NationStates Jolt Archive

I expect to be discredited because of the size of the nation I represent, as well as the number of times I have addressed this forum. I will continue nonetheless.

The UN, even the NSUN, should be a body to resolve differences between nations. It is a center for diplomacy:

diplomacy
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : TACT

It is NOT a world government. It is a body of nations committed to settle issues that would impact a global society. Thusly, any act passed by the UN/NSUN should affect global issues, not national ones.

Democracy is a national issue. While it certainly has its ideological merits, it also has its downfalls. In the US, the UK and other major powers it has been successful; it has failed in many, many other nations—mainly those who have had democracy forced upon them. Authoritarian governments, while less ideologically appealing, have enjoyed a comparative success to democracies throughout history—arguably more.

This piece of legislation is ludicrous. While I believe in the same inalienable rights that The Global Market has espoused in proposing this act, I value popular sovereignty much more highly. Nationbuilding in the 20th century had a mediocre track record, and this was done one nation at a time. How can the NSUN expect to enforce democratic ideals against its member nations? Lets say the ratio is 80% democratic to 20% authoritarian. Without the ability to amass large armies, and without the usage of WMD's, the nations that comply to the Cato Acts will be powerless to extend this legislation to nations that choose to retain their sovereignty. If the US couldn't force democracy on Vietnam, how do the democracies of the NSUN expect to enforce democracy on much, much stronger authoritarian nations in greater numbers.

I see the Cato Acts leading to three possibilities:
1) Authoritarians withdraw from the NSUN, and it no longer accurately represents the globe.
2) Authoritarians simply do not comply with the act, and the NSUN loses its legitimacy.
3) Authoritarians defend their national interests and there is significant bloodshed.

This is the least diplomatic piece of legislation I have lain eyes on. While my nation has very high marks in Civil Liberties and Political Freedoms, I have voted against this proposal, on the grounds that it will only increase hostility in the world, with seemingly little effect. I urge other nations to take an objective, responsible examination of the legislation and not simply vote "for" as it seems they have in the passed, instead of considering the consequences.

Captain-General Grim
Federation of Corinto

yep you're a newbie and i dont care what you have to say

You do have an extremely good point.

This seems to be a very very close resolution.

UN Delegates: Please, realize that while the proposal appeals to ethos because of its focus on individual rights, it will only infringe on those rights if it is implemented.

If you can't bring yourself to vote against, please dont vote at all. Our liberty is at stake.

Read the FAQ. The NSUN is "the world's governing body"

Read the FAQ. The NSUN is "the world's governing body"

I know you two seem to disagree, but GeForce4's post regarding the FAQ:

"The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest."

Perhaps you don't agree with that. Maybe the NSUN was created to tell governments what to do. But that doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

Personally, I think we need to set (or change) the precedent of the NSUN not tampering with the government of individual, sovereign nations. And it appears, by the voting, that a lot of people agree with that.

Read the FAQ. The NSUN is "the world's governing body"

I know you two seem to disagree, but GeForce4's post regarding the FAQ:

"The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest."

Perhaps you don't agree with that. Maybe the NSUN was created to tell governments what to do. But that doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

Personally, I think we need to set (or change) the precedent of the NSUN not tampering with the government of individual, sovereign nations. And it appears, by the voting, that a lot of people agree with that.

The FAQ is the highest law of Nationstates..

Can it be amended? Are you going to use it to impugn individual sovereignty of nations?

The Constitution is the highest law of the US, but it doesnt tell city/state/county/etc governments how to operate. AND it can be amended.

I just don't get how the NSUN, under the guise of equality and liberty, is going to authoritatively force democracy and civil liberties.

Can it be amended? Are you going to use it to impugn individual sovereignty of nations?

The Constitution is the highest law of the US, but it doesnt tell city/state/county/etc governments how to operate. AND it can be amended.

I just don't get how the NSUN, under the guise of equality and liberty, is going to authoritatively force democracy and civil liberties.

If you want to amend it, tkae it up with the Administration. Not me.

I'm not taking anything up with you. And I don't carry enough weight to parry ideas with the administration of the game.

You're misdirected. I can't imagine how you call yourself a "libertarian." There's no liberty in your proposal. Read Robert Nozick and then start calling yourself a liberal, and quit offending the rest of the world's true libertarians.

Lol let me tell you about Cato the Younger...

It is said of Cato that even from his infancy, in his speech, his countenance, and all his childish pastimes, he discovered an inflexible temper, unmoved by any passion, and firm in everything...to go through with what he undertook. He was rough and ungentle toward those that flattered him, and still more unyielding to those who threatened him. It was difficult to excite him to laughter, his countenance seldom relaxed even into a smile; he was not quickly or easily provoked to anger, but if once incensed, he was no less difficult to pacify." Plutarch.

source: http://heraklia.fws1.com/contemporaries/cato/

Now tell me does this proposal speak of peace or speak or having wars just as Julius Ceasar's? If you read on with that source, you will find out...

This resolution isn't derived from Cato's ideas, it' just named after him!

Though this is an interesting site. I'll have to read it later when I have time

Then why did you use Cato's name in your proposal and why did you end your proposal saying about Julius Ceasar? I think many people are wondering the same thing...

First of all I highly doubt most people know the history behind Cato. He's not exactly well known.

Secondly I read that site. It's pretty interesting, though I'll have to go through it later. I've never heard of a deal between Caesar and Pompey... Caesar wanted dictator powers... Pompey was determined to stop it. That said, Caesar, Pompey, and Cato, while political enemies, didn't take it really personally.