It seems that recently (regardless of when recently is) there is a lot of international hoopla about some evil government hurting it's people, or building a weapon, or otherwise shaking the boat; and then the U.S. or the U.N tries to pass sanctions (usually vetoed by Russia or China), or threaten military intervention if said country persists. But then again, this only happens to countries in the current political spotlight. Nevermind the horrible governments in Africa or South America, keep your eye on Iran and Korea.
Doesn't it seem like these sorts of threats and incentives are a little primitive for the international stage at this day and age? Well here is an idea I had a little while ago. But mind you, it is extremely experimental, and I'm not absolutely sure it would work. But then again, the system we have right now isn't working, so what have we got to lose? Here it is.
We should create an algorithm for international trade taxes and tariffs, to continuously and consistently give incentives for countries to act morally. And if they don't act morally, we hit them where it hurts, their wallet. So here is how it would work. Every country is basically given a rating which decides how much taxes and tariffs are going to be levied on their imports to our country, and our exports to their country. This rating would have several scores factored into it such as arms proliferation, political freedom, environmentalism, working standards, minority rights and many more. These ratings would be professionally updated continuously by teams of international inspectors. We would no longer have to pass sanctions in the U.N.. As soon as a country did something bad, every country that really cared about that issue would already have it's financial relationship with that country automatically strained by the algorithm. When a country fixes a problem it had, they are automatically rewarded financially by every country that cared about that issue.
Let me give you an example, the fictitious country of Latovia. If we have a ten point scale Latovia gets 8.5 for political freedom, 9.2 for working standards, 4.1 for environmentalism, 7.8 for fair trade and 8.2 for minority rights. Now our algorithm is not going to be a straight multiplier (8.5 + 9.2 + 4.1 + 7.8 + 8.2) / 5 = 7.6 (pretty good, so they'll get about average taxes), more likely in todays political climate would would have more emphasis on environmentalism and political freedom. So it might looks like ((1.2 x 8.5) + (0.7 x 9.2) + (1.3 x 4.1) + (0.8 x 7.8) + (1.0 x 8.2)) / 5 = 7.3 where Latovia get dinged for it's poor environmental stance but somewhat makes up for it in political freedom. Make sense so far? I understand if it doesn't.
But you might be asking who gets to decide how these ratings and ratios are set up? Why does environmentalism get more emphasis than arms proliferation? Who does the actual rating? well, I would say that each country should set up it's own system that relates to what its people care about. Here in the U.S., I think Congress should vote on the ratios every year so that what our government thinks is an immediate issue will have more weight for the short term. Changing the actual categories should be voted on by Congress and then signed by the President. This might also give us a better idea of what specific politicians really care about, because there will be hard numbers of what they voted for.
I think the expert inspectors should be hired by the international community, and there should be several teams rating each category, having their numbers averaged to reduce personal bias. Even countries such as Iran and Korea will want to allow the inspectors full access to their facilities, because refusing access will dangerously reduce their score in the given area. If a country does not allow inspectors in, they will be in a sense putting sanctions on themselves.
Hopefully the widely dispersed nature of this program will make corruption extremely difficult. It would also continuously hold countries accountable for their actions, and promote political and economic progress for all countries. It will be hard for a dictator to stay in power, when everyone around him knows they are poor directly because of his actions. If done well, this system could also be applied to corporations, encouraging them financially to use good business practices.
If you see any holes in my theory, please let me know.
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 27, 2007
Why "they" hate us
I recently read an article called, "Why 'they' hate us" that was written by a Pakistani American who has lived about half of his life in each country. The crux of his article was that the reason a majority of the rest of the world hates Americans is because of, what is to us, obscure foreign policy decisions which have greatly affected their lives, but which most Americans have never heard about. He said that America was like Gulliver, harming lilliputians with every unintentional move. Personally, I think he is exactly right.
When I was in Bosnia a few years ago, the local students were telling us about a hot topic there, their relationship to America. Everyone was frustrated with America for two reasons. First, we were redeploying our troops stationed there, to the Middle East (they actually wanted our troops to stay there long term). And second, the Eastern European block countries were pressured into signing a piece of legislation which said that if an American committed a felony in their country, they should be extradited to the United States to be prosecuted. The legislation did not have a mirrored part bringing Europeans home in the case that they have committed a crime in America. One might understand how frustrating it would be if an American murdered someone you love, and was sent to the United States to be prosecuted, where they would presumably have a much easier time getting off. I had never heard of either of these two happenings, and I have never heard anyone in America talk about them, which leads me to think that the Pakistani was right.
I think this generation desperately needs to reclaim America's image. We, as a nation, have already achieved military dominance and prosperity on a scale that has never even been dreamed of by any empire in all history. What should we do now? Seek more power and wealth? Down that path lies the end of every empire in history; self indulgence, laxity, and stretching ourselves too thin (think RISK). I think we should turn our efforts to humanitarianism, and helping poor economies get back on their feet, and technology which will benefit everyone. If we do that, we'll have done something no empire in history has ever done, sought to help it's neighbors instead of conquer them. And maybe then they will not all gang up on us in a moment of weakness. Like the wise Sean Connery said in First Knight, "God makes us strong only for a little while, so we can help each other." Here's a few ideas about how I think we can so that.
I think rather than just giving out large amounts of money and food in crisis areas (such as Darfur now), we need to have teams of experts assessing what a poor country needs in the long run, and act on those needs to build up their own economy. I stress "build up their economy", because I think increasing the handing out of aid is not going to solve a poor countries problem, and it is not going to increase our image much either. We need to teach poor countries how to sustain themselves, implement technology to help their production, and implement financing to move it along that is not just a loan, which will put them in our debt later. Micro-financing is something that I have heard that would make a big step towards fighting poverty, but you will have to ask Christin about that.
In the end, I think America has to start making sacrifices to help the world. I'm not an expert on foreign policy, but even a layman can see that we are a superpower using virtually all of our resources to increase our wealth, influence and power. Frankly, we're being a bully, even if we don't think we are.
When I was in Bosnia a few years ago, the local students were telling us about a hot topic there, their relationship to America. Everyone was frustrated with America for two reasons. First, we were redeploying our troops stationed there, to the Middle East (they actually wanted our troops to stay there long term). And second, the Eastern European block countries were pressured into signing a piece of legislation which said that if an American committed a felony in their country, they should be extradited to the United States to be prosecuted. The legislation did not have a mirrored part bringing Europeans home in the case that they have committed a crime in America. One might understand how frustrating it would be if an American murdered someone you love, and was sent to the United States to be prosecuted, where they would presumably have a much easier time getting off. I had never heard of either of these two happenings, and I have never heard anyone in America talk about them, which leads me to think that the Pakistani was right.
I think this generation desperately needs to reclaim America's image. We, as a nation, have already achieved military dominance and prosperity on a scale that has never even been dreamed of by any empire in all history. What should we do now? Seek more power and wealth? Down that path lies the end of every empire in history; self indulgence, laxity, and stretching ourselves too thin (think RISK). I think we should turn our efforts to humanitarianism, and helping poor economies get back on their feet, and technology which will benefit everyone. If we do that, we'll have done something no empire in history has ever done, sought to help it's neighbors instead of conquer them. And maybe then they will not all gang up on us in a moment of weakness. Like the wise Sean Connery said in First Knight, "God makes us strong only for a little while, so we can help each other." Here's a few ideas about how I think we can so that.
I think rather than just giving out large amounts of money and food in crisis areas (such as Darfur now), we need to have teams of experts assessing what a poor country needs in the long run, and act on those needs to build up their own economy. I stress "build up their economy", because I think increasing the handing out of aid is not going to solve a poor countries problem, and it is not going to increase our image much either. We need to teach poor countries how to sustain themselves, implement technology to help their production, and implement financing to move it along that is not just a loan, which will put them in our debt later. Micro-financing is something that I have heard that would make a big step towards fighting poverty, but you will have to ask Christin about that.
In the end, I think America has to start making sacrifices to help the world. I'm not an expert on foreign policy, but even a layman can see that we are a superpower using virtually all of our resources to increase our wealth, influence and power. Frankly, we're being a bully, even if we don't think we are.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Living Simply
Ok, now I know that I am far from living out my ideals here, but at least I have come to the realization that my goals in this life, are dramatically different from what the media and advertising companies would want them to be. Basically, it is the goal to live simply.
In America's culture of consumerism (a trait found almost everywhere else in the developed world as well), we are told from a very young age to strive to achieve our dreams, and to make something of ourselves. It's pretty much taken for granted that our dreams and goals include being famous and rich. From our parent's generation we have learned the morals about working hard to provide for your family. But at what point are you no longer providing for your family, but spoiling them? Why do we think that being famous will make us happy? It doesn't seem to work for the people in Hollywood. Will being rich make us happier?
Yes.
Statistic show that rich people, are on average, more happy and content with their life than poor people or those with average wealth. Makes sense doesn't it? But doesn't this evidence seem to argue against my point? I doubt it. I'm sure that most of these people without wealth in these studies are not people purposefully living simply, but rather those who are trying to become wealthy, but failing. Big difference.
So why should we want to live simply? Most of all, it would not be for our benefit, but for other's. Assuming that you hold the same type of job, but just spend a lot less money, that means that you can use more of that money to help people not as well off as you. Secondly, all that consumerism that you are not participating in is really helping the environment. From the smaller house, to the packaging not used, to the labor and materials not spent on frivolous expenditures means that that energy is not being wasted.
But there is also an attraction to the lifestyle. Not living to the limit of your means will do wonders for your stress level. If you have a difficult month, no sweat, you have plenty of money to cover it. Emergencies won't have to put financial pressure on top of your list of things to worry about, and you will probably be much more generous when charities come around, which means you will be helping both the poor, and your community. Something much more important than having the latest iPod.
I am hoping that in this generation, value will be found in information, community, and experience; more than in materialism and status. Computers tend to level the playing field when it comes to what people can do, so maybe that will make a difference. Perhaps our parent's generation succeeded in providing for us so well, that we don't need to have any fear of the want of necessities that haunted our grandparent's generation. Perhaps we could rise above the hoarding instinct that is necessary for survival in a world without enough resources for everybody. But i think technology has brought us above that level. Can society catch up with it?
In America's culture of consumerism (a trait found almost everywhere else in the developed world as well), we are told from a very young age to strive to achieve our dreams, and to make something of ourselves. It's pretty much taken for granted that our dreams and goals include being famous and rich. From our parent's generation we have learned the morals about working hard to provide for your family. But at what point are you no longer providing for your family, but spoiling them? Why do we think that being famous will make us happy? It doesn't seem to work for the people in Hollywood. Will being rich make us happier?
Yes.
Statistic show that rich people, are on average, more happy and content with their life than poor people or those with average wealth. Makes sense doesn't it? But doesn't this evidence seem to argue against my point? I doubt it. I'm sure that most of these people without wealth in these studies are not people purposefully living simply, but rather those who are trying to become wealthy, but failing. Big difference.
So why should we want to live simply? Most of all, it would not be for our benefit, but for other's. Assuming that you hold the same type of job, but just spend a lot less money, that means that you can use more of that money to help people not as well off as you. Secondly, all that consumerism that you are not participating in is really helping the environment. From the smaller house, to the packaging not used, to the labor and materials not spent on frivolous expenditures means that that energy is not being wasted.
But there is also an attraction to the lifestyle. Not living to the limit of your means will do wonders for your stress level. If you have a difficult month, no sweat, you have plenty of money to cover it. Emergencies won't have to put financial pressure on top of your list of things to worry about, and you will probably be much more generous when charities come around, which means you will be helping both the poor, and your community. Something much more important than having the latest iPod.
I am hoping that in this generation, value will be found in information, community, and experience; more than in materialism and status. Computers tend to level the playing field when it comes to what people can do, so maybe that will make a difference. Perhaps our parent's generation succeeded in providing for us so well, that we don't need to have any fear of the want of necessities that haunted our grandparent's generation. Perhaps we could rise above the hoarding instinct that is necessary for survival in a world without enough resources for everybody. But i think technology has brought us above that level. Can society catch up with it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
