Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)

>Absender: Hosford.Donald@acd.net

At the risk of reviving this thread that was done to death some time 
ago...

Nice thoughts.

Some points...

> I strongly beleve that there are some things that governments are
> perfectly suited for:  Common defense, Health of its populous, 
> Safety standards, ect.[...]
> I did have a rather strange conversation reciently with a man who 
> was for "no governments".  [...] He explained that his idea was the > 
humble insurance companies.  Example:  If someone was making an 
> unsafe product -- say cars -- then that company should pay much 
> higher insurance rates than normal...until they got tired of the > 
higher preniums and made better ones.	Ya know...he
> never did get around to explaining who would do the rate setting...

Now, the latter point is easy - the insurance companies themselves. In 
an open market, that should ensure fair rates: too high rates and nobody

will ensure their stuff with them, too low rates and the insurance 
company will go under because it can't match its obligations. 

But the problems don't end there: who defines what damages to pay for 
an accident ? Ok, material damages (say, if your car is broken) that can

be defined. But, say, broken bones ? Should you just pay the cost of 
treatment ? Lost income ? punitive damages ? Here's a field for lawyers,

courts, law-givers and, hence, government. And somebody has to force the

insurance company to pay out. And you have to keep competition open by 
preventing cartels in the insurance business.

I also wonder how the 'Insurance Company' model should work for 
defence, road-building, police, schools, etc. and whether that guy would
want 
to live in a place where all those are left to market forces.

Plus, a lot of the problems he attributes to 'governments' exist even 
without them. Wars, for example.

> C) UN/goodguy
>   1) why not?  In a setting where everyone is out for themselves, 
> shouldn't there be someone to look after those who can't?  After 
> all, the "big four" are outnumbered in the UN by everyone else.  
> (Last I heard the UN had 167 or so members...knock some off of that > 
for the various timeline changes, and the total still stands over > 100 
vs just 4.)  

The GZG history has reduced nations rather more drastically than that, 
but yes, it should still hold in terms of numbers of nations, population

and economy.

> Just because the "big four" were bigger wouldn't mean that they > 
would always get their way in the UN.

And indeed, it seems likely that the big four would rarely agree with 
each other, which, depending on the GZG UN constitution would either 
paralyse it or give it considerable freedom of action. The latter
assumption 
makes for a more interesting UN.

>   2)	This is Science Fiction!  (Emphasis on the word fiction)  
> Fiction means that some or all of the material is made up.  (ie: 
> having some or no similarity to reality.) That means that Jon and 
> company can say what they like.  (basing some of it on real bits 
> adds flavor and interest.)

Well said!

> D) UN/Strength
> Its my opinion that the UNSC has to be a formidable 
> force...otherwise the "Core Systems" agreement would be totally 
> ignored by the "big four".  The only thing a bully truly respects is 
> a strong force against him.  Then he's nice because he has to be.
> Just how strong?  Now there is a good question.  Probably strong 
> enough to take out one of the big four by itself...that would put 
> them on par with the "big four".

Depends on how you view the politics in the GZG universe. Are the 
nations aggressive bullies (say, like Hitler or Saddam) ? Or are they
more 
normal governments who will grab advantages offered, but who also see
the 
value of cooperating on many topics and are willing to compromise some 
interests if the overall deal is sweet enough ?

In the latter case, it may be enough if the UN is strong enough to tip 
the balance in a 2 vs. 2 confrontation.

> Besides...in reality...noone wants to be on a constant war footing.  
> There would be huge gaps of...(dare I say it?)...peace.  Yes the 
> dreaded "P" word of generals and admirals alike...

...and of wargamers

;-)
Karl Heinz