U.S. backs expanding U.N. Security Council (by "two or so")

Monterey Herald ^ | 6/16/05 | Barry Schweid - AP

[inquest]

However, I do think there is a need for a world organization with a Conservative/libertarian ideology.

A "need"? I don't think so. If other countries want to screw themselves with socialism, I say let 'em. We should just stop giving them money, which is what we're doing now (both directly and through UN organs that encourage socialism).

I'd be in favor of the UN if it prevented our government from infringing on our liberty.

Any world government that had the power to do that would also have the power itself to infringe on our liberties. Only when it's done globally, it becomes much harder to control. I strongly suggest you rethink this.

[traviskicks]

I am talking about more in theory than anything else.

At present, we are on the same page.

A 'higher' form of government is useful if it prevents the lower form from passing freedom inhibiting laws and doesn't pass any laws itself.

Again, this is theoretical and described a bit in that link I posted.

[inquest]

Even theoretically, this higher government would have to have the power to enforce its prohibitions against the lower governments. And once it has this power, it can be used for other purposes under various pretexts. And theoretically, that's playing with fire when you're doing that on a global scale.

[traviskicks]

True, but you could have said the same thing about the articles of confederation...

[inquest]

The AofC weren't even remotely global in scope. They weren't even international in scope.