Lands That Stand For Liberty

Am I the only one who wonders what advantage the United States gets out of the United Nations?  To me, it seems comparable to a community of home owners inviting a community of thieves over to discuss the best way to secure a house.  What purpose is there in discussing such an issue with a group of people who do not respect the principle of property ownership?  Who stands to gain and who stands to lose?

Doesn't the thief gain in credibility by being given equal stature to the law-abiding citizen?  Why would an organization be set up to do exactly that?

If most of the people of the world are suffering under governments that are totalitarian, governments that are theocracies, or governments that in other ways refuse to recognize the individual rights of their citizens, why should modern free nations give these governments the credibility of equal stature?

America gave birth to government based on the idea of individual freedom and limited central government control.  This idea has inspired citizens of the world even to today.  Why give credibility to despots?

Forget the United Nations.  America should propose "Lands That Stand For Liberty", made up of nations that accept the notion of individual freedom and limited government.  Nations that believe that human liberty shall survive in the world. Not all of these countries would have the exact same governments, but all must permit at least the following...

            1.  Freedom of speech
            2.  Freedom of assembly and movement
            3.  Freedom for all religions to worship in peace
            4.  Peaceful transition of governmental powers with consent of the governed
            5.  Property rights for individuals
            6.  Rule of Law and contracts
            7.  A free market mechanism
           
There may be more, but you get the idea.  The purpose of "Lands That Stand" is to join liberty-loving nations together in order to ensure freedom's survival in the world, by protecting each other from forces determined to repress freedom.   Could there be a more noble purpose?

"Lands That Stand" would not be a political or economic organization...it would be designed to protect member nations from being attacked, and backed by the military might of the entire group.  One for all and all for one.

Members must accept the sovereignty of individual nations.  Members would not be guaranteed the backing of the group if they attack another country...only if they are attacked by another country.  

All countries that meet the standards of freedom must be allowed to join "Lands That Stand For Liberty".  If a dictatorship is overturned in a revolution, the new government must show that it has enacted reforms to guarantee individual freedoms to gain temporary acceptance to (and the protection of) the League.  To gain permanent acceptance, it must prove those reforms over a five to ten year probationary period.

There is no net gain for freedom if one dictator is replaced by another dictator.  We should stay out of internal power struggles in other countries, unless the revolutionaries have succeeded instituting individual freedoms, and have protected those freedoms by limiting governmental power.

The true value of "Lands That Stand" is to provide a road map for reformers and give them a template to institute freedom in their countries, and then allow them the protection to implement their reforms.   

"Lands That Stand" would not eliminate or preclude economic or strategic agreements between any and all countries.  It would pertain only to the defense of member freedom-loving nations.   

In a world where individual freedom is under attack, the birthplace of human freedom should lead the fight for liberty.  America should engage in the battleground of ideas, and fight to win the hearts and minds of liberty-loving people throughout the world.