NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: Reaffrming our undying commitment to liberty, be it resolved by this honorable United Nations that the following measures shall be passed in all member nations:

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.
Article II- That in all legal matters, the prosecutor or plantiff shall carry the burden of proof, and all accused persons shall enjoy a presumption of innocence.
Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot).
Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs.
Article V- That all persons shall have the right to petition the government and assemble nonviolently.
Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion.
Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will, nor be forced into involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime for which the said individual shall have been duly convicted.
Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.
Article IX- That inventors shall be entitled to protection from international patents for a period of no less than eighteen months from the time of invention.
Article X- That government shall neither abridge nor expand the rights or responsibilities of any citizen on account of "race".

All legislation in conflict with these acts are hereby null and void.

These acts named in greatest honor of Marcus Portius Cato the Younger (95-46 BC), who died valiantly trying to protect the Republic from the yoke of Caesar.

Here's my brief defense of each article:

Article I- This will spread democracy throughout the world. Nontaxpayers of course can be enfranchised too, but it isn't a requirement.
Article II- This is obvious. The affirmative side carries the burden of proof. This will effect the presumption of innocence and defned the rights of the accused.
Article III- "...Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. Those once oppressed peoples who's leaders at last lost their grip on information soon burst with freedom and vitality, while that free nation that gradually tightened its grip on information began the slow descent into tyranny..." --RW UN Declaration of Rights
Article IV- This is to prevent political crimes. Note that a physical action can still be punished, just not holding a belief. This goes hand in hand with Article III.
Article V- Read Article III.
Article VI- Because "God exists" is an affirmative claim, and no evidence exists to support that, political entites should function on the presumption that there is no God (I personally do believe in a God).
Article VII- The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, changed a little and clarified to include Conscription. Conscription is unjust because it de facto forces civilians to become soldiers and therefore forces the opposing nation to kill what should be considered civilians.
Article VIII- Arguably the most important of these articles, this will allow people the freedom of choice to move around. Notice it doesn't say public individuals, this is to prevent people taking government secrets, etc. But by giving the people the right to defect, then each country will allow its citizens to choose what system they want to live in.
Article IX- 18 months is a pretty short period. This is just to give inventors a little protection so they have incentive to invent.
Article X- Race doesn't scientifically exist. Racism only exists if the government says it does.

Debate here!

[OOC: As an interesting side note, I was ranked about #300 for largest arms manufacturing sector, but I'm about #71,500 for largest defense forces. I think I should get the "most well-armed citizenry" award :lol:]

"Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government."

Even convicted felons? I think this should be left up to the individual states.

"Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will,"

This too should be left up to the states. Sometimes enlistment may be necessary in view of a larger outside threat. It isn't the UN's place to say it is wrong. Someone else's neck is in danger.

"Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion. "

What about all those friendly theocracies out there? Or even such nice nations like England? They sure like the Anglican church. I think we should leave religion and the state up to the states themselves.

"Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot)."

Are these the _only_ exceptions? What if the danger is clear but not imminent? Or imminent but not clear on the details? Or if it is harmful (economically, politically, socially) to individuals, but is not a physical danger? This article is far too short ended.

"Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government."

Even convicted felons? I think this should be left up to the individual states.

People in jail don't pay taxes.

"Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will,"

This too should be left up to the states. Sometimes enlistment may be necessary in view of a larger outside threat. It isn't the UN's place to say it is wrong. Someone else's neck is in danger.

Welcome to the modern age. Numbers no longer matter. In WWII you had armes of several million... do you see that nowadays? No! The nationstates UN is NOT the real UN. It is a legislative body, read the FAQ, it's more of a Congress than a United nations.

"Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion. "

What about all those friendly theocracies out there? Or even such nice nations like England? They sure like the Anglican church. I think we should leave religion and the state up to the states themselves.

I've already explained my position on this.

"Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot)."

Are these the _only_ exceptions? What if the danger is clear but not imminent? Or imminent but not clear on the details? Or if it is harmful (economically, politically, socially) to individuals, but is not a physical danger? This article is far too short ended.

Wait... so if I swear at you and you're offended... I can be censored?

REad the Bill of No Rights... you do NOT have the right never to be offended. And as for economnically harmful, there is an exception for piracy, if that's what you're talking about.

"People in jail don't pay taxes."

In the US, if you were ever a convicted felon, you can no longer vote. One you are out of jail, you can work and you can pay taxes - but you still can't vote.

"Welcome to the modern age. Numbers no longer matter."

How do you figure? Unless you want to resort to weapons of mass destruction, numbers matter a great deal.

"The nationstates UN is NOT the real UN. It is a legislative body, read the FAQ, it's more of a Congress than a United nations."

The FAQ says nothing of the UN being like the world's Congress. The UN is what the constituents of the UN make it. If the constituents value sovereignty they will not restrict their own ability to make laws unnecessarily. Nobody wants to have their hands tied.

"I've already explained my position on this."

I must've missed it. I'm new here.

"Wait... so if I swear at you and you're offended... I can be censored?"

Hardly what I was saying at all. What about protection of a minor by not making their name public when they are charged with a crime? Or making public military information which _may_ put troops in danger? Or perhaps just lying and slandering people's names? These issues are not regarded in your article. I find it doesn't meet the needs.

Btw, how do you make quotes go into those convenient lightened boxes?

In the US, if you were ever a convicted felon, you can no longer vote. One you are out of jail, you can work and you can pay taxes - but you still can't vote.

You should be allowed to. How many convicted felons will there be... you assume that they are reformed.

How do you figure? Unless you want to resort to weapons of mass destruction, numbers matter a great deal.

Technology. We attacked Iraq with 250,000 troops. They had double our troops and they took like 500 times more losses.

The FAQ says nothing of the UN being like the world's Congress. The UN is what the constituents of the UN make it. If the constituents value sovereignty they will not restrict their own ability to make laws unnecessarily. Nobody wants to have their hands tied.

It calls the UN a "governing body"

I must've missed it. I'm new here.

Okay, since "God exists" is an affirmative claim, it warrants the burden of proof. But because you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, then government should run on the presumption that God doesn't.

Hardly what I was saying at all. What about protection of a minor by not making their name public when they are charged with a crime?

You have hte right to do this, unless the minor was involved in drugs or something and revealing his whereabouts would result in the mafia coming to kill him (clear and imminent harm)

Or making public military information which _may_ put troops in danger?

This falls under the contractual obligation clause, because you are obligated by recieving secret government files not to disclose. This same thing applies to things like attorney-client privilege.

Or perhaps just lying and slandering people's names? These issues are not regarded in your article. I find it doesn't meet the needs.

They could slander back. If excessive harm is done then they could make a case for it being clear and imminent harm and file a suit.

Btw, how do you make quotes go into those convenient lightened boxes?

Click quote to one of my things and look :).

VOTE AGAINST THIS ACT OF WORLD DEMOCRACY!!

Rioters appear outside of The Global Markets Government buildings with protest signs

Let the people of the UN choose how they want to run their nations! Out with democracy! In with the will of the leader!

VOTE AGAINST THIS ACT OF WORLD DEMOCRACY!!

Rioters appear outside of The Global Markets Government buildings with protest signs

Let the people of the UN choose how they want to run their nations! Out with democracy! In with the will of the leader!

Until the Cato Acts become law, the rioters are denied the Right to Assemble and the crowd is dispersed! :twisted:

VOTE AGAINST THIS ACT OF WORLD DEMOCRACY!!

Rioters appear outside of The Global Markets Government buildings with protest signs

Let the people of the UN choose how they want to run their nations! Out with democracy! In with the will of the leader!

Until the Cato Acts become law, the rioters are denied the Right to Assemble and the crowd is dispersed! :twisted:

Damn you democratic/republic fool!

Rioters attack the buildings with M16s

VOTE AGAINST THIS ACT OF WORLD DEMOCRACY!!

Rioters appear outside of The Global Markets Government buildings with protest signs

Let the people of the UN choose how they want to run their nations! Out with democracy! In with the will of the leader!

Until the Cato Acts become law, the rioters are denied the Right to Assemble and the crowd is dispersed! :twisted:

Damn you democratic/republic fool!

Rioters attack the buildings with M16s

Oh yeah, that's right, I have the most well-armed citizenry award.

[OOC: As an interesting side note, I was ranked about #300 for largest arms manufacturing sector, but I'm about #71,500 for largest defense forces. I think I should get the "most well-armed citizenry" award :lol:]

The peoples of my country shall not and will not put up with this..this EVIL democracy ::spits:: being forced upon them. They do as I tell them and they have no problem with that. Life is simpler this way, they don't have to worry about dragging their tired butts to the booths every year to make votes that they will regret within days of making them.

Me, and my brother nations, must stand against this resolution.

VOTE NO

Why let the UN make such a broad governing rule over how your government operates. This is only the first step to complete control over your nation, leaving your government as litttle more than a figure head with no say in the day to day operations of your state.

The peoples of my country shall not and will not put up with this..this EVIL democracy ::spits:: being forced upon them. They do as I tell them and they have no problem with that. Life is simpler this way, they don't have to worry about dragging their tired butts to the booths every year to make votes that they will regret within days of making them.

Me, and my brother nations, must stand against this resolution.

VOTE NO

Why let the UN make such a broad governing rule over how your government operates. This is only the first step to complete control over your nation, leaving your government as litttle more than a figure head with no say in the day to day operations of your state.

The whole point of this resolution is to decrease government control over the people. This may temporarily increase UN power, but it will decrease UN power as well, since the UN will have to abide by Cato too.

Im 51st for defense and 14th for arms manufacturing. Kiss my ass.

Im 51st for defense and 14th for arms manufacturing. Kiss my ass.

You're also 500 million people bigger than me. Good job though. I think the only top 20 rank I've gotten was for Uranium Mining (#19 last), though I might be in top 20 for most liberal now (I was like #70-something last time) :).

But 300-71,500 is still a much bigger gap than 14-51 :)

Im 51st for defense and 14th for arms manufacturing. Kiss my ass.

You're also 500 million people bigger than me. Good job though. I think the only top 20 rank I've gotten was for Uranium Mining (#19 last), though I might be in top 20 for most liberal now (I was like #70-something last time) :).

But 300-71,500 is still a much bigger gap than 14-51 :)

Indeed it is...

Uranium i think im also 14..well i was last time. Im probably about 10th now. Anywho. I need some money. Goodbye.

You should be allowed to. How many convicted felons will there be... you assume that they are reformed.

I assume nothing. I think it should be up to the states themselves to decide what to do with their felons. If they have a policy of shorter prison sentences in return for a gradual return of civil rights, perhaps that works better. It is not the UN's call to make.

Technology. We attacked Iraq with 250,000 troops. They had double our troops and they took like 500 times more losses.

And in a case where technology is appriximately equal? Numbers then count much more. If the US went to war with China today, are you sure you know who'd win?

It calls the UN a "governing body"

So? That's as general a term as I can possibly imagine. It can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Okay, since "God exists" is an affirmative claim, it warrants the burden of proof. But because you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, then government should run on the presumption that God doesn't.

It is rare that any government runs on a policy that they can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." Can you prove deomocracy is the best way of doing things? Can you prove global warming is caused by pollution and burning of fossil fuels? Or can it merely be a natural event in the course of the planet? The point is you can't prove beyonf a reasonable doubt that it is so, but you run on the assumption based on a preponderance of the evidence that it is so.

Besides, the government running on one presumption or another has no bearing on endorsing or censuring a religion. If someone's religion involves human sacrifices, the government would probably censure it.

In any case, your argument cannot be made for the governments of the individual states. Perhaps they hold undeniable evidence that their god exists and they do not want to share. Maybe a state's religion has a god who is the ruler at the time. They can point out the ruler and says "look there's my God." You're going to prove them wrong?

You have hte right to do this unless the minor was involved in drugs or something and revealing his whereabouts would result in the mafia coming to kill him (clear and imminent harm)

Are you familiar with the common practice of not allowing the names of minors accused of crimes to the public based on the logic that it will ruin their lives and possibility of a return to normal life if their names are made public and given noteriety. The harm is not imminent - it is long term. Your article does not take this into account. Yet it is just as valid.

This falls under the contractual obligation clause, because you are obligated by recieving secret government files not to disclose. This same thing applies to things like attorney-client privilege.

What contractual obligation? I Joe Shmoe newpaper publisher have a contact in the Pentagon. I signed no contract. I can then do whatever I want with secret files? Again, your article falls far short.

They could slander back. If excessive harm is done then they could make a case for it being clear and imminent harm and file a suit.

Two wrongs now make a right? What if one party is a well known politician and the other is an anonymous civilian. Who gets hurt by slander here? And what exactly do you mean by harm? This was not made clear at all in the article.

I assume nothing. I think it should be up to the states themselves to decide what to do with their felons. If they have a policy of shorter prison sentences in return for a gradual return of civil rights, perhaps that works better. It is not the UN's call to make.

This isn't the real UN, it's the nationstates UN.

And in a case where technology is appriximately equal? Numbers then count much more. If the US went to war with China today, are you sure you know who'd win?

First of all the US has much better technology than China. Secondly, if the US went to war with China, both sides would nuke each other and all life on Earth would die. If anything, this resolution will encourage world peace by rpeventing nations from amassing gigantic armies.

It is rare that any government runs on a policy that they can prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." Can you prove deomocracy is the best way of doing things? Can you prove global warming is caused by pollution and burning of fossil fuels? Or can it merely be a natural event in the course of the planet? The point is you can't prove beyonf a reasonable doubt that it is so, but you run on the assumption based on a preponderance of the evidence that it is so.

No of course you can't, but there no evidence for the existence of God, whereas democracy has been very effective in the past, and I personally do not think global warming is mainly due to fossil fuels, although it has been proved beyond a resaonble doubt that fossil fuels contribuet to it, even if they aren't teh main cause.

Besides, the government running on one presumption or another has no bearing on endorsing or censuring a religion. If someone's religion involves human sacrifices, the government would probably censure it.

No, they censure the ACT of human sacrifice, not hte BELIEFS of the religion.

In any case, your argument cannot be made for the governments of the individual states. Perhaps they hold undeniable evidence that their god exists and they do not want to share. Maybe a state's religion has a god who is the ruler at the time. They can point out the ruler and says "look there's my God." You're going to prove them wrong?

I don't have to. As the affirmative, they have the burden of proof.

Are you familiar with the common practice of not allowing the names of minors accused of crimes to the public based on the logic that it will ruin their lives and possibility of a return to normal life if their names are made public and given noteriety. The harm is not imminent - it is long term. Your article does not take this into account. Yet it is just as valid.

Because the harm starts imminently, than it is an imminent harm.

What contractual obligation? I Joe Shmoe newpaper publisher have a contact in the Pentagon. I signed no contract. I can then do whatever I want with secret files? Again, your article falls far short.

It's an implied contract... like if you buy music it's implied that you won't copy the files and post it on P2P web exchanges.

Two wrongs now make a right? What if one party is a well known politician and the other is an anonymous civilian. Who gets hurt by slander here? And what exactly do you mean by harm? This was not made clear at all in the article.

Politicians should come forward with their own secrets. If you want to run for public office, you deserve to be slandered. We don't want any conspiring or corrupt politicians, now do we?

Article VI: should add a “as per Article II”.

Article III presents problems from whatever political position it is viewed.

Eastern Europe, 1989. In the wake of massive liberalisation and lifting of censorship there was a flourishing of otherwise suppressed publications which led directly to the overthrow of these state-communist regimes which in the particular case of Romania let to rioting and, indeed, small scale civil war. Eastern European presses, in some cases even the state owned ones, advocated the mass demonstrations and civil unrest which made the crumbling of these regimes possible.

I point out this instance because I presumed it would appeal to the proposer. A free press is, in some instances, correct in advocating a radical attack by the populace and in some cases the military on the structures of oppressive regimes.

It is not an Article that enshrines the principal of free speech and publication: it is exactly the opposite. Free speech doesn’t come with caveats.

Otherwise, it is quite reasonable.

Peoples Commissar
Superstructure & Praxis Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

Article VI: should add a “as per Article II”.

Article III presents problems from whatever political position it is viewed.

Eastern Europe, 1989. In the wake of massive liberalisation and lifting of censorship there was a flourishing of otherwise suppressed publications which led directly to the overthrow of these state-communist regimes which in the particular case of Romania let to rioting and, indeed, small scale civil war. Eastern European presses, in some cases even the state owned ones, advocated the mass demonstrations and civil unrest which made the crumbling of these regimes possible.

I point out this instance because I presumed it would appeal to the proposer. A free press is, in some instances, correct in advocating a radical attack by the populace and in some cases the military on the structures of oppressive regimes.

It is not an Article that enshrines the principal of free speech and publication: it is exactly the opposite. Free speech doesn’t come with caveats.

Otherwise, it is quite reasonable.

Peoples Commissar
Superstructure & Praxis Secrétariat
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

I agree. But this resolution merely provides the MINIMUM rights. You are encouraged to expand free speech BEYOND what is provided in the resolution. My country has more political speech rights that include the possibilty of inciting a riot.

No! The nationstates UN is NOT the real UN. It is a legislative body, read the FAQ, it's more of a Congress than a United nations.


The NSUN is not the real UN? My compliments, Global, you have mastered the art of the obvious. Now if you could only master the art of tolerance and acceptance. The NSUN is what the NS governments participating in the NSUN choose to make it.

(OOC) "While Nation States is not the real world U.N., it is certainly not rocket science to assume that the founder of the game Max Barry did intend for it to be in line with the real world. Not unlike the game expects its role players to keep it real." [Stephistan]

(IC)It is our obligation to maintain the fundamental right of all the world's nations to choose their own method of governance. Legislating democracy? Forcing people campaign and to vote? If ever there was a contradiction, this is it. Haven't we learned anything from meddling in the governments of other nations? One of the reasons the US is so resented and even hated around the world is its propensity for enacting policy in the spirit of CATO. Look how stable the regions are wherein democracy has been "inserted". If you truly believe in democracy as the best system of government, allow it to continue to evolve naturally and stop this incessant tinkering with the idea of sovereignty. The world is not here to act as your social laboratory!

Vote No on CATO and help to restore the NSUN to its orignal and appropriate mission!

Joeseph Harrington, Delegate
The Free Land of Idumea

Then it sets a base line which cannot be transgressed. That a supposedly free press, etc, cannot promote a riot. Seems a bit proscriptive. Surely a simple phare such as "That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged" would be adequate and be more of a solid bulwark against regressive political censorship.

Also, I'm surprise that an avowed liberatarian would let a contractual obligation impede in the excerising of free speech.

Then it sets a base line which cannot be transgressed. That a supposedly free press, etc, cannot promote a riot. Seems a bit proscriptive. Surely a simple phare such as "That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged" would be adequate and be more of a solid bulwark against regressive political censorship.

Also, I'm surprise that an avowed liberatarian would let a contractual obligation impede in the excerising of free speech.

No it sets the minimum, not the maximum. All resolutions do this. If I wrote "the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged", there are problems to that like priviledged communications.

Contractual obligations, including things like doctor-patient/attorney-client privledge and software piracy, would outweigh free speech sometimes. Don't get me wrong. I don't think that Napster is a criminal (civil offender perhaps, though I would perfer Napster not be censored because of the problems in doing so), but it becomes criminal if it pirates software and sells it for cash.

I disagree because it sets an exception to free speech. The concept of a "clear and imminent danger" is nebulous and clearly open to any interpretation that a particular government may chose to impose.

I take your second point however if what you intend by it is the use of free speech in the public domain or the transmission or use of information in the public domain that is considered detrimental to contractual, security or priviledge. Such as insider trading.

I disagree because it sets an exception to free speech. The concept of a "clear and imminent danger" is nebulous and clearly open to any interpretation that a particular government may chose to impose.

Okay, agreed. I know that there are loopholes. But you must walk before you can run.

I take your second point however if what you intend by it is the use of free speech in the public domain or the transmission or use of information in the public domain that is considered detrimental to contractual, security or priviledge. Such as insider trading.

Yes this is what I mean.

Possibly a compromise may be a referral to Article II whereby the state or individual must prove the offending 'free speech' to be 'detrimental' before any abridgment or suppression may occur.

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.

Every nation has a different taxation system. What if they say had a voting age of 16 but you could not leave school until 18? That means even though you can vote you most likely don't have a job, do not pay tax and as such cannot be represented in goverment. Also what if you don't tax the unemployed. the rammifications of this article go much further then what they appear to aim for.

Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot).

The last part about 'imminent danger' looks like a lovely loophole for every tyrnat and facist to use. "O sorry we thought those starving peasents gathering in the streets were about to throw dead pigeons at us, so we shot them as our law clearly says we can." What about the right of to form unions?

Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs.

What about private opionion? I think you have to right to think freely, but you shouldn';t be allowed to slander other people publicly.

Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion.

Even if that religion promotes illegal activites? Ie ritual slaughter, rape, drug use. Also it might not be something i personally agree with but i htink this article goes too far and attempts to restrict what goverments can and can't exist. What if your goverement is run by a peace loving theocracy?

Article VII- remove "his" for "their"

Article IX- should extend this to 3-5 years and i also recommend a clause that means no individual or company can 'own' genetic material whether they copywrited it or made it themselves.

Article X- That government shall neither abridge nor expand the rights or responsibilities of any citizen on account of "race" or "ethnicity"

Quote: "Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs."

Al-Qaida believe that they are doing God's will when they kill, and so could not be prosecuted.

Quote: "Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs."

Al-Qaida believe that they are doing God's will when they kill, and so could not be prosecuted.


They cannot be punished for their beliefs, but they can be for their ACTIONS.

"This isn't the real UN, it's the nationstates UN."

And so we should not endeavor to keep a modicum of resemblance? Clearly they are not the same body, otherwise this game would be a lot more important. But we can still try to keep it as realistic as possible.

"First of all the US has much better technology than China."

Much better? I'd say better, but not by all that much. And China has a whole lot more people to throw in harms way. Could be iffy.

"Secondly, if the US went to war with China, both sides would nuke each other and all life on Earth would die. If anything, this resolution will encourage world peace by rpeventing nations from amassing gigantic armies."

If the nations would resort to nukes in any case, how does keeping conscription down stop war?

"No of course you can't, but there no evidence for the existence of God,"

No evidence that you find convincing, but you can't speak for everyone.

"whereas democracy has been very effective in the past,"

Monarchies worked very well too. And for longer. Democracies are inherently unstable. I'm just busting down your need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't do it. The doubt is there.

"and I personally do not think global warming is mainly due to fossil fuels"

I never said mainly. And the point is, it doesn't matter what you think. Others might find the evidence convicning while you may not. You can't make universal rules on what people find to be convincing evidence.

"No, they censure the ACT of human sacrifice, not hte BELIEFS of the religion."

Human sacrifice is an integral part of the KillyerBUD religion. Censuring the act is tantamount to censuring the belief because the government is saying that they don't allow their souls to go to heaven. (In the KillyerBUD religion, the only way to go to heaven is by human sacrifice.) Such a "religion" **deserves** censure. This act ties the government's hands.

"I don't have to. As the affirmative, they have the burden of proof."

And they do. You didn't see their leader? He's right there. Look, he's waving right at you. He's God y'know.

"Because the harm starts imminently, than it is an imminent harm."

No, the harm is not imminent. That's the point. It is long term when he comes back into public life a long while later.

"It's an implied contract... like if you buy music it's implied that you won't copy the files and post it on P2P web exchanges."

Implied contract? You are stretching. Stretching bigtime. I Joe Shmoe had made no implied contract regarding any documents. When did I make one?

"Politicians should come forward with their own secrets. If you want to run for public office, you deserve to be slandered. We don't want any conspiring or corrupt politicians, now do we? "

Uh..slander means it is a lie. That's an untruth - not a secret. Big difference. Or do you think politicians should come forward with lies about themselves too?

Your proposal falls weak on many issues. Even if you can argue ti all away now and try to patch up the proposal, it doesn't change what the words say. If it fails, and I hope it will, you may repropose with changes that makes it less overbearing. As it is, it takes away more freedoms than it gives.

You got your history wrong.
The Roman Republic was dying from its own corruption. The problem is that many aristocrats, like your Cato, were clinging on to it. Caesar was a liberal. The reforms he was unilaterally passing were for the good of the people, things like land redisribution and canceling of debts. He had a new idea of how to run things, and they killed him for it. Not to save the Republic from tyranny, but to preserve their personal way of life.

You got your history wrong.
The Roman Republic was dying from its own corruption. The problem is that many aristocrats, like your Cato, were clinging on to it. Caesar was a liberal. The reforms he was unilaterally passing were for the good of the people, things like land redisribution and canceling of debts. He had a new idea of how to run things, and they killed him for it. Not to save the Republic from tyranny, but to preserve their personal way of life.

IC: Never heard of the Roman Republic.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Very well, let us argue each point individually:



Here's my brief defense of each article:

Article I- This will spread democracy throughout the world. Nontaxpayers of course can be enfranchised too, but it isn't a requirement.

Explain to me why spreading democracy throughout the world is a mission the UN should embrace. I am not arguing the merits of democracy - Idumea is a zealous democratic nation. However, there are literally thousands of NSUN countries that are not democracies the way that Idumea or Global Market are democracies. What right have we to impose our views upon others?

Article II- This is obvious. The affirmative side carries the burden of proof. This will effect the presumption of innocence and defned the rights of the accused.

This article clearly assumes a plaintiff/defendant style legal system. Can we agree that this system is not universally embraced, and that indeed there may be other systems of at least equal merit? Even if we cannot agree to this point, the question remains: what right have we to impose our style of justice upon other nations?

Article III- "...Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. Those once oppressed peoples who's leaders at last lost their grip on information soon burst with freedom and vitality, while that free nation that gradually tightened its grip on information began the slow descent into tyranny..." --RW UN Declaration of Rights

As you have so often pointed out, the NSUN is not the real world UN. It seems here you would like to have it both ways, cherry-picking ideals in the RW UN that support your proposal while rejecting the actual mission and vision of the RW UN as irrelevant.

Article IV- This is to prevent political crimes. Note that a physical action can still be punished, just not holding a belief. This goes hand in hand with Article III.

No person shall be censored for political beliefs. Not even the Nazis in present day Germany? Do you actually oppose Germany's right to create a law banning the Nazi party?

Article VI- Because "God exists" is an affirmative claim, and no evidence exists to support that, political entites should function on the presumption that there is no God (I personally do believe in a God).

All Islamic nations governed under Islamic law then must make room for Catholicism, Judaism, etc. within their borders? China must allow for freedom of religion, under UN madate? This is a recipe for, at minimum, intense backlash against the NSUN, and possibly a match to the powder keg that will become WWIII.

Article VII- The 13th Amendment of the US Constitution, changed a little and clarified to include Conscription. Conscription is unjust because it de facto forces civilians to become soldiers and therefore forces the opposing nation to kill what should be considered civilians.

So Isreal's system of military service is outlawed by UN mandate. Interesting. "I'm terribly sorry that you find yourself surrounded by nations who would destroy you, and that your population is relatively small, but I'm afraid your concept of mandatory military service is not the 'correct' solution. But best of luck to you!"

Article VIII- Arguably the most important of these articles, this will allow people the freedom of choice to move around. Notice it doesn't say public individuals, this is to prevent people taking government secrets, etc. But by giving the people the right to defect, then each country will allow its citizens to choose what system they want to live in.

One word: unenforceable.

Article IX- 18 months is a pretty short period. This is just to give inventors a little protection so they have incentive to invent.

This one seems to assume that monetary recompence is the sole incentive inventors might have to invent. It follows, then, that non-capitalist nations have no reason to adopt this article, and capitalist nations likely already have similar legislation in place. Big brother simply isn't needed here.

Article X- Race doesn't scientifically exist. Racism only exists if the government says it does.

Therefore no affirmative action programs are allowed by UN resolution. Presumptuous. Also an inappropriate issue for the UN to insert itself into.

Vote no on CATO! The resolution itself is an infringement on the ability of nations to self-govern, and the articles contained in the resolution are designed for a world where we all look the same. The fact is, all nations are different, reflective of their geographic region, their history, their culture and their traditions. Vote no on CATO! The resolution pretends these differences don't matter - on that assumption alone it should be beaten back.

VOTE NO ON CATO! THE SOUL OF THE UN IS AT STAKE!

Joeseph Harrington, UN Delegate
The Free Land of Idumea

About the Joe Schmoe Pentagon thing.

While the reporter with the contact in the Pentagon is under no contract, actual or implied, my guess is that the contact is. Therefore it would be the contact, not the reporter, who would be in defiance of ... whatever it was you folks mentioned.

"While the reporter with the contact in the Pentagon is under no contract, actual or implied, my guess is that the contact is. Therefore it would be the contact, not the reporter, who would be in defiance of ... whatever it was you folks mentioned."

Right, but in real life the government would be able to stop you from publishing sensitive information. With the Cato proposal, the government's hands would be tied.

"While the reporter with the contact in the Pentagon is under no contract, actual or implied, my guess is that the contact is. Therefore it would be the contact, not the reporter, who would be in defiance of ... whatever it was you folks mentioned."

Right, but in real life the government would be able to stop you from publishing sensitive information. With the Cato proposal, the government's hands would be tied.

Not unless the individual government prosecutes the reporter and sets a precedent :p

The people of The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies still cannot, when they eventually get e-mail confirmation of their entry into the UN, support this resolution on the grounds that Article IX violates the principle of eliminating government interference in economic process. Granting a government enforced monopoly, no matter how temporary, is a blatent attack on free enterprise and a free people. Although the Representative Council supports the other parts of the proposal in question, they feel, unfortunately, that should this proposal become a full Resolution, that they will have to cast a NO vote, unless the issue of Article IX is resolved.

You got your history wrong.
The Roman Republic was dying from its own corruption. The problem is that many aristocrats, like your Cato, were clinging on to it. Caesar was a liberal. The reforms he was unilaterally passing were for the good of the people, things like land redisribution and canceling of debts. He had a new idea of how to run things, and they killed him for it. Not to save the Republic from tyranny, but to preserve their personal way of life.

Don't forget that Caesar was an aristocrat too who openly bragged about killing and enslaving two million people in Gaul.

Vote YES to CATO!!

Spoffin strongly supports the Cato acts.

Spoffin strongly supports the Cato acts.

Thank you :).