Date: Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 18:50:46 GMT
> >> Achieving consensus is never easy or simple. It requires work and
> >> leadership to bring the minority groups into the picture. The
> >> Japanese used to complain about the tyrany of the majority but
> >> found it to be preferable to the tyrany of the minority or the
> >> tyrany of one man. Consensus means bringing agreement between
> >> diverse groups, not the dominanace of a single party. It's a
> >> consumation devoutly to be wished rather than a slam dunk. An
> >> ideal we work toward rather than something we take for granted.
> >> Grant
> >This is also why a workable democracy needs to be constitutional; to
> >guarantee the basic human rights of the minority, even when they do
> >not have the consensus to lead.
> But in any democracy the minority at least get to vote, and their vote
> is worth the same as any other vote. The UN is a oligarchy, a rule by
> the few. IMO it is a dictatorship and exists to benefit those few.
It works more like a House of Representatives than a Senate; the richer, stronger, larger and more populous countries have greater voices - as they should. If, say, tiny nations such as Grenada should have as large a voice as gargantuan nations such as the US, it would behoove all large nations to feign fragmentation in order to overwhelm such an inequity. The vetoes granted to the five permanent Security Council nations act like a plural world presidency.
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon 09 Dec 2002 - 18:52:18 GMT