🇳🇱
As far as I know the UN already has no legal authority over the USA, so this wouldnt make sense... we currently cant and dont veto UN rulings since they have no legal bearing on us unless we want it to (and pass our own separate law to enforce it).
As far as I know no country has any internal system that obligates it to the ruling of international court.
That said I would be very much against giving the UN, or any international court, authority locally. Each country can and should choose to adopt their rullings on a case by case basis.
I wouldnt quite go that dramatic. I mean.. countries could, int heory, accept majority rule. I would be scared of genocide, but I dont think its "required" for such a thing to exist.. the bigger concern is that it enables it at all.
For me I generally prefer local governments having power over larger governments.. at least within a framework. So any sort of global government heads in the opposite direction of what I'd like.
Any government which contains the other.
In the USA country government is the lowest level, then there is state level which includes the counties, then there is national level that control the states.
Each of these are examples of local level governments encapsulated by a bigger one.
No it didnt, because you didnt ask that.. you asked what the difference is between the "larger" and "local" government. Thats what I answered, one is contained int he other. and the larger encompassing the smaller by aggregate.
If you want to know why local-first is better than national first I'd be happy to answer that too (though im off to bed now). Just be sure to ask it next time (feel free to ask it tomorrow if you'd like to continue)
@moffintosh
So to answer why larger is bad... well larger isnt bad, it is only bad when power becomes concentrated there.
Usually the structure is such that any larger governing body can overrule the laws of a local governing body. So the only time a local governing body can enact a rule is if the larger governing body doesnt make a ruling on it either way.
This is fine if the larger entities are minimalistic in the rules they engage in. If all they did was the things neccesary at a larger level it may not be an issue. but the issue is over time the scope of the larger governing body tends to increase.
So the issues then, over time become:
1) Monolithic ideaology. AS more and more rules get defined at the highest level there is less and less variety at the local level in experimenting with different ways of covernance. This can lead to stagnation at best, or oppression at worst
2) It enables Tyranny of the majority. When you have a local government first you can find like minded groups and live near them and you get to custom tailor the sort of governance you want. When there is a single all powerful entity you have one style of rule, and no chance to change it by moving.
3) Less protection against dictators. When all the power concentrated in one place it allows a point of control for a dictator with a larger swatch of control.
4) Less protection against corruption. For a similar reason as above, when all the power is in one place that centralization also means corruption can spread farther and with more force.
@jeff @thor