NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution does absolutely nothing that a properly functioning legal system doesn't do. Worse than useless, though, it erodes the sovereignty of all UN member states and provides a shield for would-be defendants behind which to hide their actually negligent practices.

To use one of the resolution's examples, if a woman spills coffee on herself and is burned, should she be able to sue? What if it became known that the coffee at that particular store was kept at 170 degrees F, which would cause burns, and generally accepted industry standards were to keep coffee at 120 degrees F, which would not cause burns? Are the woman's burns still the result of her own "idiotic negligence"? I think the answer's obvious. This resolution, however, would reward the negligent store at the victim's expense.

The threat of legal action is a vital part of the checks and balances of any free market system. This resolution, with its crater-sized loopholes and wrongheaded premise, would remove that balancing force in a completely useless feel-good gesture. Again, any decent legal system will weed out the baseless cases, and without simultaneously dismissing those cases that have merit. That is the job of the courts. Remove them from the equation and who decides what "idiotic negligence" is? Who gets to choose which cases get dismissed? Do plaintiffs get to present any evidence or testimony before their "idiotically negligent" case is summarily dismissed? If so, how does the resolution accomplish any reduction of workload, or anything for that matter, other than subjecting each nation's court system to UN control?

I urge everyone to keep your own courts under your own control and vote against this resolution.

This resolution does absolutely nothing that a properly functioning legal system doesn't do. Worse than useless, though, it erodes the sovereignty of all UN member states and provides a shield for would-be defendants behind which to hide their actually negligent practices.

To use one of the resolutions examples, if a woman spills coffee on herself and is burned, should she be able to sue? What if it became known that the coffee at that particular store was kept at 170 degrees F, which would cause burns, and generally accepted industry standards were to keep coffee at 120 degrees F, which would not cause burns? Are the woman's burns still the result of her own "idiotic negligence"? I think the answer's obvious. This resolution, however, would reward the negligent store at the victim's expense.

The threat of legal action is a vital part of the checks and balances of any free market system. This resolution, with its crater-sized loopholes and wrongheaded premise, would remove that balancing force in a completely useless feel-good gesture. Again, any decent legal system will weed out the baseless cases, and without simultaneously dismissing those cases that have merit. That is the job of the courts. Remove them from the equation and who decides what "idiotic negligence" is? Who gets to choose which cases get dismissed? Do plaintiffs get to present any evidence or testimony before their "idiotically negligent" case is summarily dismissed? If so, how does the resolution accomplish any reduction of workload, or anything for that matter, other than subjecting each nation's court system to UN control?

I urge everyone to keep your own courts under your own control and vote against this resolution.

Agreed! I haven't been on the boards much (School just started) but I was much dismayed that the NS UN hasn't gotten any better at awarding states their own right to self-rule. In fact they've grown worse.

My nation is my own. My courts, my own. Nay, my peoples, since we are a republic! Let my people decide whether or not they want such an act passed upon them! We are not children who need to be lead around by the big UN (who is the real child). We are booming and not so booming nations and economies whom rule with our people's consent and trust. My people want to be protected? I will protect them. Even if it means leaving NS UN.

http://www.angelfire.com/un/update/


By the way, if anyone writing the Un proposals read the Charter of the UN, they would understand how way-off-base they are!!!!! Get a copy of the stinkin' Un Charter and read it!!!!!! The first few paragraphs striclty forbids this type of workings!

~Korunida~

This proposal is so dumb. it makes no sense. This is the kinda crap why i left the UN

Aye, while the UN has had questionable resolutions going through the flood gates like wind, this is definetely a rotten cherry on the top.

Sometimes the UN feels like a collective of naive kids in a sandbox, yet at other times a serious organization. Then there are the times when it becomes a horde of tyrants presuming that "common sense" is dogmatic philosophy to be applied to all countries through the power of majority.

Like said, a resolution like this is an offense at the independence and right to internal decisions of all member nations.

(OOC: reminds me a bit of the European Union and it's own, little resolutions to forbid this and that, and cause ridiculous confusion. Such as attempting to ban tobacco pipe shaped liquorice sweets, because they provocate youths to start smoking. Maybe they could use some of that ever-famous "common sense".)

The resolution assumes that there is going to be full disclosure about the negatives of all new products made legal by all governments.A fanciful idea.

It seems that lots of nations are incensed about this idiotic proposal yet the bloody thing is holding its lead in the vote. Sorry, but it makes no sense. Does some fool hold a shit load of proxies or something?

There has hardly been a positive position for the proposal put by any of the 5000 or so nations that voting FOR. Why? The only logical conclusion is that this organisation is riddled with infuriating numbskulls who like shallow and infantile solutions to complex problems.

Some nations have advocated leaving the UN and while this is understandable under these cicumstances, we suggest there must be a better way to organise against such puerile proposals rather than individualising our protest. Go to the "Call for Unity against Idiotic Legislation" post and let us try and nut out some ideas.

Peoples Commissar
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

Because most delegates are acting like sheep...they don't read the forums, but they just glance at the resolution, say "Hmmm, it looks good...", and vote for it.

I've been telegramming delegates with links to these threads, and I've been having a little success, but not much.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

There is only one reason i voted for this stupid resolution (and yes it is stupid). I saw who was protesting against it and i thought to myself ... "This would be an ideal oppertunity to put in a protest vote for all those times these individuals passed a resolution that was equally as stupid and unfair to my nation".

Now they know that there are alot of people in the UN that will pass just about any thing. Maybe now when they try and put a new resolution through they may show more concern for those nations that have their reservations.

The following proposals were equally "stupid" as Common Sense Act II, and violated national sovereignty even more:

Mandatory Recycling
Replanting Trees
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Free Education
Metric System
Required Basic Healthcare
Due Process
Fair Trial

If you voted for any of these resolutions, you have no right to complain that Common Sense Act II violates your National Sovereignty, nor should you complain that it is stupid, as your argument instantly vanishes as soon as you see a resolution which fits your particular political agenda!

I support this law... Why? Because it allows me something that I want to do anyway, but have never had a issue in which to deal with it...

The UN law is hardly limiting in it's terms. I believe it was left open for that purpose. As the UN passes it will become each country's responsibility to come up with which laws are common sense or not.

The degree at which coffee can be served could greatly vary from country to country. As a example.

If I was given a 'issue' on this issue, I would not support his law. However, the means does justify the end in this case IMHO.

The following proposals were equally "stupid" as Common Sense Act II, and violated national sovereignty even more:

Mandatory Recycling
Replanting Trees
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Free Education
Metric System
Required Basic Healthcare
Due Process
Fair Trial

If you voted for any of these resolutions, you have no right to complain that Common Sense Act II violates your National Sovereignty, nor should you complain that it is stupid, as your argument instantly vanishes as soon as you see a resolution which fits your particular political agenda!

I'm considering a proposal to withdraw those which overstep the role of the UN.

If I were a delegate with many many endorsements I might have a chance at reforming the UN, but as it is the situation is hopeless.
This is an extremely anti-liberal resolution as it will empower corporations even more and the gap between rich and poor will increase.

I am totally disgusted with the UN and have posted the following on my regional board:

"This current resolution is horrible. I do not want to implement it in my nation, which may force me to resign. I don't think the UN has the right to tell me how to run my own court system. Most resolutions are bad because they violate national sovereignty, anyway. Most resolutions have passed with *More* than 2/3, however if the 2/3 rule were in effect this one might not make it. As it is my vote in the UN is totally meaningless, yes totally, because almost every resolution has passed with huge margins.

The hopelessness is a self fullfilling prophesy. If there were a significant number interested in reforming the UN, there would be reason to remain in the UN but I think that it is time for me to resign and possibly leave nationstates altogether."

The following proposals were equally "stupid" as Common Sense Act II, and violated national sovereignty even more:

Mandatory Recycling
Replanting Trees
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Free Education
Metric System
Required Basic Healthcare
Due Process
Fair Trial

If you voted for any of these resolutions, you have no right to complain that Common Sense Act II violates your National Sovereignty, nor should you complain that it is stupid, as your argument instantly vanishes as soon as you see a resolution which fits your particular political agenda!

I'm considering a proposal to withdraw those which overstep the role of the UN.

No harm in trying, but resolutions to repeal don't get enough endorsements to be voted upon. But if you submit it I would like to see the pedophile act included.

The following proposals were equally "stupid" as Common Sense Act II, and violated national sovereignty even more:

Mandatory Recycling
Replanting Trees
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Free Education
Metric System
Required Basic Healthcare
Due Process
Fair Trial

If you voted for any of these resolutions, you have no right to complain that Common Sense Act II violates your National Sovereignty, nor should you complain that it is stupid, as your argument instantly vanishes as soon as you see a resolution which fits your particular political agenda!

I'm considering a proposal to withdraw those which overstep the role of the UN.

I personally believe that "Required Basic Healthcare" should be left in. This is an issue that could easily fall under the mandate of the UN. It's not saying plastic surgery or any thing like that. It says "basic" I believe every human has a right to basic healthcare.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Er, citing a bunch of legislation that you deem 'stupid' is a pretty lame excuse to justify proposing an idiotic proposal of your own. Feeling left out were you?

Anyway, Stakanovia didn't vote in favour for any of these proposals as they were inadequate and sometimes badly presented. Get my drift here?

Undersecretary
Polemic Secrétariat
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

This resolution has nothing to do with common sense at all. There are times when manufacturers and service providers are negligent in their warnings or in the production of a product or service. This resolution erodes the sovereignty of nations and violates the civil rights of the consumers. If a court case is frivelous it should be dealt with by the courts and court costs paid to the party that has been sued. If there is a valid claim to be made, then it is equally the court's responsibility to make that decision and to determine damages.

This resolution stretches the definition of "civil rights" to a point of making it meaningless. This resolution should not pass!

I personally believe that "Required Basic Healthcare" should be left in. This is an issue that could easily fall under the mandate of the UN. It's not saying plastic surgery or any thing like that. It says "basic" I believe every human has a right to basic healthcare.

Peace,
Stephanie.[/quote]

Replanting Trees definitely qualifies, since they supply our oxygen. If *anything* is justifiably within the UN's juristiction, it is global problems which require global solutions. For example, the World has every right to require that Brazil stops clear cutting in the Amazon. It supplies, what, 80% of the planet's O2? Moreover, a certain amount of woodland is necessary to preserve freshwater aquafiers and prevent topsoil erosion. Otherwise, countries that clear-cut today have famines tomorrow - or their neighbors do through no fault of their own.

The following proposals were equally "stupid" as Common Sense Act II, and violated national sovereignty even more:

Mandatory Recycling
Replanting Trees
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Free Education
Metric System
Required Basic Healthcare
Due Process
Fair Trial

If you voted for any of these resolutions, you have no right to complain that Common Sense Act II violates your National Sovereignty, nor should you complain that it is stupid, as your argument instantly vanishes as soon as you see a resolution which fits your particular political agenda!

I'm considering a proposal to withdraw those which overstep the role of the UN.

I personally believe that "Required Basic Healthcare" should be left in. This is an issue that could easily fall under the mandate of the UN. It's not saying plastic surgery or any thing like that. It says "basic" I believe every human has a right to basic healthcare.

Peace,
Stephanie.

Especially since it was later repealed...I've actually considered introducing a resolution to reinstate it.

No harm in trying, but resolutions to repeal don't get enough endorsements to be voted upon. But if you submit it I would like to see the pedophile act included.

I'm actually rethinking my position on my pedophilia resolution...I'm beginning to see that it may have overstepped the UN mandate. At the very least, I should have phrased that along the lines of
RESOLVED, That all children have the right to be safe from sexual molestation.
But Stephistan's excellent "Child Protection Act" makes that kind of superfluous.

The following proposals were equally "stupid" as Common Sense Act II, and violated national sovereignty even more:

Mandatory Recycling
Replanting Trees
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Free Education
Metric System
Required Basic Healthcare
Due Process
Fair Trial

If you voted for any of these resolutions, you have no right to complain that Common Sense Act II violates your National Sovereignty, nor should you complain that it is stupid, as your argument instantly vanishes as soon as you see a resolution which fits your particular political agenda!

So people can't change over time?

Anyway, I personally don't think resolutions that guarantee personal rights (as some of those did) overstep the UN mandate.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Well it's better than replating trees....

Seems to me that the great silent majority of Nationstates players have risen up.

The following proposals were equally "stupid" as Common Sense Act II, and violated national sovereignty even more:

Mandatory Recycling
Replanting Trees
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Free Education
Metric System
Required Basic Healthcare
Due Process
Fair Trial

If you voted for any of these resolutions, you have no right to complain that Common Sense Act II violates your National Sovereignty, nor should you complain that it is stupid, as your argument instantly vanishes as soon as you see a resolution which fits your particular political agenda!

I'm considering a proposal to withdraw those which overstep the role of the UN.

I personally believe that "Required Basic Healthcare" should be left in. This is an issue that could easily fall under the mandate of the UN. It's not saying plastic surgery or any thing like that. It says "basic" I believe every human has a right to basic healthcare.

Peace,
Stephanie.

I am personally opposed to even the "Required Basic Healthcare". This should be decided by the individual governments of each nation.

I voted for the common sense act to come to quorom but have been quickly chastised by the conservative/libertarian types in the Capitalist Alliance. The CA is overwhelmingly against this proposal and Eli will vote against it when the polling places close in the CA. There are no paper ballots!

The Kingdom of Argana wish to once again note its objection to this resolution. I have been requested by my government to state that a vote has already been taken by our senate and passed with an overwhelming majority. Should this resolution pass we will reject it will all diplomatic force.

Even though this rejection may not be within the spirit of the UN and nations must accept passed resolutions, it is not within the spirit of the UN to DICTATE how a sovereign nation's legal systems function.

For those nations and especially delegates who have voted for this resolution, by voting for this on a feel good motive you are eroding EVERYTHING you hold dear, your freedom, your sovereignty.

Ask yourselves what next will be eroded by resolutions like this and one day, when your government tries to make a law and realise it can't because its sovereign rights have been slowly removed, you will understand what is to be mere puppet nation and nothing more.

Conrad Jeckel
Royal Advisor - Regional Diplomatic Affairs
The Kingdom of Argana

Imagine if Common Sense Act II was actually passed in any real society. The lunatics would truly have taken over that asylum. This act would only be required - with thousands of other incredibly specific ones - where existing legal systems and judges had no common sense of their own whatsoever, and no prospect of acquiring any.

Imagine if Common Sense Act II was actually passed in any real society. The lunatics would truly have taken over that asylum. This act would only be required - with thousands of other incredibly specific ones - where existing legal systems and judges had no common sense of their own whatsoever, and no prospect of acquiring any.