NationStates Jolt Archive

Why must you people ruin the UN by trying to make everyone a damned democracy? Well? Vote against this resolution if you wish to have a wider pannel of options in your country.

Idumea will not support any resolution that moves the NSUN toward becoming a global governing body, passing laws and "designing" the world as it goes. CATO is a perfect example of the type of resolution that moves the NSUN in a wrongheaded and dangerous direction. As Stephistan posted in the sticky "UN Mandate":

"According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."

Idumea will vote no on this and any other proposals that attempt to create the world in the author's likeness. Vote no on CATO and help to refocus the NSUN on its original and intended mission!

8)

Idumea will not support any resolution that moves the NSUN toward becoming a global governing body, passing laws and "designing" the world as it goes. CATO is a perfect example of the type of resolution that moves the NSUN in a wrongheaded and dangerous direction. As Stephistan posted in the sticky "UN Mandate":

"According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."

Idumea will vote no on this and any other proposals that attempt to create the world in the author's likeness. Vote no on CATO and help to refocus the NSUN on its original and intended mission!

8)

The NSUN IS a world government. It says so in the FAQ:


What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.

After close examination of the text, Superior Europe will not support this resoloution. This is due to the wording of the document as it gives far too much creedence to one single ideology. It also gives far too much power to corperate intrests over soceity.

After close examination of the text, Superior Europe will not support this resoloution. This is due to the wording of the document as it gives far too much creedence to one single ideology. It also gives far too much power to corperate intrests over soceity.

What Corporate interests? The only article in here that could possibly be construed as helping corporate interests is article IX, and even then, it's a long shot at best.

The NSUN IS a world government. It says so in the FAQ:


What's the United Nations?
The UN is the world's governing body. It proposes and votes on resolutions, which are then binding on all member nations. In other words, it's a hot-bed of political intrigue and double-dealing.


My word, Global, the FAQ is not a NS Bible! Your clinging to that single sentence is becoming a bit pathetic. We will listen to and consider arguements for turning the NSUN into a governing body, but reject out of hand the notion that the NSUN is DESIGNED to be a governing body. It is what we decide it is, no more, no less. You are deluded if you believe this decision has already been made.

Join the real debate - this is not about the value of democracy! It is about the wisdom of forcing any system of government upon any NS not willing to come to that system freely (read: democratically)!

Joseph Harrington, UN Delegate
The Free Land of Idumea

I can't support this (the cato proposal) because it compromises the rights of the Aviean Empire to govern it's own people, and it's also a blatent attempt to strenghten the parasite of world demoracy.

As a liberal, progressive and pluralistic democracy we cannot support this proposal and will motion against it to our UN delegate

As a liberal, progressive and pluralistic democracy we cannot support this proposal and will motion against it to our UN delegate

Why not?

Idumea will not support any resolution that moves the NSUN toward becoming a global governing body, passing laws and "designing" the world as it goes. CATO is a perfect example of the type of resolution that moves the NSUN in a wrongheaded and dangerous direction. As Stephistan posted in the sticky "UN Mandate":

"According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."

Idumea will vote no on this and any other proposals that attempt to create the world in the author's likeness. Vote no on CATO and help to refocus the NSUN on its original and intended mission!

8)

My understanding is that the Cato Acts promote respect for human rights, which *is* in the Real life UN Charter. However, as TGM pointed out, the NSun is different from the RLun. The proposal seems rather open-ended, leaving a lot to interpretation, thereby giving individual nations more choices.

We at Quirn almost voted for the Cato Acts. We see nothing wrong with using the UN to promote basic democratic freedoms among its member nations; any nation that does not wish to have a democratic government (but what constitutes the will of a nation if not the collective will of its people?) is always free to resign from the UN. (Quirn will never support any resolution calling for nations to be "liberated" by force.)

But... the one thing we could not agree to was Article II. If it were reworded so as to apply only to criminal cases, there would be no problem. However, in certain kinds of civil suits, we believe that it is appropriate for different standards of proof to apply.

The ability to give corperate entities power to move and migrate in and out of my territory at will. Using the people of Superior Europe to its own ends and then leaving its social responsibilities is not acceptable to our nation. Therefore I have voted against this and urge others to do so if they value the right to govern their own country without being abused by corperate power.

The government of Leadonia opposes any measure which will unduly abridge our sovernty. The role of the UN should be restricted to international law, not imposing it's will on the citizens of individual member states.

Accordingly, we have voted against this measure.

The government of Leadonia opposes any measure which will unduly abridge our sovernty. The role of the UN should be restricted to international law, not imposing it's will on the citizens of individual member states.

Accordingly, we have voted against this measure.

The term 'International Law' already implies it has soverigity over individual member states.

I think the CATO acts specifically promote human rights, therefore, the Republic will vote for the CATO acts.

After close examination of the text, Superior Europe will not support this resoloution. This is due to the wording of the document as it gives far too much creedence to one single ideology. It also gives far too much power to corperate intrests over soceity.

What Corporate interests? The only article in here that could possibly be construed as helping corporate interests is article IX, and even then, it's a long shot at best.

Government enforced monopolies and welfare are a long shot? Tell me, why is it that libertarians are so anti-social-welfare that some would seem to actively allow the poor to rot in the streets, but at the same time are more than eager to pass legislation, such as Article IX, that grant what is essentially corporate welfare to large business fat-cats?

Your philosophy, sir, is in conflict. :wink: Either government enforced welfare is wrong, or it is right. You CANNOT have it both ways.

The ability to give corperate entities power to move and migrate in and out of my territory at will. Using the people of Superior Europe to its own ends and then leaving its social responsibilities is not acceptable to our nation. Therefore I have voted against this and urge others to do so if they value the right to govern their own country without being abused by corperate power.

No they just have teh power to move out of your country. You have teh right to prevent them from moving in your country in the first place.

After close examination of the text, Superior Europe will not support this resoloution. This is due to the wording of the document as it gives far too much creedence to one single ideology. It also gives far too much power to corperate intrests over soceity.

What Corporate interests? The only article in here that could possibly be construed as helping corporate interests is article IX, and even then, it's a long shot at best.

Government enforced monopolies and welfare are a long shot? Tell me, why is it that libertarians are so anti-social-welfare that some would seem to actively allow the poor to rot in the streets, but at the same time are more than eager to pass legislation, such as Article IX, that grant what is essentially corporate welfare to large business fat-cats?

Your philosophy, sir, is in conflict. :wink: Either government enforced welfare is wrong, or it is right. You CANNOT have it both ways.

What the hell does article iX have anything to do with corporate welfare? It's about patent protection to inventors.

After close examination of the text, Superior Europe will not support this resoloution. This is due to the wording of the document as it gives far too much creedence to one single ideology. It also gives far too much power to corperate intrests over soceity.

What Corporate interests? The only article in here that could possibly be construed as helping corporate interests is article IX, and even then, it's a long shot at best.

Government enforced monopolies and welfare are a long shot? Tell me, why is it that libertarians are so anti-social-welfare that some would seem to actively allow the poor to rot in the streets, but at the same time are more than eager to pass legislation, such as Article IX, that grant what is essentially corporate welfare to large business fat-cats?

Your philosophy, sir, is in conflict. :wink: Either government enforced welfare is wrong, or it is right. You CANNOT have it both ways.

What the hell does article iX have anything to do with corporate welfare? It's about patent protection to inventors.

You obviously don't understand how patents work within your own capitalist system. In real life, my father works for a large corporation, making business computer systems. My father invented a new process of some kind. My father is the inventer and his name is on the patent, but his corporation owns and controls the patent because he is was working as their agent at the time of invention. Even my father, the actual inventor, must seek his corporations permission to use his own invention, because the patent system as it exists in the United States gave the patent to someone else.

And even if your patent proposal only specifically applied to individual inventors, it is still an un-libertarian grant of government enforced monopoly and is still in conflict with your own claims that libertarianism is about reducing government involvement in the economy. Unless you only mean reducing said involvement up to the point where involvement benifits you, which would seem to be hypocritical to me :wink:

You don't have to get patents through your corporation. My dad holds 7 or 8 patents, and all of them belong to himself. Patent laws establish ownership. They are no different from deeds. Patents only create a monopoly over something that you already own, and therefore, it isn't harmful. For example, I have a monopoly on my computer. It is maintained through government intervention, i.e. there are police to prevent people from stealing it. It's the same deal with patents.

Rule of law is needed to protect freedom. It's why almost all libertarians will agree that we need laws against murder.

Besides the patents run out over 18 months.

You don't have to get patents through your corporation. My dad holds 7 or 8 patents, and all of them belong to himself. Patent laws establish ownership. They are no different from deeds.

Rule of law is needed to protect freedom. It's why almost all libertarians will agree that we need laws against murder.

Besides the patents run out over 18 months.

re-read the second paragraph in my above response. Claiming to be against government interference in economic process, and then specifically creating that interference yourself is hypocrisy. Please explain to me how government enforced monopolys on inventions promote freedom, when their intention is to restrict the free enterprise of others to utilize ideas in the marketplace.

placing a time limit on this is simply a poor atempt at rationalization.

You don't have to get patents through your corporation. My dad holds 7 or 8 patents, and all of them belong to himself. Patent laws establish ownership. They are no different from deeds.

Rule of law is needed to protect freedom. It's why almost all libertarians will agree that we need laws against murder.

Besides the patents run out over 18 months.

re-read the second paragraph in my above response. Claiming to be against government interference in economic process, and then specifically creating that interference yourself is hypocrisy. Please explain to me how government enforced monopolys on inventions promote freedom, when their intention is to restrict the free enterprise of others to utilize ideas in the marketplace.

placing a time limit on this is simply a poor atempt at rationalization.

When you create something, you own it. I have a monopoly on my Laptop. It is maintained through government intervention. There are laws that say you can't steal it. Nobody else in the world has one exactly like it and you need my permission to use it. This is applied in the sense of physical objects, it should also be applied in the sense of inventions.

You don't have to get patents through your corporation. My dad holds 7 or 8 patents, and all of them belong to himself. Patent laws establish ownership. They are no different from deeds.

Rule of law is needed to protect freedom. It's why almost all libertarians will agree that we need laws against murder.

Besides the patents run out over 18 months.

re-read the second paragraph in my above response. Claiming to be against government interference in economic process, and then specifically creating that interference yourself is hypocrisy. Please explain to me how government enforced monopolys on inventions promote freedom, when their intention is to restrict the free enterprise of others to utilize ideas in the marketplace.

placing a time limit on this is simply a poor atempt at rationalization.

When you create something, you own it. I have a monopoly on my Laptop. It is maintained through government intervention. There are laws that say you can't steal it. Nobody else in the world has one exactly like it and you need my permission to use it. This is applied in the sense of physical objects, it should also be applied in the sense of inventions.

Incorrect. The actual *physical* laptop belongs to you because if I steal it then I deny you the ability to use it even after your have purchased it with your own fair and honest labor. The laptop, in its actual *physical* existance is in limited supply, because it is physically created from limited natural resources, and thus a rationing system of somekind is indeed needed.

However, the laptop in *abstract idea* is an unlimited resource. I can tell everyone I know that a laptop has a keyboard and a a screen and a hard drive, but no matter how many times I reproduce this idea, it will never run out. It exists in infinity. Thus, I cannot "steal" an idea. If a person, with his own eyes, examines your invention and sees how it works, then he is simply making one more copy of a resource, an *abstract idea* that already exists in infinity. A rationing system for ideas is unnecessary because an idea is not a limited resource.

Patents try and create a limited resoruce out of that which is not and cannot be limited, abstract ideas, so long as the human ability to percieve and observe are maintained. They try to restrict the free flow of information...information that is easily reproduced and cannot ever run out...information and ideas simply don't cease to exist if you think about them too much.

And besides that, they are still contrary to the idea of competition and free enterprise that is claimed to be at the heart of the capitalist system, when in reality legislation such as this are designed to restrict and limit competition for financial gain. That this is done in the name of freedom is disgusting.

Okay think about it this way: Software is a concept or an unlimited good as you call it. But hte designer of the software holds teh absolte right to distribute the software on whatever terms he pleases. It's the same thing with patents. Unless you want to legalize software piracy.

Okay think about it this way: Software is a concept or an unlimited good as you call it. But hte designer of the software holds teh right to distribute the software as he pleases. Unless you want to legalize software piracy.

There is nothing to legalize cause there isn't any crime to begin with.

*waits for the shock to wear off*

Private property rights are defined because *physical objects* on this fine planet called Earth are in short supply. There is only so much iron and tin and copper, etc, etc. Thus a rationing system, (private property and capitalism in your case) are required to distribute these things.

However, I propose that software is NOT a limited resource. The nature of computing technology has made it an unlimited resource. A program sitting on my hard-drive can be very easily reproduced at basically no cost, just right click and select "copy." I can continue to copy and copy and copy and copy until my hand falls off or I run out of hard drive. As a result, the actual information that happens to create this program is an unlimited resource....I will never run out of bits cause I can simply copy new ones. According to the system of supply and demand, then, the cost for this information is zero.....the supply is infinite, ergo, the demand falls sharply to basically zero....ergo, the price is zero.

We are seeing this EXACT thing happen in the music industry and p2p file sharing. The ease at which information is reproduced has made it in infinite supply. Anyone, anywhere, can get a track from whatever CD at no price, because the information that makes up that track exists in infinity.

Now, I know what you're thinking...the *labor* that arranged that information into a program or music is not in limited supply, and yes, you are correct. However, the (supposed) losses that software manufacturers and music monoliths take because of "piracy" is not the fault of "pirates", as these "pirates" are simply distributing an infinite commodity as the laws of supply and demand require and compel them too. The fault is with the software manufacturers and music monoliths who try to do business in a failed market with a failed business model.

The theory of supply and demand and the progress of technology have conspired to produce a situation in which normal capitalist economics don't work, and this makes the capitalists really really scared. :twisted: :P :wink:

Thus, they must introduce government coersion in the form of patents to attempt to control and restrict the very laws of supply and demand themselves, so they can continue to make a buck in a failed market/business structure. Capitalism when it works, government coersion when it doesn't

Communism will eventually envelop the earth....we just have to invent the matter replecator first. :wink:

The Free Republic of Parnassus, known for its extremely liberal social and civil rights, encourages members and delegates to vote against the Cato Resolution. Upon close examination, the Cato Resolution holds national governments powerless against fundamental dangers both foreign and domestic.

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

This Article holds the government powerless against any religion, even those who hold the "religious" belief that treason against the nation is a righteous act. Those who hold child sacrifice as sacrament, those who hold that violence against unbelievers is necessary for salvation - all of these "religions" would be protected from censure, which means that the government cannot even condemn these groups. Furthermore, this Article via its restriction upon censuring violent religions is in direct violation of the Religious Tolerance Resolution which demands that the UN oppose all wars fought in the name of religion.

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

Article VII outlaws the draft, making no provision for national emergencies and outlawing mandatory military service in those nations who embrace this policy. Additionally, as written, it could allow any soldier in time of conflict to desert his unit without crime.

Parnassus also encourages members to pay close heed to the final legal statement of the proposal - All legislation in conflict with these acts are hereby null and void. - and to vote against the Cato Proposal.

Information represents things in the physical world. If you think software piracy isn't a crime, how about counterfeiting or fraud? Isn't money an unlimited comodity if you use your defintions? Since my credit card has little bits and bytes there why don't I duplicate it?

In article VI, you can still punish a member of a religious groups for his ACTIONS, just not his BELIEFS.

As for article VII, I don't see what national emergency could warrant a draft. Welcome to 2003! NUmbers don't matter. Just look at our invasion of Iraq. Over 500-1 casualty ratio. And there's mad.

As for letting a soldier desert, I think you mean the emigration thing in Article VIII. A soldier is no longer a private individual, article VIII doesn't apply to him/her.

Information represents things in the physical world. If you think software piracy isn't a crime, how about counterfeiting or fraud? Isn't money an unlimited comodity if you use your defintions? Since my credit card has little bits and bytes there why don't I duplicate it?

But information itself is not physical and thus cannot be held to the same standards of limited supply as physical objects (since it isn't limited at all). Capitalism only works when supplys are limited, ergo, capitalism doesn't apply to information.

Counterfeiting (making something appear as that which it is not) and fraud are not even related to this subject, as purposly decieving someone for your own gain is not an issue of limited/unlimited resources, so I don't even know why you brought it up. Duplicating a credit card falls under issues of fraud and privacy also, so it is unrelated (if you claim that a patent can protect privacy, then I just suggest to you that you shouldn't release that information to begin with if its so sensitive :wink: ). There is nothing stopping your from duplicating the bits contained within, but defrauding your fellow man is still a not very nice thing to do. :wink:

The general thrust of these articles appears to be well-intentioned, but together they form a rag-bag of badly formed items that don't all belong together and are unsupportable.

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

This looks like an attempt to codify "no taxation without representation!" however it would be easy to invert the logic and disenfranchise the poor, or declare certain charities (or religions) to be tax free and then refuse to entitle them to have their interests represented.

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.

This one's fine

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).

Conflates copyright law with free speech. Also includes vague get-out clause (clear and imminent danger).

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

This one's fine

Article V- That all persons shall have the right to petition the government and assemble nonviolently.

And this one

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

What about "indirect" endorsement?

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.

This one implies that it's OK to draft a con.

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.

How does a "business" emigrate?

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.

This doesn't seem to fit, firstly it seems badly worded and secondly it doesn't seem fundamental enough to enshrine in a bill of rights

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

I don't like this one, because I think it should be possible to enshrine principles of equality without incorporating subjective entities like "race" into it.

In short, JUST SAY NO.

The Cato Acts establish a MINIMUM standard of rights. you are encouraged to go beyond that.

yes vote against this artice II states that Osama can live freely in your country

yes vote against this artice II states that Osama can live freely in your country

Article II basically means innocent until proven guilty... how does this have anything to do with Osama?

As for article VII, I don't see what national emergency could warrant a draft. Welcome to 2003! NUmbers don't matter. Just look at our invasion of Iraq. Over 500-1 casualty ratio. And there's mad.

Iraq isn't a good example. The only thing that surpassed the horrible planning, supplying, and communications errors of the US in that conflict, were the Iraqi errors. Welcome to reality, where numbers DO matter.


As for the Proposal itself, I will be voting against it. I reserve to right to exterminate any "political rights" whackos as I see fit.

You are trying to force us into giving up rights that belong to the governing body of the country. The UN should concern itself with settling petty squabbles, and cleaning up any messes my military leaves behind. I'll draft and excecute whoever I want. My people seem ok with that. Ask any of 'em.










Disclaimer: A military representive must be present at any interview with any of my citizens.

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

What about "indirect" endorsement?
An example of an indirect endorsement might be, say, praising a church program that provided afterschool activities for children and keeping them off the street. Thats (in my mind) why indirect endorsements shouldn't be restricted

In article VI, you can still punish a member of a religious groups for his ACTIONS, just not his BELIEFS.

No where does the proposal make that stipulation - if belief = action, which it does for many violent, fanatical religions.


As for article VII, I don't see what national emergency could warrant a draft. Welcome to 2003! NUmbers don't matter. Just look at our invasion of Iraq. Over 500-1 casualty ratio. And there's mad.


Who? and When? This is an inplay forum, yes?


As for letting a soldier desert, I think you mean the emigration thing in Article VIII. A soldier is no longer a private individual, article VIII doesn't apply to him/her.

A soldier in whose army is no longer a private individual? All citizens of Parnassus maintain their individual rights regardless of their occupation.

A private individual is someone not employed by teh government.

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

What about "indirect" endorsement?
An example of an indirect endorsement might be, say, praising a church program that provided afterschool activities for children and keeping them off the street. Thats (in my mind) why indirect endorsements shouldn't be restricted

No, praising a program doesn't endorse a religion. It endorses the program. Which is fine.

"There is no historical evidence to suggest that Gelvoo existed".
"There is no reason to assume that Gelvoo did not exist."

Which of these two statements directly endorses or censures the Gelvooninan religion? Yet, if official pronouncements consistently took one approach over the other, there would be indrect support for a position that would attack the other position almost subliminally. Qualifying words like "direct" don't make for a clear statement on the issues.

Basically you have no chance of passing this legislation. The Social Left dislikes it because of its pro-buisness bias. Libertarians dislike it as they feel national soverigty is eroded... It is basically a badly worded, badly constructed resoloution that tries to be be everything. And that's where it fails. You have to pick and choose what ideology you're preaching to.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Basically you have no chance of passing this legislation. The Social Left dislikes it because of its pro-buisness bias. Libertarians dislike it as they feel national soverigty is eroded... It is basically a badly worded, badly constructed resoloution that tries to be be everything. And that's where it fails. You have to pick and choose what ideology you're preaching to.

(A real libertarian would dislike it for its pro-business/government collusion bias also, mainly Article IX)

Basically you have no chance of passing this legislation. The Social Left dislikes it because of its pro-buisness bias. Libertarians dislike it as they feel national soverigty is eroded... It is basically a badly worded, badly constructed resoloution that tries to be be everything. And that's where it fails. You have to pick and choose what ideology you're preaching to.

The part of the political spectrum between the hardline Democrats and the moderate Republicans, however, will probably support it, as will the idealists that seem to make up the largest voting bloc on NS.

The region of A New Begining holds special exception to Article VII, which forbids the calling of a national draft. This is the main reason why, as regional delegate, the Republic of Rianisis votes against this resolution. Our regional charter guarantees each nation the right to create and maintain a standing army to the best of their ability; the laws of ANB as well as the obvious soverign decrees of each nation supercede any mandate that the United Nations casts down upon us.

Thank you

Leo "Don't call me Cleo" Fiskin
Manager of Regional Affairs/Interim Head Speaker
The Republic of Rianisis

Though the Holy Empire of Granpais supports democracy it cannot endorse imposing democracy on others. Every country should have the right to have any form of government that it desires. Another thing that the Empire cannot and will not support is the Article banning the draft. The Empire has for many years has had compulsory military service to protect it's borders and people. The government should be able to intervene with any protest or gathering that they deem harmful to the people. And all of these Articles should be imposed by each country not by the U.N. If your constitution allows it then you may kill every citizen in your country if you want to. This is for the nations to decide. The Holy Empire of Granpais shall not endorse or vote for this resolution in any way, shape, or form.

-Holy Emperor Camilo III in a taped broadcast on Granpais United, state T.V.

Idumea will not support any resolution that moves the NSUN toward becoming a global governing body, passing laws and "designing" the world as it goes. CATO is a perfect example of the type of resolution that moves the NSUN in a wrongheaded and dangerous direction. As Stephistan posted in the sticky "UN Mandate":

"According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."

Idumea will vote no on this and any other proposals that attempt to create the world in the author's likeness. Vote no on CATO and help to refocus the NSUN on its original and intended mission!

8)

My understanding is that the Cato Acts promote respect for human rights, which *is* in the Real life UN Charter. However, as TGM pointed out, the NSun is different from the RLun. The proposal seems rather open-ended, leaving a lot to interpretation, thereby giving individual nations more choices.

The CATO acts may support human rights in some ways; leaving it at that however is much too simplistic. The desire to create a world in which all nations are free as we define free is a natural instinct, and not at all a bad thing in and of itself. Idumea respects Global Market for its ideals and would gladly align itself with Global in defense of those ideals. However, attempting to impose one system of government on all nation states is wrong, and has historically resulted in deadly and long-lasting unintended consequences.

Geoff Barclay, III
Secretary of Communications
The Free Land of Idumea

I have voted against this proposal for two reasons:
1.It is too broad and thus will cause confusion as each nation interpets it in a way that suits them. It needs to be more specific in order to be successful,
In my not so humble opinion.

2. The protection of an inventers patent needs to a much longer period than eighteen months. It takes considerable time just to bring a new product to market. I believe this Resolution will stifle innovation, and thats bad for everyone.

Why am I not voting for this? Cause If i wanna censor some damned catholic yuppies ((anti-catholic here)) that start crying out, I will. Also, if I want to duct tape some liberals loud mouth. I will. I will silence those I disagree with, and strengthen the voices of my proponents.

Assembly? hell no, if people assemble, you can lose power. and I would never risk that.

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

I think I will increase the rights of who i want to. Personally, I support marijuana sellers, so i will let them sell, but only if I like the way they look.

BASICLLY, I just want to keep the power where it is, IN MY HANDS.

Take that...

As a founding member of the Non-Democratic Alliance (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60132), we vote against this resolution. We maintain there are other, peaceful ways of good governing that do not involve excessive rights and liberties to citizens while keeping them safe, happy and stable.

Not everyone buys into the mythology of democracy being the perfect form of government or that excessive liberties ensure a happy populus. We strenuously object to nations such as Global Market attacking peaceful dictatorships like ourselves, and have formed our alliance to defend against them.

There are many paths to enlightenment, and we urge all nations to recognise this and vote against the Cato acts. Democracy is not the only valid method of governing.

**************************
http://www.pwfc.org/images/gallery/smtorso3.jpg
Emperor Devon I
Empire of Treznor
**************************

To force democracy upon all peoples across the world without their prior consent undermines the false ideology of democracy in its essence. Being forced to choose is an oxymoron. This resolution is a villainous attempt to subjugate the entire United Nations to follow one ridiculous idea and will be strongly voting against this resolution and encourage all nations that know that, deep down, the people need guidance in issues they may not know anything about, to strike down this resolution and recognize it as the invasion of ideological forces against us all that this act truly is.

Strength In Arms, Strength In Unity,
General Tomass Baldineskchik, General Secretary, Guiding Council
The United Socialist States of Krankheit

The Fiefdom of Moyaville has voted against this resolution. It is the Dominar's right to censure or endorse religion at will. He will endorse any religion, as long as its deity is the Dominar himself. All other religions will be squelched.

The Mad Celt
Private Secretary to His Most Holy
Dominar Rygel XXIII

Sneaking the off-the-nose stuff into the last few articles, _and_ misrepresenting classical figures! Cato the Younger's only administrative strength was his incorruptibility (read- he was an enthusiastic tax-collector who didn't make exceptions), and rather than being a clearly republican character, he was readily prepared to protect Pompey's interests to the exclusion of previous constitutional laws. The only thing of note he did was top himself after a particularly disastrous military engagement. Would this demonstrate great courage if some world leader did it today?

The Republic of Utopian Sun Lovers fully supports this resoultion. In doing so, it notes that every member nation of the UN is one voluntarily, and they may leave at any time. Member nations of the UN should uphold the basic tenets of democracy, and this act simply seeks to see to it that they do so. Vote YES on the CATO act!

Member nations of the UN should uphold the basic tenets of democracy, and this act simply seeks to see to it that they do so.
Nowhere does it state that member nations of the UN must be practicing democracies. The UN is a place for world nations to meet and work out issues in common, not a democratic lovefest. I am a member of the UN to ensure that my voice is heard, not so I can let ivory tower philosophers dictate internal policy to me.

Devon Treznor
Emperor

The Republic of Utopian Sun Lovers fully supports this resoultion. In doing so, it notes that every member nation of the UN is one voluntarily, and they may leave at any time. Member nations of the UN should uphold the basic tenets of democracy, and this act simply seeks to see to it that they do so. Vote YES on the CATO act!

You are forgetting that if you want to have any weight at all in your region, you need to be in the UN, whether you want it or not. If you want to have the ability to defend your region from invaders, you need to be either region founder or UN delegate. Resigning the UN brings more consequences that just not being affected by the resolutions.

The Republic of Nutema intends to vote against the Cato Acts.

Article I: While the Republic takes the position that a representative democracy is very nearly an ideal form of government, we recognize that other nations may well disagree with our evaluation. As we also believe that a government cannot rule without at least the tacit acquiescense of the ruled, we consider this clause to be unwarranted interference with the internal governance of a nation.

Article II: While the intent of this article may be admirable, we find that it creates an intolerable burden on justice, as it can lead to a requirement to prove a negative - for example, in a suit at law where the plaintiff charges non-performance, it is far simpler to require the respondent to prove performance. Although we have many technical protections in our legal code, our primary interest is in justice, and we will not support technical constraints that impede it.

Article III: We view this as a 'slippery slope' clause. Recently, the Republic limited political campaigning and advertising, as it was broadly perceived that instead of money being used to disseminate a message, it was having the effect of special interests 'buying' legislators. We found this intolerable, and corrected it. However, we believe that this Article can be construed to require us to repeal the recent legislation, thus putting us back on the road to being ruled by a moneyed oligarchy.

Article IV: Nutemans may sue each other for anything they please - it is up to the judge and the jury to say whether a suit is valid; we will tolerate no interference in that matter.

Article V: We view this Article as we do Article I.

Article VI: We view this Article as we do Article I.

Article VII: While the Republic of Nutema does not currently engage in the practice of military conscription, we reserve the right to do so in case of military need. This Article is an intolerable interference with our national security needs.

Article VIII: The Republic of Nutema believes that arguments against this clause can be made, on the basis of national security; however, we will refrain from doing so.

Article IX: The Republic of Nutema will not subordinate its definitions of patentable inventions to those of other nations. Our policy will remain to generally acknowledge foreign inventions and their inventors' rights, to the extent that those inventions would be patentable if presented to the Nuteman Board of Patent.

Article X: This is already the unalterable policy of the Republic of Nutema. We do not need the United Nations telling us to do this.

As a liberal, progressive and pluralistic democracy we cannot support this proposal and will motion against it to our UN delegate

Why not?

*sigh*
I wrote a lovely entry saying why not but it seems to have gone! Basically I said just all the basic reasons.

1] The big loophole about inciting a riot.
2] Doesn’t specify the right to form unions
3] Attempts to force a standardised democratic procedure on everyone. For example what if you where a society without tax but you still had an institution where people could/ needed to vote. Then what would you do? Also what if you have a voting age where students can vote, unemployed students living at home don't pay tax. What if you don't tax the unemployed, priests (or other such people), charity workers or people like police and nurses? Suddenly they are locked out of government?
4] Again attempting to overstep the UNs area of control by forcing certain government structures on people. As long as a nation isn't committing crimes against peace, war crimes or against humanity they can be governed how they deem fit.

This resolution would shove a red-hot spear up the orifice of every theocracy in the United Nations.

For a UN resolution, it should be more accpetable to more than one ideology and system/style of government

The first time I heard of Cato was Sunday on Channel 4!

Even though Kahta would like to see a democracy in every country, we can not and feel that voting for this would be a waste of time and result in lower UN enrollment.

Here's the thing, folks.

We each keep our own houses.

If'n you goes and votes for this hair-brained proposal the UN's got up now, ya may as well just hand over your house-keys to them.

So. Now.

Who's the addle-brained idjit that done come up with this proposal?

I got a couple barrels of buckshot I need to give'em.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Address to the general assembly by the UN ambassador for the People's republic of Bandana, Mr R.U. Rumbleminded:

"Distiguished delegates of the assembly. I will now, in short, describe the bandanian opion on the so called ‘Cato Acts-proposal’.

*breaths in...

Article I: is a load of crap. It implies that you can negotiate away you’re civil rights by not paying taxes. What’s next? Homeless people selling votes to pay for shelter?
Article II: is acceptable.
Article III: implies that freedom of speech can be overweighted by private property laws, which, of course, is a load of crap.
Article IV: is a load of crap. Yeah, I’m a necrophilic satanist and I believe in producing kiddie porn. Who are you to censor me? Tssssk... OUTRAGES!
Article V: is a load of crap. Is it no longer an option for a country to have representative democratic system without being in violation of the UN statues. ALL citizens? You’ve got to be crazy. Even in our small Bandana that is not possible.
Article VI: So our government can’t say that we feel it’s better to be a respected religion than a member of a brainwashing cult in Waco. Crap, crap, crap!
Article VII: Again, a load of crap. It’s prefectly fine to have professional army if you want to, but it’s absurd that it should be against international law to draft people into military service!
Article VIII: Crap, I tell you! Well, actually I agree on this issue, but I like saying “crap”...
Article IX: Crap. Business laws aren’t human rights. This is not a question for the UN.
Article X: OK, then, I’ll agree on this one to. This is actually a very fundamental human right.

*breaths out



Bandana Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs D. Lightfull, comments on the issue in The Daily Bandanino:

- We will not impose this capitalist imorality on the people of Bandana. Human rights should not be mixed up with the interests of big business. We value our nations independence higher than this and will not abide by such an act.

Mrs Lightfull is also rumoured to have sent a confidential appology to the UN Secretary General for the “excessive referenses to feces” by Mr Rumbleminded at the assembly session.

Davilvania opposes the resolution both for general and specific reasons.

Generally, while most of the value expoused are ones that we adhere to, we don't believe they can be imposed by the UN on other states. Aside from whether we aspire to push others to adhere this closely to our idea, we feel such an attempt would be doomed to failure.

Specifically, Article VII would prohibit a draft. We feel each country should have the right to impose required military service if they need to for their national defense. A draft allows a democratic nation to spread a generally agreed upon burden over the population.

Davilvania opposes the resolution both for general and specific reasons.

Generally, while most of the value expoused are ones that we adhere to, we don't believe they can be imposed by the UN on other states. Aside from whether we aspire to push others to adhere this closely to our idea, we feel such an attempt would be doomed to failure.

Specifically, Article VII would prohibit a draft. We feel each country should have the right to impose required military service if they need to for their national defense. A draft allows a democratic nation to spread a generally agreed upon burden over the population.

Ditto, ditto.

Also, article VI could not possibly take place in a nation that has always been religious. There is no point in promulgating a law that is not plausible.
In fact, article VI does not belong in any UN legislation. It does not promote democracy at all, and it is not in the mandate of the UN. Israel, for example, is a religious democracy. I'm not saying there are no conflicts, but it is up to each nation to solve them.

Therefore, on behalf of Aaronakia and the whole Yorktown region, I am voting AGAINST this proposal.

-Roger Darrow, Aaronak delegate to the UN

I don't see why any country who's leaders are in their right mind would vote for this proposal. If they read item number seven they will see that to vote this in would make it impossible for a country who needs it to enact a system of draft to man their armies. This would leave small countries totally at the mercy of larger ones who can freasibly man a volunteer force.

The Rogue Nation of Mafty is against all democratic moves. Democracy is anti buisiness and the political freedoms cause people to become unruly and the government can do nothing about it.