those who voted pro-citizen rule, defend your vote
The Yogyogan Islands
most of the posts that concern the present resolution at vote are anti-Citizen Rule and have made very valid arguments. i also voted AGAINST the UN resolution not seeing the logic of how citizen rule will deter rogue (or rouge) nations and promote international peace as was put in the description of the resolution. what confounds me is the lack of posts and arguments made by those who voted FOR the resolution who are clearly the majority based on the results so far. why don't these people come out and defend their vote? did these people merely vote for the resolution for the sake of the furtherment of democracy without taking into account the repercussions the approval of this vote might have on those countries that choose not to practice democracy? if so, then it is clear that these people have been brainwashed into thinking that the western ideology of democracy is good, without the faintest idea as to why it is so, and will vote for anything that promotes democracy so that everyone will conform to their ideas without saying why. i don't even know why an option of "the furtherment of democracy" was even placed in choices of proposal since it is clearly biased against countries that aren't democratic. don't get me wrong, i don't abhor democracy or in any way against it, i just think that the choice of practicing democracy should be made by the country itself and not by a world governing body (the UN) which has no place in the domestic affairs of the countries that are its members. pro-resolution people, where are you now? :?:
I've already spoken on this matter. By denying people the right to contribute to the legal system they are to adhere to, you will have resentment and quite possibly the eventual overthrow of your leadership. This is actually a very good idea because then your citizens will believe they have power when they actually don't. The more they believe they have some sort of say in the matter, the easier it is to rule them. A dictatorship under the disguise of democracy. So it's good all around.
Dr. Wes Beasley
The People's Republic of Supercomputer
Gaymenistan believes that some level of democracy is generally a means by which an oppressive minority can be prevented from violating people's rights. It is equally important, however, that the majority not violate the rights of any minority.
The resolution in question does nothing to require that any level of government refrain from violating individual rights. Furthermore, it does little to encourage active participation in democratic freedoms. A dictatorship could easily comply with the resolution by devolving authority over what colors people may wear to local boards and letting the population elect those boards. In such a scenerio, the dictator could even reserve veto power over the board. Thus, the resolution would not protect freedom of expression, property rights, privacy, etc.
This is why so few defenses of this resolution have been made and why we have voted against it.
I find the lack of meaningful input from those who are supporting the resolution to be very disturbing; the most input I've seen to date has been along the lines of 'well, we know that freedom is a good thing so we're voting for it - even though it's vague and we know it might not actually -mean- that'.
The absolute most that this resolution can do if passed is nothing, unless -further- resolutions are passed, on a UN level or country-by-country, dictating what those 'freedoms' are. If the UN passes such a restriction, it steps outside of its own stated boundaries, and voids itself.
If a country chooses to or chooses not to, it has no difference than a non-UN resolution.
What disturbs me about this is that the few I have seen so far defending this resolution are saying one of two things - either :
1) Yeah, man, I dunno what it means, but freedom's good, right? So I'm voting for it
2) Freedom is good and this will give the freedom to the people and if you don't vote for it you're oppressing your people and will be overthrown, so you better vote for it!
Allow me to take a few minutes to deconstruct these arguments.
1) If you don't know what the resolution means, voting for it is nonsensical. I could, if I chose, draft a resolution which suggests every nation legalize incest, and make it tricky enough that few would understand it. I could then say it actually means almost anything, and people would vote for it.
Corollary to 1) : Freedom is a commodity and a privelege, not a right. A soldier is not 'free', though he and you are both told that he fights for and may die for your freedom, in certain countries. It also is not as prevalent as you may think; freedom must be defined. The freedom to do what? Micturate on your neighbour's lawn? Free enterprise? License to kill?
If you do not define -what- the resolution is supposed to do, then even if passed, it defeats itself, as every nation will place its own definition on it and go away and do its own thing; thus, a waste of the UN's time and resources, as well as that of every participation nation.
2) See corollary to 1). As well, there is the underlying foundation of revolution, which is not freedom or its lack; freedoms MUST be defined in order to be given or taken away. A citizen of a given country may have the freedom to speak his mind. He might also be too busy watching Survivor to notice it being curtailed or taken away. A citizen of another country may have the freedom to take multiple wives. If the first country says that is not permissible, are the people being oppressed?
Yet, those are the only two arguments I've seen to date, though in a couple of variant forms. Of course, I suspect that none of them will read this, or if they do, they will not give input as to why they voted the way they have, let alone change their vote. Which is frustrating, considering the basic purpose of the UN.
I voted for the resolution. I support democracy (not representative democracy.)
The proposal actually seems to me to be quite loosely defined. And that's fine. It doesn't have to define what freedom is, and what people will be or won't be free to do. That's up to the people in the individual countries. Maybe the people in the countries wouldn't change anything, or maybe a lot of things will change. It's up to the general populace of the country.
i believe that this proposal is too mild in its terminoligy and have writen a new proposal titled "" Power of the People"" this bill would be more effective in shoveing the foul tasteing concoction that is democracy down my throught. i write this proposal to see if any one actualy reads the proposals or if they just click a button. this is a well writen and specific proposal that forces each and every country to elect a ruler or ruleing body and nominates yearly a individual to watch the decisions of said govenrning bodies and at any point and time this watch dog may call for a vote by the populace to over turn a decision of the ruleing body.
see if you can get my proposal which is evil and extreemly specific passed. time for you freedom freaks to put up or shut up.
The Yogyogan Islands
so basically this resolution does not have any bearing as to the government structure of any of the UN participating countries whatsoever because a) it goes beyond the UN jurisdiction and may therefore be considered void and b) even it is enforced there is no way the UN can tell how a country may interpret the resolution since it is so broad, vaguely worded and ill concieved that they cannot tell what type and how much freedom i choose to give my citizens. regardless, this still doesn't excuse the pro resolution people from a legitimate excuse. all i've heard so far is because "i support democracy" which seems to be the common defense of all pro resolution people (no offense Jello Biafra) but what i was looking for is why do you support democracy or is there any other reason besides this? is it because democracy promotes freedom of speech and the like? can't dictatorships, communists or fascists have freedom of speech? too much freedom may lead anarchism which must be avoided at all costs. and despite the people's lack of certain privileges in non-democratic countries, the ruling body will make sure that the country's interest will be the basis of all government decisions making citizen participation in government activity unecessary.
thanks for all your input.