One of the ideas behind the U.N., IIRC, was to bring nations together that weren’t in agreement about anything. That included the non-democratic countries. Your exclusion of these people doesn’t sound good. I’m not arguing that having these countries in the U.N. gains anything as things stand now. But, like LBJ said, “I’d rather have a snake inside my tent and pissin’ out, than outside my tent and pissin’ in.”

Your bill of rights, or the U.S. BOR, is acceptable to most nations. Not, however, to all. How can you force, for instance, Iran or China to agree what constitutes a fair trial? Or freedom of speech? Universal suffrage is admirable, but a country has to first believe in the equality of men and women.

The U.N. does not have an army, per se. If the referendums you suggest are to be held, each country must do that on their own. And doing so because you’re holding guns to their heads doesn’t sound like a good idea.

No country is going to give up control of their military. Period. Membership in the U.N., no matter how you construct it, is going to guarantee, to Country A’s satisfaction, safety from attack by Country B. Fact of life.

To bring about world peace, the attitudes of everyone on the planet has to change. Acceptance, tolerance, education, etc., etc., etc., are ideals. Not facts of life. And not embraced by everyone. Hell, the definitions aren’t even universal.

I tend to be cynical/skeptical. I like to think I’m also pragmatic. And pragmatically speaking, wonderful idea, not humanly possible.