This House Would Force All Governments to Become Totally Transparent

Pro claims, "My opponent has no understood my arguments. He continues to attack the candlesticks without considering the entire home, let alone the dining room or anything else." I believe that I understand Pro's arguments better than Pro. Pro has put forth what he claims to be a practical resolution, but it would not accomplish what Pro claims. Beyond that, Pro claims his completely pointless violations of human rights should be ignored. What is the argument for revealing medical records and court settlements as a necessary step towards some greater good? Pro never says why such abuse is important, only that it should be ignored. The major "force" behind the resolution is expulsion from the UN. I argue that this sanction is too weak to accomplish anything of substance. Pro rebuts "why should countries stay in the U.N? Simple; because their residen[ts] would accept nothing less." So, for example, if North Korea were threatened with UN expulsion for failing to become transparent, the citizens of North Korea would rise up to force Dear Leader to comply. They have not risen up in protest of being totally deprived of human rights, so it is absurd to suppose than UN expulsion would produce an uprising. In a totalitarian state, expulsion would be posed as one more reason for the populace to rally around Dear Leader to protect the country from foreign intervention. In democratic countries, citizens would not tolerate being stripped of their rights of privacy, self-defense, and democratic self-government. Pro makes the general argument that citizens would so strongly favor trading their rights and self-government for transparency that they would demand it. However, Pro's targets seem to be mainly the CIA and amorphous "business influence." But these specific goals, and any other specific goals for transparency, could be achieved by legislation passed democratically, but Pro finds democracy unacceptable. But if there little support for the narrow objectives, there is no reason to suppose that there would be overwhelming public demand to remain in the UN so that vast intrusions on privacy could be imposed as well. Democratic countries gain very little from UN membership. The citizens of Switzerland have not risen up to even demand membership in the UN, and they have suffered nothing of note as a consequence. The UN performs useful functions, such as distributing aid to poor countries, and occasionally in performing peacekeeping operations when all the major powers agree. But when all the major powers agree, having the UN as mechanism for carrying out the agreement is not vital. The UN's track record of impartiality is non-existent. They put slave-traders in charge of human rights. The UN bureaucracy is notoriously corrupt. UN sanctions are routinely ignored with no penalty for ignoring them. The UN could not even pass a resolution condemning genocide in Rwanda, let alone doing anything about it. So Pro's resolution would trade lesser corruption under democracy for near-universal corruption of an undemocratic international bureaucracy. Pro hopes that a benevolent omniscient higher power will impose wonderful things upon democracies. The belief is untrue and impractical. The resolution is negated.