“If  the United Nations was fully funded why would we need the Arc or social enterprise?”

(I love the connections between history and business as a proud history buff who watches documentaries in her free time.)

I’m going to expand on this and say if the UN was fully funded and fully functional.

My answer is yes.

At the very core of the UN, it had ONE purpose: to prevent a third world war.  We’ve arguably gotten close to a third world war but it hasn’t happened.

And for the UN to become fully funded/functional, everyone in the UN would need to be able to agree and compromise.  Unfortunately, like all politics, that’s not the case.  Until everyone can agree on single actions that are beneficial to everyone, social enterprises (like the ARC) will be necessary.

The UN has in their charter “to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.”  But that doesn’t mean that other groups can’t help as well.  

If one charity was fully funded, why do we need other charities?

Isn’t more generally better than less?  Isn’t it better that more people want to help others?

The main issue with the UN is the barricade of diplomacy and the veto system that seems outdated (why is France there?) and lacks representation.  Like, the only times they actually decide on something is when either the Russian or Chinese diplomat walks out!  That’s not functional.  (They are about as functional as the US Senate…)

The UN needs severe improvement and social enterprises are doing great work to help others so why stop?