Should the Preamble of the United States been written for the United Nations?

Answer 1

Doc, you're no strange
That's one awfully smart question by my lights.

Then answer is mostly (yes).

Without the rights of individuals claimed through regulations drawn by scientists to avoid one man harming another, all one has is a form of postmodernist communism. The leader claims infallibility, plays gods, issues orders, and punishes his slaves if they oppose him. The elections are a farce, population numbers are encouraged, every step forward is eaten up by rightless, hungry mouths--and the dictator takes more power in order to "manage" things, or so he says.
The United Nations was set up to do several things. Let me suggest a few that I see as unarguably true. One was to use neutral military force to handle crises, patrol truce zones, and perform other such police actions. Another was to promote amicable agreement so the populations of poor countries could be aided by those who had a surplus, knowhow, etc. A third is to encourage internationalism--respect between differing nations who are no threat to one another.

Under NO circumstance was such an organization to be used to do the things it has done--1. promote categorical equality between failed dictatorships of mass-murdering liars and legitimate nations electing somewhat responsible governments; 2. argue that anything that calls its dictatorship a country can be a member in good standing of the U.N. 3. continue to foster, pay for and excuse failing pseudo-religious senseless population
growth, to practice idiot altruism by demanding aid from successful nations to be given to the poorest regardless of how and why they're poor, and 4. to fail to stand for any categorical principles of how a society of responsible citizens should be conducted.
THAT'S where your idea comes in. The Preamble, no; but the Declaration of Independence--yes. The sentences that matter are these--those concerning the fact that individuals have a right to rights; those enumerating that they need whatever freedom from dictatorship is necessary so they have access to life, liberty and the pursuit of volitional priorities without a government license by tyrants having to be asked for; and the one that claims governments are instituted among men, given powers solely to secure rights to individuals and not to promote the general welfare which is an invite to communism...These with a general prohibition on religious interference in government had to be the basis of a U.N. that succeeded.

That's why its managers have failed.
That's what the Europeans are wrestling with as they try to provide the European Union with a Constitution.
And that's why we've lost our rights and our Constitution here since 1994.
I say it's because these principles as stated in the Declaration of Independence are and must be the basis of any government. Look, there are many forms of government--how to govern--but there is only one set of categorical purposes of why and how individuals can associate in a society for mutual benefit and to sign fully- disclosed limited-partnership contracts on a daily basis.
And that's the form where governors aren't dictators and individuals aren't treated as flawed, enslaved and rightless beings. Any country where they're treated like that has no business being recognized as a "government" at all.
Sorry, but as it's constituted, I see no purpose for the UN that an extended NATO of well-meaning allies--minus George Bush's paranoid statism as a set of ideas--could not do much much better.

Thank you for the question.

Answer 2

No, Doc. Those two "united" entities were born about 150 years apart. The Preamble for the U.S. Constitution was written by people who had no idea at all that a United Nations was ever going to be created.

Dr. Stephen Strange? How's life in the sanctorum?

Answer 3

No, the United Nations is not trying to form a Union, it is try to appease everyone as much as possible in the name of peace, at least ideally. It doesn't work that way in real life. They Establish nothing, save perhaps that they are laughable. What else can you call an organization that puts Libya in charge of Human Rights violation. They can insure nothing, and provide for the same. They try to promote the general welfare, but the money always seems to end up in the pockets of warlords. Secure the Blessings of Liberty, again with Libya heading the commission for Human rights, don't make me puke.

Answer 4

No, of course not, but with what's going on today, you'd think it was written for the Bush Administration or the Republican Party.

Answer 5

Why? it's exactly 180 degrees out from how the UN thinks....

Answer 6

NO. I dont want them providing for common defense