Are we assuming that the UN humanitarian work would not be done if the UN wasn't around?
Why would we assume that?
People seemed to be defending the UN based on things like disease prevention, etc. I must admit that I suspect that were those resources instead given to, say, Doctors Without Borders or some other less politicized organization we might get even better results.
MSF do great work, but obviously of a quite different nature and scope to the many UN organisations in the field. They also have less access to more dangerous spots than the UN can get. Few organisations can compare in terms of their global reach.
At any rate, I was just curious as to why it would be reasonable to judge an organisation without taking into account a lot of the good it does. The argument you present is heading in the direction of some libertarian arguments we see on here regarding the US Government - that any good that it does would be provided anyway by others in a free market (and probably provided better, etc.), so that leaves us with really only negative things to consider.
If we were to ignore their humanitarian work, what is it fair to judge the UN on? And do we judge it on the same criteria you seem to suggest above - that if such things might be done by others, then we just ignore it?
A lot of folks here seem terribly put out by the idea that Heads of State/Government get to mouth off (some might call it free speech) at UNGA from time to time. I don't really see why it's that bothersome though - and anyway, it's not as if such people aren't capable of getting their message to play in the international media a lot of the time anyway. Which maybe means it should be ignored as well?
I'm not saying we should ignore their humanitarian work. Nor do I think I'm in analogy with libertarians who think everything could be provided by the free market.
From an economic viewpoint it's always important to consider the alternative costs involved. Just because something yields a good result doesn't mean that it's good - one has to consider whether the result could have been achieved in a more efficient way.
Thus, my question was rather genuine. I was asking whether we were assuming that the UN good things would not be done without it. You now gave an argument of sorts as to why one might think that.
Then the argument cuts the other way. A fair retort from you could be whether organizations like MSF or the Red Cross would not be as corrupt and politically influenced as the UN if the funds currently given to the UN were directed to them. I'd say no to that though - I think there is more integrity and less suspectibility to politics in those NGOs.
When it comes to the scope and accessibility that might be a function of the UN's resources, at least to an extent. It might also be their political mandate though, which is where you would have a point.
I'm just pointing out that lauding, say, Saddam Hussein because his government provided electricity and water and stuff to people makes no sense because any government would likely have done that. You have to look at the alternatives.
Poll
