[extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sat Aug 28 06:38:39 UTC 2004

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> Oh, and btw, there IS a way to remove a Security Council
> member. We've done it once already, when in the early 70's
> Taiwan was removed and Communist China was added. 
> Until that time, the Nationalists had held that SC seat.

Not one of the 5 PERMANENT Security Council members.

Here is a link to the copy of the Charter. 


Chapter V   The Security Council - Composition

Article 23 says:

1. The Security Council shall consist of  fifteen Members of
the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union
of Soviet socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America
shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General
Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations
to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due
regard being specifically paid, in the first instance to the contribution
of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of 
international peace and security and to the other purposes of 
the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution. 

> The spanish speaking people of the world are unrepresented on
> the SC. How about Spain, or Argentina, or Mexico? The african
> people of the world are similarly unrepresented, how about South
> Africa. India has a billion people, why is China on the SC and not
> India? The muslim people of the world are 800 million strong. Why
> isn't Saudi Arabia or Turkey on the SC?

10 non-permanent revolving security council member slots are available
and are filled by the General Assembly voting member nations into

China was a victorious WWII power. India only separated from
Britain after WWII. 

> > Its like the no taxation without representation thing.
> So sorry, but I don't recall ever being permitted to vote for a single
> member of the UN General Assembly or the Security Council. Could you
> please post an election schedule?

It's not a club of citizens - its a club of nations. Your's has a particularly
priviledged seat on it. Your personal capacity to influence it is not great
but its a lot better than most one persons living in the world.  You have
free speech rights in the US and you have a Bill of Rights.
  Mike, you were born lucky.  

The power of US citizens, should they choose to accept it, lies not in their
single individual votes but in their power to speak out for things that are
in their interest.   

> The UN does not represent mankind. It represents a club of legal
> fictions intent on perpetuating their power over mankind. It is therefore
> an anti-human institution and therefore an anti-transhuman institution.

Fiction?  But its as legal real as the good will of people can make it.
Including yours. 

Anti-human?  Anti-transhuman? Which bits ?  Look at the preamble 


"We the peoples of the United Nations


to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice
in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind,

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, in the equal rights of mean and women and of
nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the 
obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international
law can be maintaine, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger

and for these ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another
as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of
methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common
interest, and 

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic
and social advancement of all people,

    have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims

According, our respective Governments, through representatives 
assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their
full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the
present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an 
international organization to be known as the United Nations.


Looks pretty human and arguably even trans-human to me. 

It may be a bit idealistic and it may not be able to be carried out
(that is up to people) but it doesn't seem to be anti-human.

Brett Paatsch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20040828/00b6b411/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list