The philsophical ping-pong continues as I respond to Steve on the "World Tribunal" idea. Obviously, nobody at the U.N. is there as a result of a democratic election. But there are a lot of governments represented at the U.N. which aren't democratically elected, either. Think of the faltering states in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia. None of these countries hold the same values of justice that Western democracies do. To them, the U.N. is a tool to basically screw with the West - and specifically, the United States and Israel - as much as possible.

Think of recent "grand projects" put on by the U.N like the 2001 Anti-Racism Conference in Durban, South Africa or the 2002 World Hunger conference in Africa. These events were like something sprung from the typewriter of George Orwell. An anti-racism conference that was plagued by vicious anti-Semitism. A World Hunger conference in a poverty-stricken country where U.N. delegates dined on lobster, prime rib and imported champagne ... and accomplished nothing. And naturally, in both cases, all the problems in the world are ultimately traced back and found to be ... all America's fault. I must say that I don't have much faith in the U.N.'s ability to deliver on World Justice with any greater degree of success.

The U.N. has never had any idea that didn't boil down to world socialism. The U.N. doesn't see itself as a guardian of freedom; it just sees itself as a guardian, and the rest of us as sheep. And hey, shouldn't the guardians get some nice perks for all their hard work? Look at the justice systems of large socialist governments, present and past. I wouldn't exactly feel comfortable if my fate were to decided by a mega-large bureaucracy.

On December 12th, Steve responded again to my criticisms:

I’m a bit unsure of how the bold new face of a truly global justice system should look, if it should exist at all. If, as you say, the U.N. is run by people who are “crooks and thugs” then yeah, it would be ludicrous to think that there would be enough global respect of any court system they come up with. I would like to hear more of this though. Why do you say they are crooks and thugs? From who’s perspective? Is it because that some U.N. delegates are not elected through a democratic voting system or that they represent countries that conduct their internal affairs differently than us? Anyway, I would like to hear more on that if you can.

It would seem that something like the U.N. is needed though. If there is no unified body to deal with issues of a global nature then each nation would have to be its own judge and jury. I am not ready to capitulate to that nor do I think history looks kindly upon a “might makes right” system of justice which would inevitably happen if each nation were left on its own to articulate its own manifest destiny and retributive justice.

Back on November 30th, I wrote this in response to Steve's idea for a World Court to deal with the terrorists:

You mention a World Court, and Nuremburg. I have to admit, I have a pretty simple Rule of Thumb that serves me well. If the UN thought it up, then it's a bad idea. Anything that lends credibility to a super-bureaucracy of unelected, undemocratic states (remember, the majority of UN members are dictators, thugs, and crooks) is bad for the freedom of every man, woman and child on the planet.

This may not be original, but it's certainly topical. What should we do when we find the Terror Ringleaders? This discussion, as a series of e-mails, helped inspire me to start this blog, so over the next day or so I'm going to go back into the old e-mail archive and get some starter material posted here. I tended to be in favor of well-chosen brute force; my buddy Steve is in favor of a World Tribunal, in the spririt of the Nuremburg trials. Not being a big fan of the United Nations, I tended to disagree with a lot of Steve's arguments. But Steve does raise a lot of great points that I haven't addressed to my satisfaction.

When I lived back in Canada, I used to get together with two good friends, and we'd head to an out-of-the-way coffee shop ... or a cookie-cutter commercialized coffee shop, if that's all that was available. The important thing is, we would spend hours over hot caffinated beverages. We'd exchange ideas, ridicule convential wisdom, and in general, solve the world's problems. We were fresh out of college, our brains all fresh and spongey, eager for information and ideas. Ten years ago, one friend moved to the Midwestern states; I moved to the South three years later, and we've really never been together since. My hope is that this blog will recapture the spirit of those coffee house philosophy sessions. The world is certainly ripe for discussion, and it would be my hope, and my expectation, that all sorts of issues get addressed here. Nuclear terrorism! America as the Roman Empire! The death of professional sports! Wankel engines! Salt-water irrigation! Commodities and futures trading! Can we prove the speed of light is constant? Can nanotechnology live up to the hype? Pour the coffee and ascend the steps to the top of the tower! Strike the flame - the light is on.