Re: Framework of nations

"laserlight@quixnet.net" wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
>
> > Instead of "one man, one vote", maybe it should be "one pound
(dollar,
> > whatever), one vote".  That way the countries which have torn up
their
> > own economies wouldn't have the opportunity to screw up anyone
else's.
>
> Karl:
> >There  have been a number of countries with similar a plutocratic
voting
> schemes.
>
> oh?  which?  (not denying it, just asking for my information)
>
> >They don't seem to have had significantly better politics than
> plain democracies.  BTW. would you like Bill Gates to have a Gazillion
votes to your, say, 10 ?
>
> Bill *does* have a better grasp of what it takes to run a large
organization than I do.  But in any event I haven't elected him to spend
my money for me.  I *have* elected my senators to spend my money for me,
and they're the ones who would have a hand in sending it to the UN.
>

If the number of votes in the UN is determined by the amount of funding
that nations contribute, the US would be demoted to observer status (but
the US's permanenent seat on the Security Council prevents any
disciplinary measures being taken against them for failing to pay their
dues).

I would not want Bill Gates to have political power that matched his
financial power.  Microsoft has done a lot of things for only two
reasons: (1) MS can make more money, and (2) noone has the clout to stop
them.  Based on these, a Microsoft world would be a ruthless,