We shouldn't even have an ambassador to the U.N. We should cut off all relations with them, evict them from New York, indict Kofi and his cronies for misappropriation of taxpayer funds, and say good riddance to the U.N.'s attempt at one-world government. The U.N. is an ememy army that is elbow deep in taxpayer pockets. We should send troops into the U.N., not ambassadors.

He wants to get rid of ten stories of the U.N. building? Hey, he's already a quarter of the way to having our position on the U.N!

If we have to send someone to the U.N, then good for it to be a ruthless, disagreeable bastard.

He might be a little crazy, too. All the better. Maybe if we're lucky he'll do something so crazy we get kicked out of the U.N.

I would have to agree with the other posters, the appointment, if not a withdrawal from the U.N. is at least a step in the right direction. Bolton has nothing but contempt for the U.N., which I believe is the view shared by every libertarian. At least he will p*** em off.

U.S. out of the U.N. and U.N. out of the U.S.

John Bolton will never bring Libertarian principles to the UN. The US needs to get out of the UN. The UN is a threat to the US's soverignty. There is a website that explains about the UN. There was a bill in Congress called the UN tax. US taxpayers would have to pay taxes to the UN. a one-world Governemnt idenity is not libertarian and never will be. for more info on why it is best to get the US out of the UN go to http://www.getusout.org/.

I'd love to see the US throw the UN out of the country. This is one of those issues where I agree fully with pretty much with the established LP thought. Nationhood is incompatable with other nations having voting powers nof any kind over your foreign policy decisions.

Give them 1 year to empty the building and clear out of town. We would pay a heavy price in some ways but screw it, the UN has never done anything but make useless talking a art form and gotten plenty of our troops killed supporting blue helmets. For the humanitarian stuff they do, a less corrupt entity could be chosen to work with.

At first glance, when it was first created, the UN may have seemed like a reasonable idea.

In reality, it's the same old situation of a large government (whatever you want to call it), tyring to solve the individual personnal problems of the world. Let charity groups solve charity issues and keep any form of big government out.

I would never serve militarily under United Nations command. I spent 36 years (mostly in Special Operations and Special Warfare units) and I finally took my retirement when I was going to be deployed on a UN assignment in Kuwait. It would never happen!!!

While I am not a proponent of US involvement in the UN, it is ridiculous to appoint someone so openly hostile to it as ambassador so long as we are still a member nation. A foreign policy of non-intervention is advisable, but one of indiscrimintate unilateralism is not very prudent. I want America to be independent of foreign influence, but not if it means alienating the entire world on a regular basis, as is the case with the current administration.

I would appoint a ambassador to the UN to begin the withdraw process from the UN. The goal would be the new ambassador would have the US fully withdrawn in a 6 months to a 1 year time . If that does not work we all US representatives and workers just walk out. We would give the UN a 1 year time table to leave the US or if they do not comply we send in the military and deport them. We would give the UN buildings to private contractors and they can build malls and shopping centers.

or if the UN wants to stay in the US after the US Withdraw from the UN. The UN will have to pay property taxes and If we still have the Federal Income tax they will have pay Income tax on their organization to the US government.

Mike,

I dont dont see any way one can square nationhood with the idea that other countries should have any voting power whatsoever over your nations policy.

The UN is one of the most corrupted and self serving institutions I know of, and a *libertarian* America would have no need for such a body. We would be better off applying the savings gained to paying down the debt, which is the number 1 threat to America, and that includes terrorism.

The global depression government default would cause would make your life and the life of your children miserable and short. A debtor nation cannot be a free nation. The LP should make national debt repayment it's top domestic policy agenda. The Perot vote is still there and waiting for a champion to appear. Jug Ears was able to get more votes in 1 cycle than the entire LP presidential field has in 25 years.

Responsibility is the key. We should insist on at it at every level of society, from people, from government, and from business.

John Bolton is a neocon, supporter of PNAC and a member of the CFR.

Bolton predicted that the UN would play a central role in the Bush administration?s "global democratic revolution." "Now more than ever the UN must play a critical role, as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise,"

he wants the UN out of the US not the US out of the UN. The WTO is out of county but we still follow them.

Don't believe the hype.

http://www.totalresistance.com

Bolton is a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic neo-conservative. He's not going to move the U.N., or anything else, in a libertarian direction.

Yes, he is a neoconservative... not sure we need all of the unintelligent hyperbole like "frothing at the mouth" to get that point across...

Has the Libertarian Party gone totally insane?

Have we lost everything that we used to hold so dear?

We don't need a more libertarian United Nations, have our troops removed from their command, or even reduce our level of funding for the UN.

The ONLY appropriate action the LP should support is the immediate and total withdrawl of the USA from the United Nations.

PERIOD! End of Story.

By acting like you hope a US ambassador would make a change in the UN you are actually showing your continued support for having our nation be a part of the UN.

This is beyond sacrificing the principles of our party for political gain. This is THROWING THEM OUT THE WINDOW all together!

Who else is appauled and offended?

Tim West,

How do you suggest we pay down the national debt? Higher taxes? The same tax rate we have now? Lower taxes?

Obviously, our current federal government needs to be slashed into something miniscule if it is to fit within the bounds of the constitution and libertarian philosophy.

When this happens the cost of running such a government will be very, very low.

Personally, I did not call for our government to waste billions and billions of dollars (or for that matter trillions of dollars) on unconstitutional government programs.

I should not have to pay it, my relatives and family should not have to pay it, my co-workers should not have to pay it, my church members should not have to pay it.

I am an INDIVIDUAL and NOT a member of the TYRANNY that controls this Republic. That's right, our nation is a true TYRANNY.

THEY are the ones that should pay the debt and NOT the 99% of us that had NOTHING to do with it!

You think I wanna pay for Bush's war with Iraq? You think I wanna pay for a thousand unconstitutional government programs?

No way!

Someone posted six months to a year to withdraw from the UN.

We need to withdraw in six days.

Monday: Formally withdraw from the UN.

Tuesday: Round up the location and names of all UN personel in the US. Notify them and help expidite their future travel plans out of the US.

Wednesday: Tell all US personel around the world working with the UN that they are going to be coming home. Notify them and help expidite their return to the USA.

Thursday: Help the UN'ers pack up the UN buildings and then figure out who owns the deed, the land, the buildings, etc. If possible, sell it off to the highest bidder to build a shopping mall or something.

Friday: Declare this day "Independence from the UN day" and celebrate the total and absolute soverignty of the USA!

Saterday: Continue getting all the UN'ers out of the USA and all of our people from around the world back here. Then plan next weeks withdrawl from CAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

---

Months? Years?

One week is more than enough!

Representative Ron Paul has introduced H.R. 1146 to end membership in the United Nations. Unfortunately, only six co-sponsors and absolutely no interest from the Republican leadership, so I suppose we are stuck in the U.N. for the time being.

Off topic: Al Gore's Current TV started today. I don't have DirectTV so I haven't seen it but according to the site (http://www.current.tv) they accept submissions from everybody and are non partisan. I don't have the skills or time for this, but hopefully there's other libertarians who do. Have we got any libertarian video bloggers/film students who want to put together some submissions?

If anyone is interested in this topic any further, i read a great book called "Inside the U.N." It shows how complicit teh U.N. is with dictators and tyrants the world over. It also shows how every U.N. rally is really just an anti-US, pro-commie rally. The U.S. news stations wont show the footage from these rallys because they all support the one-world government idea of the UN. Someone said earlier that the UN was a good idea when it was formed. I disagree. It was created by Commies to take over the world. Many of these Commies were high level officials in FDR's cabinet, including Whitaker Chambers.

I remember a couple of years ago some Korean dude took a hand grenade into the U.N. That guy should be the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

Dave is right. In fact, 17 employees from the U.S. State Department organized the San Francisco Conference where the United Nations was formally established in 1945. Of those 17 members, 16 were closet members of the Communist Party USA. And the chief organizer of the conference would eventually be discovered as the biggest turncoat in this country's history. His name was Alger Hiss.

It was only fitting that a man named Hiss was discovered as the snake in the grass.

Let's try to be realistic, William. A pullout from all the listed organizations(and don't forget NAFTA as well) would be grand, but to do it in one week would be chaotic. As long as an exit is accomplished in an orderly fashion, no ruch is necesarry. I would be perfectly happy with a withdrawal if it took 3 or 4 years. I'm sure it could be done in a few months to a year, but a week is pushing it.

Also, what's up with this preferred trade status I've heard about? Apparently the president can declare one nation our preffered trade partner and they have no tariffs, or something similar to that? I think Clinton did tis with China, and China has been trading with us scott free for many years now? Maybe I heard this wrong, but where is that power enumerated? Foreign Policy is screwball whacky crazy time.

Bolton (and Bush) wanted the US out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because they were afraid the actions they were planning might subject them to its jurisdiction, as international criminals.

Libertarians want the US out of the ICC (and the UN) because both are illegitimate organizations with no shred of citizen oversight.

To those whom say that the new United States Envoy
John Bolton is a neo-conservative is, in my opinion, totally false. John Bolton is a true libertarian-conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. He even receieved praise from conservative non-interventionists such as Pat Buchanan, Joesph Sobran and Robert Novak. He believes in representing the United States interests at the United Nations. He has called for that organization to reform itself (which I believe it cannot), and believes that the United Nations should not coddle dictatorial or repressive regimes. I am willing to give this man a chance to see what he can do. I believe he derseves that much. I also believe that he will give Kofi Annan a run for the money. Who knows, maybe Bolton will drive him nuts. I hope so.

Another annoying feature of the U.N. is its one nation, one vote structure. Which means that the U.S. with the largest GDP in the world has the same vote as Somalia.

If it had to remain in existence, it should be changed to vote weighted to GDP. The total weighted vote of the General Assembly would be 49,000 based on one vote per $1 Billion of GDP. Of that, the U.S. would get 10,400 weighted votes or over 1/5 the total voting strength in the General Assembly. China would be next at 5,700 weighted votes then Japan at 3,550 weighted votes, and so on and so on. Somalia on the other hand, would have just 4 weighted votes. I still don't like the U.N., but at least this way the lunatics aren't in charge of the asylum.

Be that as it may, I will still stick to the slogan of U.S. out of the U.N. and U.N. out of the U.S.

Bolton was not an non-interventionist in the case of Iraq WMD. His office kept pushing the Niger yellowcake story as justification for invading Iraq even after the director of the CIA had warned that the intelligence was suspect. From the libertarian website, Antiwar.com:

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=5934

"... his [Bolton's] office inserted the bogus story into the official State Department 'Fact Sheet' without clearing it with the department's own intelligence analysts."

The LP basically declares someone even semi-libertarian that helped push for the war in Iraq!?

The leadership of the LP have lost their principles and apparently don't care to do research anymore!

I think they would spend their time more wisely writing articles on how the drug war is criminal, our nation is a tyranny, and how the only peaceful way to restore our nation is voting Libertarian. Right now, all they are doing is avoiding REALITY and deciding to play around in the Reps/Dems little "matrix" of compromise.

The LP stands outside of the "matrix" of compromise. We are principled and stand by them. But apparently the LP leadership now supports those that advocated the war in Iraq.

I should speak out for being fair here, since I'm one of the folks criticizing Bolton. The LP hasn't declared him semi-libertarian: it's just a blog topic that was stated as a question, and some of the commenters, who don't necessarily represent the views of the LP, answered that question with some positive things about him.

Posted by: Alex P. at August 2, 2005 03:06 PM,

When did Pat Buchanan endorse John Bolton. John Bolton is not a Libertarian. John Bolton is a globalist. Pat Buchanan truly prefers the US withdrawing from the UN as much as I do. Your using people who are opposed to globalism to glorify a globalist. John Bolton wants the UN to have more power over nation's soverignty. The UN wants to control the internet and tax people. I totally disagree with your statement and any ambassador to the UN should not be trusted. I bet you watch Fox News all the time, they are a propoganda ring for neo-cons and warmongers. I believe we need to withdraw from the UN.

Bolton is a neocon, not a libertarian. Apples and oranges, friends.

I kind of made an ambigious comment near the beginning of this thread. I said something about John Bolton having contempt for the U.N., a view shared by most libertarians.

I did NOT mean by that comment that John Bolton WAS a libertarian, he most surely is not, I just meant that he has contempt for the U.N., nothing more.

If anything, John Bolton is a certified Neo-con, through and through. But if his being there pisses off Kofi Annan and his cronies, I can put up with it.

No true libertarian would take the U.N. post anyhow.

I'd perfer to get out of the UN all together, but what would you rather have:

a person who will question the UN and get tough?

or a person that comply with the UN and help it grow?

Bolton is the best that Libertarians can hope for, given the current political situation and the relative strength of the LP vs the GOP and Deemocrats. Half a loaf is better than none.

does anyone understand the meaning of a question mark? The name of the article is "Will Bolton Move the United Nations in a Libertarian Direction?" not "Bolton Will Move the United Nations in a Libertarian Direction!"

It lists some of his positions, and says that it hopes that he will move the U.S AWAY from the U.N.

Get some reading comprehension people.

I apologize for going a bit off topic, but I object to the term ?neocon? being used describe Bolton or the current Administration.

A ?neocon? should be in the same vane as previous conservative movements. They should be interested in reducing the size of the government; cutting taxes; and limiting government interference in the private lives of the citizenry. None of these attributes are apparent in the ?neocons?.

A more appropriate term would be neo-Victorian. Like the original Victorians they are interested in promoting their own brand of morality; placing religion above science; and empire building.

Bolton is a fine pick for the job as several have already pointed out. Reading some of the posts on this blog reminds me why I'm so disappointed in many Libertarians - they really do nothing but solidify the party's role as a total "non-factor" in political discourse. Their inability to accept some compromising and adjust for political realities is just sad really. I know - I can hear the comments already about not selling out, sticking to strict principles, etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile nothing gets accomplished in reversing the socialist leaning policies that grow each year. Libertarians and their non-pragmatic approach destined them to remain just a fringe-group at best, contributing nothing of any consequence. At least Bolton appears to line up behind the majority of our core beliefs, if you keep expecting a whole lot more you will always be disappointed.

Ok guys, so I understand that we don't trust the united nations here, but I for one think the body can be useful for settling international disputes in a peaceful manner. Communication between countries is easier if they all have delagates in one place. For that reason, I think that it's important that the United states maintain a presence in the UN, and I think that presence should be open to reason, and I don't think Bolton is. I know I'm going against the grain a little here, but I see basically two options for the future of humanity:
Option one: We take on a very peaceful libertarian ideal, but shun all forms of international diologue through any body we're frightened might one day turn into a one world government. Now, nuclear weapons cannot exist for a thousand years without there being a large nuclear exchange at some point, and under this option, without international diologue, it will happen. Just a matter of time. We cannot allow this.
Option two: We abandon our countries and jump on board the one world government bandwagon. This situation is great for a while, and there's never a nuclear war. Unfortuanately, the civil liberties and philosophical autonomy of every person and culture on earth will disappear when this government turns sour. Then, there's nowhere left to run. We cannot allow this either.
Therefore, I feel that to preserve the libertarian ideal while avoiding a one-world government or a nuclear exchange, a body like the UN is necessary. I'll agree that it needs reforming, so let's send a reformer, and not someone who will approach the UN with open hostility. There were better picks out there.

Besides, what's the deal with that mustache?

You had to add that mustache comment. And on a new line even. That makes your credibility just went donw a bit. That said, I sorta agree with you.

Haha, i should read before i click "post." Substitute either "Your credibility just went down a bit" or "That makes your credibility go down a bit" for what I accidentally posted.

Zebop, please keep in mind that someone who debates other Libertarians isn't automatically from the purist Libertarian camp.

I'm one of the adamant critics of John Bolton here, but I am also an adamant critic of dogmatism and membership purges in the LP. It's my personal opinion that Bolton is a dangerous neo-conservative, but I don't think you're not a Libertarian if you have a different opinion. I assume everybody who joins the Libertarian Party cares deeply about liberty.

Also that, while my views on Bolton may be out of sync with mainstream conservative, they are mainstream among liberals. It's pragmatic for the LP to seek common ground with Democrats, too.

I think many people here forget that while we may seem to have more in common with the conservatives, this is only in economic issues, and they've proven themselves to be liars concerning downsizing government.

Plenty of LP members are or were left-leaning ex-Democrats turned off by their socialist inclinations and special-interests pandemonium.

That's the beautiful thing about liberty, it's appealing across the political spectrum once an individual has chosen to open their minds to it.

These blogs have brought out, and made active, libertarians from the entire spectrum that is libertarianism. As far as I know, the two major parties are very dogmatic, while we are allowed some leeway in our beliefs. If you believe the government should be reduced in both personal rights and economic rights aspects, then you're a libertarian. We should not resort to calling anyone on here "non-libertarians" for arguing for or against any position.

"[T]his time, the UN power grabbers aren't European liberals; they are American neoconservatives who plan to use the UN to implement their own brand of world government. . . . Do not be fooled: it is impossible to be against the United Nations and to support 'reform' of the United Nations. The only true reform of the United Nations is for the U.S. to withdraw immediately." — Ron Paul

Whats Badnariks position on the U.N. and its building?

Bolton will certainly not move anything in a Libertarian direction. He doesn't oppose the UN - he wants to control the UN. Bolton will push for sanctions or wars against Iran and Syria. He will also push for beefing up UN forces.

He has been deceptive about Iraq and Syria in the past. While at the State Dept., his output was required to be reviewed by Dick Armitage because of his tendency to make statements that contradicted intelligence estimates.

This guy is bad news.

While on this subject, I would urge everyone to read an article by Ron Paul from June 14 about the United Nations Reform Act of 2005.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6304

This bill passed the House and is on the Senate calender. It is a neocon interventionist's wet dream. While cutting the amount the US pays to the UN, it increases the power of the UN.

Libertarians should not be fooled by the soundbite spin of the Republican propagandists. Bolton will most certainly try to implement the agenda of this UN "reform" act.

I wonder if the globalist "liberals" opposed Bolton as a sure-fire method of getting the redneck right to support him.

Badnarik's position on the U.N. was to withdraw the U.S. from the U.N., evict the U.N. from the U.S., and bulldoze the U.N. building. His words, not mine. Although, I do echo his sentiments.

Before the U.N. building was erected on its current site, that piece of land used to be home to a slaughterhouse. It's amazing how that land went from being productive to wasteful.

From some points of view, you could probably argue that there is STILL a slaughterhouse on that piece of land.

"Before the U.N. building was erected on its current site, that piece of land used to be home to a slaughterhouse. It's amazing how that land went from being productive to wasteful."

Gracie Mansion is another example; before it became the mayors mansion it used to be a public toilet. [Insert joke here.]

Bagpipe Johnny - That explains why so many local tax dollars end up getting flushed away. :-)

I hate to bust your balloon, but the UN cannot be "evicted." It owns the land.

"In 1946, the United Nations were looking for a location for their new headquarters in New York. The original plan was to use the grounds of the 1939 World Fair in Flushing Meadow Park in Queens. But when a project known as X-City on Manhattan's eastern border failed to materialize, John D. Rockefeller Jr. bought the 18 acre plot and donated it to United Nations. This site was then used to build the UN's headquarters. The whole area was converted into international territory and officially does not belong to the United States."

http://www.aviewoncities.com/nyc/unitednations.htm

According to another site the title went first to the City of New York.

"The organization had been searching for a site to locate to, and when developer William Zeckendorf's plans for the so-called "X City" to these East River blocks he had collected fell through, the site was proposed as a home for the U.N.. As the city was unable to purchase the site itself, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. bought the land for the complex for $8.5 million and donated it to the city in December 1945."

http://www.greatgridlock.net/NYC/nyc3.html#44

More on Zeckendorf:

Zeckendorf's role as an ally of, and a real estate guru to the Rockefeller family dated back to John D. Jr.'s and Nelson's post-WWII efforts to locate the United Nations in Manhattan. In 1945, Zeckendorf had made a downpayment on the property that would become the UN site in hopes of building "X City," a vast and secretively planned attempt at fusing Rockefeller Center with Tudor City. X City's designated designer was Wallace K. Harrison, the Rockefeller house architect.

But Zeckendorf could not raise funds the to consummate the deal and with the deadline approaching, faced the unpleasant prospect of forfeiting his deposit. Eager to unload his stake at a profit and caught up in the idealistic spirit of "moving the capital of the world," Zeckendorf offered Nelson Rockefeller a win-win proposition. Thus the Rockefellers secured their favored site for the United Nations, and nipped a potential Rockefeller Center competitor in the bud. Zeckendorf came off as an internationalist hero, replete with full pockets for his altruism."

http://ericdarton.net/html/tallstories.html

What Congress could do is to revoke the extra-territorial status of the property as well as the diplomatic credentials of those working there.

When the UN people have to start paying NYC parking tickets, they will probably figure out somewhere else to go.

Not to mention that the value of 16 acres in midtown Manhattan today is almost unimaginable.

So... use eminent domain to take the U.N.'s property back...?

Someone said:

"So... use eminent domain to take the U.N.'s property back...?"

You might say that, but I would never say that. Nor would I encourage the City of New York to levy property taxes upon some of the most valuable real estate in the world.

We cannot say that, we are Libertarians.

The UN should not use taxpayer money to fund a movement to world government. If the UN were restricted to just helping to ensure wars didn't break out, encouraged treaties between nations to become friends and encouraged national soverignty, it would be much more efficent.

I think UN can be a force for I protect and preveting mass munder but I think for Too many years the UN as been moving away from that Goal,one wich I feel most Libertarins would suport, I a one govermental mode. The UN a world police agist Tryrants and unjust war is gone. Person is not hear to return it to the right way. The UN was founded to stand angist what we fear it may become I think America and all nations of the free world should work to that goal for the UN

B. Bruce Warnsby
Pround Eco-Libertarin

THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY WAS RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING..."GET US OUT OF THE UN AND THE UN OUT OF THE US"...WWW.GETUSOUT.ORG

Why do many people bash the John Birch Society?

Hell, I even heard Sean "will the real silky pony please stand up?" Hannity refer to the John Birch Society as a socialist organization.

I think ANYONE nominated for ANY position by ANY of the current or recent past American regimes will be an authoritarian pig who is against liberty, freedom and justice.
The UN has no credibility, especially since it assigned Syria to the Security Council or whatever it is called. I don't think it is wise to assign a terrorist nation to the security council - but then the Islamic countries which populate the UN are the ones making decisions there.
I think we should get the UN and Islam, both, out of America.

People who want us 'out' of the UN are wrong.

We need to refuse to participate in certain aspects of the UN, granted. (Although I do not include the ICC as part of this. 'Constitutional' objections to the ICC can be solved, the same way we solved them with extradition. The *real* reason for conservative objections to the ICC is, as someone said above, that conservatives enjoy committing war crimes. Like inventing new categories of prisoners to avoid the Geneva convention.)

And we need to refuse to pay the dues until we get more control. Either this is one country, one vote, and we all pay roughly the same dues, or at least based on per capita, or it's the richest rule, and we basically share the vote with Europe and China and no one else.

Asking the most from us because we make the most is idiotic. These aren't taxes, they are organizational *dues*, to make the thing work. We're willing to give a break to countries that simply cannot *afford* the dues, but we refuse to pay 25% of them yet have the same power as others.

But we *do* need to stay in the UN. The UN is the best hope to stop a war. (Hey, they *almost* stopped this Iraq one, except we ignored them. Remember that before you discount them. Maybe *more* power is what they need, at least when it comes to inter-country relations.) And leaving it out of spite won't help anything.

And people complaining about having our troups under UN control are just weird. Do you want us out of NATO, also? Ultimately, our troups are under our control, and if we don't like what the UN is doing, we just *won't send them*. Plenty of countries send no troups. But saying 'We should never place our troups under someone else's command' is just silly unless we want to fight every war by ourself. (And if we're fighting a war by ourselves with no help, I have to suggest we already screwed up somewhere.)

OTOH, we *do* need to leave the WTO. ;)