is a waste of money (think about the taxpayer slaves).
Second, the U.N. serves to promote leftwing agendas around the world (and Rudd’s career).
Unfortunately, many p.c. libertarians don’t have the balls to take it on.
Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.
I don’t think anyone considers UN or other international treaties to be binding on a country unless it is specifically ratified by the government of that country. That is certainly the case for Australia and the US.
However, the process of ratification is more democratic in the US than Australia, as it must go through Congress.
Slightly off topic but the process for constitutional amendment is more democratic in Australia. Arguably more conservative in America.
There is a lot of variation in the States Terje, and State constitutional change can be initiated outside of their legislatures, by a number of democratic means.
I was referring to the federal constitutions but yes I agree with your point.
Australian Libertarian Society (old site) 
Instinctively I like the idea. Libya was not long ago the head of a human rights body. Now NATO is flying airstrikes against them to protect Libyan civilians.
Why is collective security foolish? I’d rather characterise it as fragile.
I think we should mostly ignore the UN and give the minimum but quitting doesn’t seem to serve much purpose beyond posturing. It would be more practical to identify the treaties we should withdraw from and promote that course of action.
We have to get out Taya. The UN lovers pull one trick after another to eliminate our sovereignty. Its dangerous to belong for that reason. Take the English. England has now been eliminated as a political entity, by the machinations of shadow government types via the EU.
Remember how they pulled that one world government attempt at Copenhagen? And remember the excuses that the left made for this?
On another note its our membership of the UN that forces us to act in a beastly fashion to refugees. If not for these treaties we could organise a reasonable guest worker program in our interests.
But didn’t Copenhagen show that we have nothing to fear? The Chinese won’t be stampeded into giving up sovereignty- even though I don’t like the Chinese government, they are nationalists, not internationalists! Australia could just say- our major trading partners, like China, aren’t doing it, so we can’t afford to do it; sorry, UN!
Copenhagen showed that they will keep everyones hands full with their relentless usurpation attempts. Look at the global warming fraud. There is no valid science to it at all. It snowed in Miami a few months ago. The UK had to be shown with a dotted line on satellite maps for weeks and months. And they don’t have a valid anomaly to hook their wagon to.
Yet they keep going. The globalist crowd managed to dissolve Merry England without firing a shot. How can Copenhagen neutralise that fact?
Just in passing, people often seem to go to Copenhagen to lock in anti-science mischief.
Sukrit’s case for withdrawing from the UN is based on pacifism and isolationism. That’s not compelling.
Equally, the case for remaining in the UN is not compelling while it remains dominated by an authoritarian agenda.
Sukrit should develop his case based on libertarian principles. (Assuming he still knows what they are.)
Good call.
Is tomorrow too early? We need to get out.
First, the U.N. is a waste of money (think about the taxpayer slaves).
Second, the U.N. serves to promote leftwing agendas around the world (and Rudd’s career).
Unfortunately, many p.c. libertarians don’t have the balls to take it on.
Politically correct libertarians?
You are living in a fantasy world.
The UN Charter is not in any case binding on Australians, if we apply the following constitutional argument to Australia:
I don’t think anyone considers UN or other international treaties to be binding on a country unless it is specifically ratified by the government of that country. That is certainly the case for Australia and the US.
However, the process of ratification is more democratic in the US than Australia, as it must go through Congress.
Slightly off topic but the process for constitutional amendment is more democratic in Australia. Arguably more conservative in America.
There is a lot of variation in the States Terje, and State constitutional change can be initiated outside of their legislatures, by a number of democratic means.
I was referring to the federal constitutions but yes I agree with your point.
leftists do