Should the five permanent members of the UN Security Council maintain their veto power?

Yes, but I think that others should gain it too. Germany, for example.

Yes,they should keep their veto power but other countries should be added to the permanent member list.

I think this is one of the things that makes the UN ineffective. Everything about the United Nations is quite wholly beneficial in many ways, but it all falls down when you get to the "permanent members of the Security Council" thing. I would think that any objective, disinterested third party, looking at the thing would see it as a glaring mistake. It is a fundamental flaw that really destroys any semblance of democracy in the organisation.

(I selected the three options which begin with "No".)

tough one. I say no permanent and no individual veto. Interesting how grand powers unanimity equates to veto power. What though if a grand proportion of nations wanted to enact something that the major powers weren't unanimous on. On the other hand, it's always nice to know that there will always be someone around strong enough to prevent an activity when there are mixed views, even if some other super-powers bribed a vote from a majority of lessor nations. I can't say it's fair that france has veto power and germany does not, and yet, if countries rotated veto power, that would be exploited, and resolutions would be timed around that. If every good-standing member had a veto though, nothing would ever get passed.
I think it might be better if more countries earned through adherant standing a veto power, but the veto power was also reduced to a 3/4 majority (meaning instead of a grand powers unanimity, we would have a grand powers majority as well as the existing common majority).

Lose both Veto and Permanent Membership. No one has the right to permanancy or the right to dictate other based on their history. If the UK suddenly became a dictator led country then surely this does not warranty their previous rights.

I'm dubious about the UN as a whole. I do not want a world government and I think that's what many people in the UN are working towards. On the other hand, a forum where national representatives can meet is probably useful. On the gripping hand, the security council seems to be all about use of force. While that should be discouraged, if it's necessary then veto power means it's going to be delayed.

Keep in mind, it's a veto power, not an action power. The idea of world powers (with permanent veto) is that their is some chance that a dissenting vote can exist, even if the majority of nations go mad, for instance, Russia might be around to say it's crazy that the US, China, France, and UK have agreed that it's a good idea to unleash a global virus which allows people to only give birth to their own clones, and sucked a majority of nations on their side as well. You say, what if they became a dictatorship, but at the time 'Unanimous Powers' idea was created, there was communism and capitalism. Unanimity assures that no dominant political paradigm can be entrusted to all global affairs. Keeping the idea alive as nations evolve may be difficult, but the original concept was there for a good reason.

No country should have veto, and all countries should be added and have permanent positions. It should be more like that thing the US says it wants for the world. What was it? Oh yes, democracy.

The UN needs a constitition that will ensure no act that goes against certain basic tenets of justice and human rights can be voted on by a majority. That would avoid something like all Muslim nations voting to sanction the US which thay may decide is a rougue state. It would also allow other countries to be free to trade with a country the US has deemed to be worthy of sanctioning.

If we all had veto, nothing would ever happen except in the rare case where every nation was unanimous on the proposal, and even then, if it involved actions against a nation, that kind of presumes said nation is no longer voting. The rights are hard to define and enforce. After all, even if there was something like a committe that made racial equality a criteria for passing resolutions, who's to say that the committee, even if they are green and purple, aren't voting for orange favoritism to slide through. Did you read my idea for the combined 'common majority vote' and 'diverse major powers majority (veto) vote'? One could use statistics on a yearly basis to find which nations vote most unlike each other (the extremities in diverse directions), and give them an annually rotating veto power instead. The idea there, not vastly different from the founders premise, is that minority underdogs are never oppressed through future inequitable resolutions.

Well the French certainly qualify as an extremity in voting style.

There should be no veto. There should be a basic set of human rights put in place that are protected against any decision. It could work sort of like the US, Canadian or Australian systems only worldwide. Once the Earth constitution is in place, any changes must be made through referendum whereby all citizens of the planet are given the opportunity to vote. The results from each country go to the overall vote. The change would only be put in place if an overall majority were achieved as well as a majority of countries.

If a basic set of rights were enforced, the US would not be able to attack Iraq unilaterally because the civilian population's rights are at serious risk. Even the current sanctions would be against the constitution since it is the civilian population that are suffering. By the same token, Iraq would not be permitted to accumulate weapons that cause mass suffering such as nukes, chemical or biological. Neither could the US. There would have to be a security force, but that should be limited to conventional weapons, and it should be caommanded by representatives from many nations, much like NATO is (supposed to be). Ideally all weapons of mass destruction would be eliminated, but that would require a vast system of information exchange, supervision and tracking of individuals by the world government if they want to run the planet like a federal nation. The two big problems that will always come into it are race and religion. Racial/religious groups even in a federation will hide black-ops from the federal government if it means advancing their own cause, so you still end up with 'tribes', even under one world gvt. USSR eliminated religion. Race is more difficult to eliminate. One way is to establish loyalty and patriotism, much like the US has done, where reciting the pledge of allegence and "worshiping" the flag has brought all races under the umbrella of nationalism. See where I'm going? Make religion illegal, install a figurehead to "worship", track the population, remove national sovereignty take power from national armies and form a world security force. Sounds like a plan I've heard before somewhere.

I don't know if my thoughts on this matter fit into any of these categories. I definitely think that the approach of the United Nations should develop and change with changing realities and understandings in our world. Also, I think that keeping the power of the United Nations limited may not be beneficial to promoting the development of other countries of the world - those not in the position of power that these countries may be in or would like to be in. I think that the empowerment of all people and all voices is crucial to making something like the United Nations work.

My idea was to turn corporations into nations without geographical borders. Your next-door neighbor might belong to a communist or islamic 'country'. The wold gov't would be the UC (united corporations.) All corporations would have to allow in anyone willing to play by their constitution. Any decent corporation would have a totally just profit sharing system, like socialism for instance, and have totally published proceedings of all administrative activities. If some fool wants to join a corporation with a religious dictator building palaces, let them. I do think total separation of religion and geographical citizenry is a must for world peace. If scattered properties were owned by these corporations, even Irelands skirmishes might end. Global nature preserves would be run by the UC, as would things like water bodies. It goes beyond the old plan of no geographical borders by even allowing people a choice of social, economic, and political systems. Imagine countries competing for members like credit companies do now (although wealthier ones might not want more residents, hence mandatory open invitation to all).
Again AUS. sounds close to one of my ideals, not just human-rights, but approval by various elected boards like environmental, commerce, and transportation. If so, it gets more appealing all the time. I'm curious about Brazil lately. That they are a huge modern country, yet don't exist on US media, makes me think they must have something going on the US would rather we not know about. I know our LA,CA,US mayor was there and quite impressed by their transit system.

Interesting. There is then the problem of collusion between corporations. If all teh corporations force people to work 16 hours a day then there is no alternative. You would have to drop out of society completely and join some rebel underground group.

You know I was thinking about Sth American yesterday. It seems like it's the only place not mixed up with Iraq/Islam or Nth Korea. Maybe it's because it's so Catholic, and they don't seem as tolerant as Protestant Christians, but it seems like Muslims don't want to move there. I know there are a few countries with high numbers of JApanese in Sth America. It's true that Sth America seems to be ignored by the western media. I know Argentina used to be a virtual European country - mostly white, wealthy, safe, good services etc. Then the crap hit the economic fan. I think they have 25% unemployment. I saw a news piece that showed a cattle truck after an accident. Crowds of starving people chased the stunned cows down the road and killed them with their bare hands. The thing is, nothing really changed. The paper debt was what spooked everyone. If people just acted like things were OK and didn't panic, the country would be broke but the economy would have continued. Services would have stopped, but employment and exports could have continued. Brazil is also in the poo. It's an amazing place, but dangerous if you're poor. I also heard of a Brazilian transit system. I think it was in Sao Paulo. Brazil and Portugal sent troops to help Australia liberate East Timor from Indonesia. East Timor was a Portugese colony before annexation by Indonesia.

Hopefully, some corporations would be so efficient that it's members could have 16 hr weeks, and share in any decision they were interested in. One problem i saw was that just because the UC forces open enrollment, doesn't mean some constitutions won't be tough on newcomer citizens. You bring up a valid point though. Like closing immigration borders, who says any of these corporations would want more members at all. Suppose some jerk co. had scattered land holdings of nearly a continent, a population of only 10k, and treated anyone below a masters degree who didn't speak belgian and swahili as slaves. Sure, only those with masters degrees would want to join. I see now that in order for this to work, not just water bodies, but all geographical resources would have to be appraised by a global representative consortium, and leased to the corporations. Wait, even that gives unfair advantage to rich competitive nations. I suppose the only fair way is to have the consortium appraise water and land, and divvy allotments in proportion to corporations populations. A corp might prefer more minerals and fewer trees. Oup, next problem, what about nations which exhaust resources like forests or lakes. Upon reappraisal they get more because their ruined lands are now worth less than their populations share? This is turning out to be quite an exercise. Geo-borders are actually starting to make some sense as a checks and balances system. You only get one shot at supporting your people. Overpopulation or resource mismanagement is no excuse. In that system, equality is maintained by disallowing trade of resources with savvy competitive nations. They can't use up their forest then buy someone elses. The zero sum conception. I always thought global democracy could solve our peace problems, now I'm not so certain. My corp system could be likened, with the UC, to be such a system. Competition of factions at any level of granularity, even within a global democracy will cause inequities. There was my former, smaller model of just an ideal corp itself, and in order for that to work, I had to separate work obligations from resource/income allotments done on a per capita basis. that level of control could not extend to nations within the UC, as nation corps are not expected to contribute globally outside of their own system. That might be the fix though. But then there goes the ideology of freedom for these nations to govern participants as they wish, including not producing exports.
My original thought here was that everyone would want to join the sort of collective I had envisioned, and that collective would accumulate global resources, and that's still valid, excepting that it would invite the conception of a more agressively competitive collective to do likewise. As long as people were free to choose which collective they wanted to belong to though, I suppose 'may the better team win'. I would expect a corp built on harmony to better prosper, to make positive use of it's populace, and procure the resources it needs on the global market. But then, look at third world countries which might be internally harmonious enough, still falling prey to global profiteers. I guess i need to further examine that detail. I think there, global trade needs to be regulated by global democracy. What does one do when a nation is willing to handle over all of it's resources in negotiation for a few bowls of rice and promise of increased debt enslavement for necessary use of resources they once owned? One would have to globally regulate predatory negotiations, even if both parties were willing. I was surprised to find in my ancient american dictionary a table of maximum allowable intersets rates per state. Almost all states were between 6% & 10%. Now foolish consumers often pay 20%. The thing with predatory practices, on a personal consumer of international level, is that ultimately, someone (in the name of global humanitarianism) has to bail these foolish victims out, and it's certainly not the predators. Predators ultimately cost everyone but the predators. I don't think the answer, as one of my favorite debate opponents here feels, is for everyone to become better predators. The inevitability of such a plan is that ultimately someone wins all and everyone else loses. Did you know that predatory lending was forbidden in the bible? Can you imagine how different the entire global state of affairs would be if that had been adhered to? Not surprisingly though, fundamental christians seem to be big on financial investment.

Sure.

You're talking about the "tragedy of the commons" taken to every resource. If there are no borders, you get a global view of resources and as you said you could completely destroy all of the resources in say Europe because corps would know the Amazon is still there. This is starting with the Carbon credit fiasco which makes the hubub oveer CO2 as pollution look even more silly. Japanese companies are buying vast areas of land in Australia so they can plant fast growing eucalypts which they plan to offset their carbon emissions with. Of course green groups love theis. The thing is, the trees that are fastest growing are not always native to that particular area. You also end up with a monoculture prone to pests and lacking in diversity. As well as that, the carbon trapped in the trees will only be stored for 30 years, afterwhich the wood will be harvested. The whole things a scam to make the greenies happy. Carbon credits allow heavily polluting countries, say Australia, to keep polluting because the buy polluting rights from countries that currently don't pollute at all. Australia can even pollute more this way. Personally I think the planet will be better off with more CO2, but the carbon credit thing demonstrates how most 'green' policy is a disaster that usually has the reverse effect.

As for predatory negotiations, all that needs to be done is to have set fair price for commodities, and some world heritage resources off limits all together. People need to be educated of teh true value of their resources, although some wouldn't care so long as they get immediate gain.

I know about preditory lending in the Bible. I understand Islam forbids money lending with interest and believe this is one reason they hate the west, because out debt has enslaved so many poor countries. Some fundamental Christians warn to stay out of debt, although it makes more sense to be paying off a house instead of saving to buy a house with cash while you pay rent for 30 years. I'm torn with my attitude towards people who go out and charge $10K on a credit card at 20% buying stuff they don't need. In a way people get what they deserve, but the banks shouldn't be allowed to ruin people. I mean what if the bank said you can have $1000 for every finger they cut off? I'm sure many people would be desperate enough to lose a few fingers, and it would be their decision, but it's clearly not moral.

Fair pricing - yeah, that makes sense. If a corp gets rich and buys more than it's share, at least it's not because they were ruthless predators. If anything, they were simply a more efficient int'l goods producer and marketer, and that's fair enough. It took some effort to curtail people selling blood, mostly by increasing purely volunteer programs. You almost bring up the capital punishment organ market. grim stuff. Got your photos, great choices, thanks. especially loved the koala. If you got a tree kangaroo, i'd really love that. We had an ancient encyclodedia of knowledge when I was 5, and one volumes cover leaf was a tree-kangaroo. After that, one requirement for membership in my spy club was being able to draw a kangaroo. I suspect both personal bankruptcy and the gov't bailing out lenders are part of a social-security system encouraging buying at peoples peak, and bailing out the defaults is a means of printing money at just the level of peoples desperation. I declared bankruptcy once. It's not fun. Basically it means you forego being part of the economic system for the next seven years. Still, I supose I learned some things. I figured out last night why celebrities are often cheerleaders for the 'have-nots'; because they see in their experience far clearer the fine-line between sucess and failure.

I was always fascinated with the US blood selling thing. I think the US is the only place where people are paid. Here we have mobile blood trucks that go to large workplaces or shopping malls and people donate. After 9/11 and Bali there was a surge of blood donations here, even though no Australian blood would make it to New York, and people here knew that.

I didn't see a tree kangaroo at the park. They are native to the northern rainforests and Papua New Guinea/Irian Jaya. I don't think I've ever seen one in the flesh.

One good thing about declaring bankruptcy is that people are prohibited from borrowing for a certain time. Here it's 5 years. I think celebrities know how important it is for their lifestyle to keep a buffer between themselves and poverty. I know as I save more and became debt free I fear the loss of my job more now than when I had no savings and was in debt. More to lose I think.

More to lose? meaning you actually have assets now, and before you did not? Being in debt with no job is no fun. Some celebs like Martin Sheen did weekend service in soup kitchens. My point though was that starving actors can work side by side with wealthy ones, quite unlike an industry like business administration where everyone is rather stable in their expectations and comparative value. Each movie production is now it's own momentary corporation corporation, including all the services like accounting. People in the industry work on contract, off and on. As one production ends you have to be lining up your next job. The majority of americans would fall into bankruptcy just missing one monthly paycheck, so it's rather interesting that they generally disdain or strive to blithely not acknowledge the homeless which they could so easily become. I just overdrew my checking, I found out a moment ago. I think I must have mistaken my credit card for my checking card (they look almost identical). I wonder if they do that on purpose.
Irian Jaya - now there's a place that's been on my residence wish list.

Maybe that's why actors are paid so much. I tend to give money to non-human causes more than human, although I do sponsor a child in Tanzania. I just realized I do it for karma, or maybe to prove karma doesn't work if something bad happens to me.

Irian Jaya is also know as West Papua. Irian Jaya is the Indonesian name. There is a sepratist movement in IJ. The people are Melanesian, not Asian, and have nothing whatsoever in common with the Javanese who occupy their land. The Indo' army has a strong presence, and is very brutal when anti-Indonesian protests are held. IJ is pretty sparsely populated, and the Javanese have been operating a resettlement program to encourage Javanese to migrate there. They clear vast areas of the forests, and set fire to the trees so they can have farmland. Over the last few years there has been terrible smoke haze over most of SE Asia due to these fires. The native wildlife is under great pressure. The Indonesian army has made illegal incursions into Papua New Guinea hunting rebels. This is a volatile place because PNG was once a protectorate of Australia, and we still have some moral responsibility over it's protection, as well as that of the world's biggest gold mine owned by an Australian company, so the border area is a place where Australian and Indonseian interests clash, as does Islam and the west.

Some unique branch of Sufis live in part of Java somewhere, don't they? I think Arthur C. Clark lives there too.
Sorry to tell you this, but you don't get much karmic payback from actions motivated by a desire to have good karma. You'd get more good karma from selflessly and spontaneously buying a kid on your street an ice-cream bar then you would giving half your income to save starving kids because you thought it was your responsible obligation (there are shades of that in both directions though, and I don't have words to differentiate the two easily). It's not what you give, but how you give.
Too bad the gold mines aren't out in the deserts. It's such beautiful country. I've been watching a show about one of our desert oasis's (Palm Springs). Apparently even there, which I considered a wasteland, property costs are sky high, and pictures of development contrasted to the beauty of 50 years ago were staggering.
We have a billboard here to visit New Zealand based on the Lord of the Rings which goes 'Visit Middle Earth, We haven't taken down the set yet'.

Aurther C. Clark lives in Sri Lanka. The way you say karma works sounds remarkably like how some Christian churches (not Catholics) regard tithing. They say if you give reluctantly, you may as well not give.

Deserts are very fragile because they take so long to regenerate. I read on cnn.com that New Zealand is the top destination this year. Beautiful, safe and English speaking, even if it is at the arse-end of the world. The thing I loved about New Zealand was that it was always green, even the grass growing right up to the roadside. It also feels very new and young, with fresh, non-humid air that could be straight from an air-con. Australia feels ancient. Even the "mountains" around here consist of the lava plugs alone. The cones have long since eroded away millions of years ago.

Are there really springs at Palm Springs? There's a new suburb close to me that they chose to name Brookwater. There's no brook, and no water. I guess Palm Springs was named back when placenames actually reflected what people found at that location and not what real-estate developers think homebuyers seeking a prestigious address want to hear.

Yes, there are springs, and thankfully those are quite hidden away or turned into parks. I wouldn't have known that except for the show I had just watched, but I could have guessed. On the way to death valley there are a couple places like that where you get groves of date plams in the middle of nowhere. I just planted a night blooming jasmine and honeysuckle. On the way home from the nursery I discovered a street home that is lined with landscaped retired railroad tracks most of the way. There are some obstacles which makes unsuitable as a car thoroughfare. Finding that is an example of how events line up to suit your frame of mind. I prefer bicycling down boulevards with plenty of gardened islands, grass, and trees. I feel i can breather there instead of wanting to hold my breath. I may little of CO2 credits in the big picture, but my senses tell me that trees are much better for us than combustion engines. Live and refreshing.

Trees are better for us true, but we're better for trees. I've never seen a tree located right next to the freeway looking sick. To them, a freeway is a breath of fresh air, so long as ozone levels aren't too high. Ideally, big cities should have trees growing on any available spot, but then you might get the situation we have with bushfires. Our capital city Canberra just lost 500 homes to bushfires (forest fires). People who live in cities tend to think the world is coming to an end. I think human activity is the best thing for regrowth. The more CO2 there is the faster trees grow. I think it's funny that people argue against CO2 production because they want to save the planet. It's like a bunch of trees arguing how they can save humans by cutting oxygen production.

Night jasmin will make the place smell great. Do your nurseries sell Eucalypts? There's a tree with the common name 'lemon scented gum' that has a very deep root, tolerates smog and drought, and grows vertically - i.e it doesn't spread out so you can plant it on a small piece of available ground. The leaves smell like concentrated lemon, especially in the mornings. Some people pick them and use the leaves like a pot pourri.

We have places where only local traffic is admitted. We have traffic calming devices to make it inconvenient for cars to use certain streets. I've also been told by an American friend that our cities are full of trees. All available space around freeway interchanges have trees. What better use of this land?

Our freeway trees look awful, scraggly and covered with soot. Is lemon gum the same thing as lemon myrtle (a spice I got recently that comes from aus, and was used during the war to make lemon sodas while lemons were used elsewhere). California, even my neighborhood, is covered with eucalyptus. They were introduced here to create wind-breaks on coastal farms. I enjoy them. Traffic calming devices - you mean speed bumps? Cul-de-sacs labelled 'not a through street' are quite common here, as are speed-bumps. *envisions devices filling traffic intersections with narcotic gasses to calm traffic* I hear france goes a step furthur and makes use of land like runway space as crop land. I have a banana, some purple flowering tree/shrubs, some sort of bottle-brush tree (same family as eucalptus it appears).

Callistemons are bottle brushes. Sound like you might have a problem with introduced Australian plants in So CA. Traffic calming is speed humps, but they are speed humps between planter boxes or gardens that narrow the street. We also have chicanes so traffic has to slow down.

Have you considered going into local politics? You might find these sites intersting. It's about the world's first transexual member of parliament, in New Zealand. I saw a documantary on her life. She is a NZ Maori, and was a prostitute and stripper in New Zealand and in Sydney. She was gang raped and severely bashed in Sydney. She later went on with a sex-change, and moved out of the city to a small town in New Zealand. In 3 months she was mayor. Now she is a federal member of parliament for the entire region. I know your life isn't the same, but I thought you might be interested still.
http://times-age.co.nz/weekly/beyer2.html

Gardened bottlenecks are rare, but we have them in nicer neighborhods. What are chicanes?
Neat article. Yes, politics is increasing in my path. I'm increasing my office agenda management skills but I know myself well enough to know I'd have to have quite a secretary (or cabinet) to be effective. Leave myself with nothing to do but researhing briefs, delegating concepts, and statemanship, and let some good communicator manage all the appointments and paper content, with some wise time/activity priority judgement. There's a balance between Reagan, who operated through sound bytes with his cabinet, and Carter who burned the midnight oil researching legislation concerns.

Chicanes are devices places alternatively staggered down a street to force vehicles to steer from side to side rather than just drive straight through. The term comes from motor racing.

Delegation is good. You just need to surround yourself with capable people you can trust.

Wow, cool, they install slalom courses in your neighborhoods. Folks like disney, I suppose any major business entrepreneur, does the same. At the time it was relevant, I'd have to interview existing qualified past staff, like press secretaries and such. I wouldn't want to get dragged down redefining all their positions from scratch and ending up with a cabinet that wasn't effective till my term was over. I'd be sure to have amiable connections with folks like Ralph Nader first. In fact, I was talking with one of the top organisers of a new party based on food labeling 'The natural law party' (waste of an incredible platform name), and she was suggesting after hearing my ideas that I form a third party coalition. The idea was to pull resources and votes such that candidates with different strengths from different parties would fill different positions (ie the natural law party would be filling USDA and other agriculture related positions, the peace and freedow would manage new work programs, whatever [random examples, not endorsements]) and break the existing two party paradigm. The idea would be win-win concessions. Next year, the coalition may concede to have the 'Go nude' parties chairman run as vice president, if it will get 'Go nude' votes for the entire coalition package. It's a party made of a league of all 3rd parties with open enrollment. The 3rd party 'convention', with representation based on the populations primary election party affiliation, might end up resembling the house of congress, assembling the concessions of national goals and directives, which would become more tangible as 3rd party candidadtes from the coalition got elected as Reps and senators.

So voters vote on which party they feel will be the best for a particular ministry. That could work, but then you have the senate to worry about. Does CA have an upper house?

There could also be a banning of political parties with only individuals permitted to stand, but that's a pipe dream.

It's an unreasonable pipe dream because even five people in a chat room agreeing to back a platform could be considered a party.
I was saying something more like, if I am registered as a Green Party, and so are 23% of the nations non-democrat/republican, then the 3rd party coalition would have 23% of it's convention for determining platform objectives represented by Green Party folks. This assembly of 3rd party reps would vote on which members of which parties are on the slate for various positions. It would be necessarily a bit back-roomish, since it would be intuitively apparent to the assembly who would excel at what (for instance natural-law running agriculture), and a lot of intended support vote trading, for instance, the libertarians and commies wont agree on positions, but they can come up with reasonable trades, 'ok, we'll put you guys on the treasury if we get one of the senate positions'. And then utilising the existing system, all the 3rd parties suggest their registered voters vote along coalition lines.
We came up with something called the open primary, but the major parties found a loophole for discading it (basically primaries are almost unofficial anyhow, and the parties can ignore votes of those not registered with them). Most people don't know it, but taking advantage of the open primary is just tossing your vote away.
I believe we do have a state level congress/senate or something, but the federal pres, senate, reps, state governor, state treasurer..., city mayor, and city district council-members all seem to have higher billing.
You've struck my curiosity. I forgot about those positions since I lived in Santa Cruz.