NationStates Jolt Archive

The Most Serene Republic of the Red Raven has made a new proposal that would limit the UN's power to force a system of government onto any nation, which includes statements in resolutions that state all people are free, all people recieve representation, etc...

Our Republic feels that all are created equal, that all should be free, and that all should be represented, and that works fine for us. But what about the monarchys out there, or dictatorships, or other forms of government. These systems still work and are the best for some nations, and we feel it is inappropriate for the UN to dictate to its members what their government should be.

Only rights are sovereign. A nation that violates its citiznes inalienable rights loses its soveregnity. The same thing goes for the United nations.

Only rights are sovereign. A nation that violates its citiznes inalienable rights loses its soveregnity. The same thing goes for the United nations.

Who decides what these rights are?

Red Raven, right on. Democracy is a great system, but the UN is increasingly leaning towards that. Monarchies, benevolent dictatorships, and nations with a goofy sense of government are being outcast.
It's not fair to impose a certain type of government upon UN nations. If the UN wishes to impose a certain type of government, why be able to choose if you are in the UN?

The whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm pleased that people are opening their eyes by voting against the current resolution. :)

On behalf of Penguenia and my region, I will urge our delegate to defend the soverignty of nations by letting them choose their own government systems.

http://www.digikitten.com/playhousev2/files/Raziel/Icon8.jpg
The Immortal Emperor Tobias Raziel of the Holy Empire of Penguenia
Thought for the day: Innocence Proves Nothing
No connection to Isla de Penguinata

The Quatton is in full support of this idea. It is unfair for any organization to force a form of government upon another nation.

Well, I'm almost afraid to jinx it, but this resolution WILL NOT PASS. bet on it! Here's why: it forces government's hand in individual cases in the direction of mercy and fairness, not justice. Mercy and fairness are great and everything, but let's try and not let human weakness get in the way when dealing with criminals (which is OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY what this res. is all about :D )

Mercy and fairness are great and everything, but let's try and not let human weakness get in the way when dealing with criminals (which is OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY what this res. is all about

I have no idea how this got to Criminal Justice. Please explain your statement here.

As I see it and intend it, it is granting the ultimate freedom: The Freedom of Every Nation to its Own Government, which I believe is necessary to perserve diversity.

Mercy and fairness are great and everything, but let's try and not let human weakness get in the way when dealing with criminals (which is OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY what this res. is all about

I have no idea how this got to Criminal Justice. Please explain your statement here.

As I see it and intend it, it is granting the ultimate freedom: The Freedom of Every Nation to its Own Government, which I believe is necessary to perserve diversity.

Justice is all nice and fine, but if you condemn the wrong person for a crime, then that means that the actual criminal is still out there.

Red Raven, right on. Democracy is a great system, but the UN is increasingly leaning towards that. Monarchies, benevolent dictatorships, and nations with a goofy sense of government are being outcast.
It's not fair to impose a certain type of government upon UN nations. If the UN wishes to impose a certain type of government, why be able to choose if you are in the UN?

The whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm pleased that people are opening their eyes by voting against the current resolution. :)

Damn right, I have read through some of the posts by countries who demonise others who have different methods of thinking and it stinks!
These lambasters are always the ones who want everyone to do it their way - how democratic. Democracy and freedom of speech are important. If I were to hear a Nazi speaking at speaker's corner, I would not agree with him but be proud that he is free to say what he wants. As it is he would be carted off, unless of course if he were black

Only rights are sovereign. A nation that violates its citiznes inalienable rights loses its soveregnity. The same thing goes for the United nations.

Whoa there! Sovereign means "a ruler", or "self-ruled". There are several attributes of a sovereign nation including an independent government, defined borders, common peoples, etc. A monarchy can be a sovereign nation, as can any other form of government. Go twist the vocabulary for your own purposes elsewhere.

Red Raven, right on. Democracy is a great system, but the UN is increasingly leaning towards that. Monarchies, benevolent dictatorships, and nations with a goofy sense of government are being outcast.
It's not fair to impose a certain type of government upon UN nations. If the UN wishes to impose a certain type of government, why be able to choose if you are in the UN?

The whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm pleased that people are opening their eyes by voting against the current resolution. :)

If I were to hear a Nazi speaking at speaker's corner, I would not agree with him but be proud that he is free to say what he wants. As it is he would be carted off, unless of course if he were black

If I were to hear a Nazi speaking at speaker's corner, I'd jump on him and attempt to murder him. Freedom of speech or not, I have not forgiven, and never will forgive, what the Nazis did to millions of people all over Europe, because they were Jewsih, non-Aryan ( :roll: ), or just in the way. It will NEVER be forgiven by me, and any Nazi deserves death. :evil: (It's kinda personal for me..maybe that's why I'm so passionate)
Lol, the thing about him being black is very true. I'm not a racist by any means, in fact, I'm going to Homecoming with my black friend as FRIENDS. The only race I view is the human race, but a black man would be given more slack than a white one. :?

Only rights are sovereign. A nation that violates its citiznes inalienable rights loses its soveregnity. The same thing goes for the United nations.

What exactly are these unalienable rights, and what makes them 'unalienable'? Who defines them? Why do we have 'unalienable rights' at all?

Seems to me the word 'rights' is thrown around to much. The only 'right' that seems to be held by people that is 'inalienable' is the right to die (i know it sounds gruesome, but I'm not trying to be disgusting or morbid). Just because your nation holds speech to be a dear thing, this does not mean I should not have some right to curtail it. Just because I have a democratic system of government, allowing people to vote, does not mean you have to have on as well.

So who decides on these rights? Though my nation is rather religious, in the spirit of fairness in politics, I try not to base my laws exclusively on them. And if religion is not a basis, there is no where to claim a point of universalist principles.

The UN should be banned from promoting capitalism or any form of government seeking to restrict personal or political freedom since this is backward and seeks to hold back progress. The UN should be encouraged to promote socialism in all nations.

I suggest someone prepare a resolution on this matter immediately, perhaps The Global Market could help us since he is a respected regional delegate who has already had some of his resolutions passed.

The UN should be banned from promoting capitalism or any form of government seeking to restrict personal or political freedom since this is backward and seeks to hold back progress. The UN should be encouraged to promote socialism in all nations.

I suggest someone prepare a resolution on this matter immediately, perhaps The Global Market could help us since he is a respected regional delegate who has already had some of his resolutions passed.

Capitalism is not a form of government. It's an economic system.

Well yes did I ever claim otherwise?

Red Raven, right on. Democracy is a great system, but the UN is increasingly leaning towards that. Monarchies, benevolent dictatorships, and nations with a goofy sense of government are being outcast.
It's not fair to impose a certain type of government upon UN nations. If the UN wishes to impose a certain type of government, why be able to choose if you are in the UN?

The whole thing is ridiculous, and I'm pleased that people are opening their eyes by voting against the current resolution. :)

If I were to hear a Nazi speaking at speaker's corner, I would not agree with him but be proud that he is free to say what he wants. As it is he would be carted off, unless of course if he were black

If I were to hear a Nazi speaking at speaker's corner, I'd jump on him and attempt to murder him. Freedom of speech or not, I have not forgiven, and never will forgive, what the Nazis did to millions of people all over Europe, because they were Jewsih, non-Aryan ( :roll: ), or just in the way. It will NEVER be forgiven by me, and any Nazi deserves death. :evil: (It's kinda personal for me..maybe that's why I'm so passionate)
Lol, the thing about him being black is very true. I'm not a racist by any means, in fact, I'm going to Homecoming with my black friend as FRIENDS. The only race I view is the human race, but a black man would be given more slack than a white one. :?

To what extent have you not forgiven the Germans? A large percentage of the ruling elite in Germany now would have been brought up just before and during the war. They were most likely in the Hitler Youth Movement. Does this mean that you would refuse to sell German goods still? Mercedes Benz made materiel for the Nazis and for the army using Jewish slave labour. Should they be boycotted?
While the Nazis are unforgivable, I would question anyone with a black and white view on the matter as to whether they have ever had to use a wheelbarrow to carry their money when they wanted a loaf of bread. Once you understand what the life was like in 20s and 30s Germany, you will understand how far society was prepared to change in order to get themselves out of the hole they were in.

If I were to hear a Nazi speaking at speaker's corner, I'd jump on him and attempt to murder him. Freedom of speech or not, I have not forgiven, and never will forgive, what the Nazis did to millions of people all over Europe, because they were Jewsih, non-Aryan ( :roll: ), or just in the way. It will NEVER be forgiven by me, and any Nazi deserves death. :evil: (It's kinda personal for me..maybe that's why I'm so passionate)
Lol, the thing about him being black is very true. I'm not a racist by any means, in fact, I'm going to Homecoming with my black friend as FRIENDS. The only race I view is the human race, but a black man would be given more slack than a white one. :?

To what extent have you not forgiven the Germans? A large percentage of the ruling elite in Germany now would have been brought up just before and during the war. They were most likely in the Hitler Youth Movement. Does this mean that you would refuse to sell German goods still? Mercedes Benz made materiel for the Nazis and for the army using Jewish slave labour. Should they be boycotted?
While the Nazis are unforgivable, I would question anyone with a black and white view on the matter as to whether they have ever had to use a wheelbarrow to carry their money when they wanted a loaf of bread. Once you understand what the life was like in 20s and 30s Germany, you will understand how far society was prepared to change in order to get themselves out of the hole they were in.

In Isla de Penguinata's defense, the Germans were never mentioned. If he chooses to never forgive the Nazi political party for their actions, I believe that is reasonable. Nobody holds the entire German populace accountable for the actions of those in power.

But I believe that Isla de Penguinata's original statement is what is important here. The UN should not be endorsing any form of government over another. Some people choose their leaders and have a say in decisions, but others would rather support a leader who makes the decisions for them. I've seen many wonderful nations in the UN that are not democracies, and the UN needs to respect that.

The UN should be banned from promoting capitalism or any form of government seeking to restrict personal or political freedom since this is backward and seeks to hold back progress. The UN should be encouraged to promote socialism in all nations.

I suggest someone prepare a resolution on this matter immediately, perhaps The Global Market could help us since he is a respected regional delegate who has already had some of his resolutions passed.

lol. Wolomy if you haven't paid attention to today's rankings, the nations with the least police are almost entirely Capitalizt or ANarchy countries, whereas five of the ten top ones are democratic socialists, scandinavian liberal paradise, or left-wing utopia. SEVEN of hte countries on page 2 of the ranking are democratic socialist or scandinavian liberal paradise.

If your citizens are truly free and happy then why do you need this much law enforcement? Yes, capitalism restricts personal and political freedom a lot... especially considering I haev higher personal freedom and comparable political freedom than your country. :roll:

The UN should be banned from promoting capitalism or any form of government seeking to restrict personal or political freedom since this is backward and seeks to hold back progress. The UN should be encouraged to promote socialism in all nations.

I suggest someone prepare a resolution on this matter immediately, perhaps The Global Market could help us since he is a respected regional delegate who has already had some of his resolutions passed.

lol. Wolomy if you haven't paid attention to today's rankings, the nations with the least police are almost entirely Capitalizt or ANarchy countries, whereas five of the ten top ones are democratic socialists, scandinavian liberal paradise, or left-wing utopia. Yes, capitalism restricts personal and political freedom a lot... especially considering I haev higher personal AND political freedom than your country. :roll:

Yes its messed up. I don't even have a police force yet my nation is 231st for highest police ratio. Its probably just based on government/public sector size.

On the other hand...
There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, liberal individuals juggles the competing demands of Education, Commerce, and Law & Order.

Why if your people are so free, does your nation feel the need to prioritise law and order? Also your political freedoms are the same as mine.

The UN should be banned from promoting capitalism or any form of government seeking to restrict personal or political freedom since this is backward and seeks to hold back progress. The UN should be encouraged to promote socialism in all nations.

I suggest someone prepare a resolution on this matter immediately, perhaps The Global Market could help us since he is a respected regional delegate who has already had some of his resolutions passed.

lol. Wolomy if you haven't paid attention to today's rankings, the nations with the least police are almost entirely Capitalizt or ANarchy countries, whereas five of the ten top ones are democratic socialists, scandinavian liberal paradise, or left-wing utopia. Yes, capitalism restricts personal and political freedom a lot... especially considering I haev higher personal AND political freedom than your country. :roll:

Yes its messed up. I don't even have a police force yet my nation is 231st for highest police ratio. Its probably just based on government/public sector size.

On the other hand...
There is no government in the normal sense the word; however, a small group of community-minded, liberal individuals juggles the competing demands of Education, Commerce, and Law & Order.

Why if your people are so free, does your nation feel the need to prioritise law and order? Also your political freedoms are the same as mine.

I don't have any taxes. Zero times any number is zero.

I don't have any taxes. Zero times any number is zero.

Then the corporations that run your government clearly think keeping the citizens controlled is rather important. Wouldn't want their candidates voted out of power after all.

I don't have any taxes. Zero times any number is zero.

Then the corporations that run your government clearly think keeping the citizens controlled is rather important. Wouldn't want their candidates voted out of power after all.

Law & Order is one of my government's priorities because my government doesn't do much. I probably focus on Law & Order as much as you do but I don't focus on other things like environment. Maintaining a court system is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.

Either way, I still baet you on personal freedom and match you on political. And speaking of Law & Order... it's on in 5 minutes. So bye. I'll respond during commercials. I have no life :lol: .

I only restrict personal freedom when it violates the freedom of another. So things like banning cars and compulsory vegetarianism are necessary.

Your nation is not really free at all, primarily because of your promotion of the "free" market which ensures a majority are enslaved to provide goods and services to the rich minority, but also because of your excessive civil liberties, which allow people to do as they wish no matter the effect on others. You seem to have no positive freedom, so in your nation someones freedom to dump toxic waste in the water supply is more important than the rights of people to be free from such things.

I only restrict personal freedom when it violates the freedom of another. So things like banning cars and compulsory vegetarianism are necessary.

Your nation is not really free at all, primarily because of your promotion of the "free" market which ensures a majority are enslaved to provide goods and services to the rich minority, but also because of your excessive civil liberties, which allow people to do as they wish no matter the effect on others. You seem to have no positive freedom, so in your nation someones freedom to dump toxic waste in the water supply is more important than the rights of people to be free from such things.

LoL. What happened to clear and provable harm? Or do pigs have the same rights as humans in your country? And then what about vegetables? Don't they have rights? :roll:.

Besides negative freedoms are more important than positive ones. Therefore positive freedoms cannot be promoted if they infringe on a negative freedom of someone else.

BTW according to the nationstates GDP calculator, my per capita income is 350x yours. So even if what you said is right, which it isn't, because the poor in capitalist countires are usually a small minority, the poor in my country are still richer than the rich in yours.

I only restrict personal freedom when it violates the freedom of another. So things like banning cars and compulsory vegetarianism are necessary.

Your nation is not really free at all, primarily because of your promotion of the "free" market which ensures a majority are enslaved to provide goods and services to the rich minority, but also because of your excessive civil liberties, which allow people to do as they wish no matter the effect on others. You seem to have no positive freedom, so in your nation someones freedom to dump toxic waste in the water supply is more important than the rights of people to be free from such things.

LoL. What happened to clear and provable harm? Or do pigs have the same rights as humans in your country? And then what about vegetables? Don't they have rights? :roll:.

BTW according to the nationstates GDP calculator, my per capita income is 350x yours. So even if what you said is right, the poor in my country are still richer than the rich in yours.

You are forgetting my nation is collectivist and my currency is a fruit therefore economic ratings are somewhat meaningless. People do not work for money so it does not matter how poorly my economy does, it is still far more efficient than yours. As for rights, well, animal rights should be respected. Though I am not sure if a pig could make effective use of its right to higher education.

I only restrict personal freedom when it violates the freedom of another. So things like banning cars and compulsory vegetarianism are necessary.

Your nation is not really free at all, primarily because of your promotion of the "free" market which ensures a majority are enslaved to provide goods and services to the rich minority, but also because of your excessive civil liberties, which allow people to do as they wish no matter the effect on others. You seem to have no positive freedom, so in your nation someones freedom to dump toxic waste in the water supply is more important than the rights of people to be free from such things.

LoL. What happened to clear and provable harm? Or do pigs have the same rights as humans in your country? And then what about vegetables? Don't they have rights? :roll:.

BTW according to the nationstates GDP calculator, my per capita income is 350x yours. So even if what you said is right, the poor in my country are still richer than the rich in yours.

You are forgetting my nation is collectivist and my currency is a fruit therefore economic ratings are somewhat meaningless. People do not work for money so it does not matter how poorly my economy does, it is still far more efficient than yours. As for rights, well, animal rights should be respected. Though I am not sure if a pig could make effective use of its right to higher education.

Your economy is imploded. How is that more efficient than mine?

What does all of this have to do with the UN not promoting one form of government over another?

Please make the support for socialism debate a separate thread if you want to get so in depth about it.

To reiterate my point, there are many governments out there that have happy and privelaged peoples that are not democracies. You don't have to be a democracy to be part of the UN, so the UN should not be in the business of trying to make all of its members more democratic.

I only restrict personal freedom when it violates the freedom of another. So things like banning cars and compulsory vegetarianism are necessary.

Your nation is not really free at all, primarily because of your promotion of the "free" market which ensures a majority are enslaved to provide goods and services to the rich minority, but also because of your excessive civil liberties, which allow people to do as they wish no matter the effect on others. You seem to have no positive freedom, so in your nation someones freedom to dump toxic waste in the water supply is more important than the rights of people to be free from such things.

LoL. What happened to clear and provable harm? Or do pigs have the same rights as humans in your country? And then what about vegetables? Don't they have rights? :roll:.

BTW according to the nationstates GDP calculator, my per capita income is 350x yours. So even if what you said is right, the poor in my country are still richer than the rich in yours.

You are forgetting my nation is collectivist and my currency is a fruit therefore economic ratings are somewhat meaningless. People do not work for money so it does not matter how poorly my economy does, it is still far more efficient than yours. As for rights, well, animal rights should be respected. Though I am not sure if a pig could make effective use of its right to higher education.

Your economy is imploded. How is that more efficient than mine?

It produces only what is needed therefore is not wasteful. People work together rather than against one another therefore things are done faster. There is no desire to minimise costs so quality is higher. The imploded rating is not important, no one has any money but since the economy is collectivised this does not matter.

So your citizens only have the bare necessities of life. Gotcha.

Wolomy, if meat is murder, is milk rape?

What does all of this have to do with the UN not promoting one form of government over another?

Please make the support for socialism debate a separate thread if you want to get so in depth about it.

To reiterate my point, there are many governments out there that have happy and privelaged peoples that are not democracies. You don't have to be a democracy to be part of the UN, so the UN should not be in the business of trying to make all of its members more democratic.

Ah but this is relevant because I believe the UN should promote socialist forms of government.
The UN should of course ban backward forms of government and economic systems (such as capitalism) because everyone would be much happier with no government at all and the way to achieve this is through socialism.

Ah but this is relevant because I believe the UN should promote socialist forms of government.
The UN should of course ban backward forms of government and economic systems (such as capitalism) because everyone would be much happier with no government at all and the way to achieve this is through socialism.

That is a valid point, and although I disagree with you, I thank you for returning to the subject.

The UN would really only be able to ban those forms of government from being part of the UN. Those governments could still exist outside of the UN and its laws.

So your citizens only have the bare necessities of life. Gotcha.

Wolomy, if meat is murder, is milk rape?

Yes it is. My country is deeply concerned about the environment.

As such, we have abolished all meat, eggs, milk, etc., because it violates the inalieanble rights on animals.

Paper has been abolished. That hurts trees.

Vegetables, fruits, and grain products have been abolished as well. Plants have the right to exist without us cutting off parts of them for consumption. All people have to eat synthetic stuff.

Nudity is also compulsory. T-Shirts violate the rights of cotton.

In addition, antibiotics have been banned except in the case of life-threatening disease. Microbes are living organisms with their own DNA so they have rights too. In the case of life-threatening disease, then it is self-defense.

Our new eco-friendly policy is very useful. Our environment is doing good and our life expectancy only dipped by 28 years.

So your citizens only have the bare necessities of life. Gotcha.

Wolomy, if meat is murder, is milk rape?

rape? oh my. Well thats certainly an interesting question. At least I think interesting is the right word. Using animals for milk is certainly exploitation though I don't think rape is quite the term I would use for it.

However I shall decline to comment any more for now for I must listen to the Rush Limbaugh show through the joys of streaming audio. You probably should too, its wonderful. I listened to it for the first time yesterday and couldn't believe I had been missing out for so long.

So your citizens only have the bare necessities of life. Gotcha.

Wolomy, if meat is murder, is milk rape?

rape? oh my. Well thats certainly an interesting question. At least I think interesting is the right word. Using animals for milk is certainly exploitation though I don't think rape is quite the term I would use for it.

However I shall decline to comment any more for now for I must listen to the Rush Limbaugh show through the joys of streaming audio. You probably should too, its wonderful. I listened to it for the first time yesterday and couldn't believe I had been missing out for so long.

He's a bit too fascist for my tastes.

So your citizens only have the bare necessities of life. Gotcha.

Wolomy, if meat is murder, is milk rape?

rape? oh my. Well thats certainly an interesting question. At least I think interesting is the right word. Using animals for milk is certainly exploitation though I don't think rape is quite the term I would use for it.

However I shall decline to comment any more for now for I must listen to the Rush Limbaugh show through the joys of streaming audio. You probably should too, its wonderful. I listened to it for the first time yesterday and couldn't believe I had been missing out for so long.

He's a bit too fascist for my tastes.

But really rather amusing don't you think? Though it is worrying that so many Americans seem to take his views seriously.

So your citizens only have the bare necessities of life. Gotcha.

Wolomy, if meat is murder, is milk rape?

rape? oh my. Well thats certainly an interesting question. At least I think interesting is the right word. Using animals for milk is certainly exploitation though I don't think rape is quite the term I would use for it.

However I shall decline to comment any more for now for I must listen to the Rush Limbaugh show through the joys of streaming audio. You probably should too, its wonderful. I listened to it for the first time yesterday and couldn't believe I had been missing out for so long.

He's a bit too fascist for my tastes.

But really rather amusing don't you think? Though it is worrying that so many Americans seem to take his views seriously.

True

...I thank you for returning to the subject.

Well that was short-lived.

Rush says you guys can't win.

Oooh apparently the Europeans love Bush. Rush says so therefore it must be true.

lol. our invasion of iraq has 5% international approval, which is less than that for Fall Weisz...

The Community of Gurthark didn't answer this poll because none of the answers accurately reflects our beliefs. The United Nations should not force one particular government type on member nations; there is a fairly wide range of acceptable government forms.

However, that does not mean that *all* government forms are acceptable. We'd be quite happy to legislate psychotic dictatorship out of existence, for example.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

[OOC: This is only somewhat true for me, the actual person behind Gurthark. This is a game, and I think people should be able to play it however they choose. I myself have a puppet nation, Bizboz, that doesn't reflect my ideals at all, although it's certainly not a psychotic dictatorship either. However, *in* character, we're supposed to be treating our fellow nations as if they had real people in them, and for that reason, Gurthark is willing to support resolutions that make it much harder to run oppressive regimes.]

Then you should've answered "only in certain cases" lol.

Only rights are sovereign. A nation that violates its citiznes inalienable rights loses its soveregnity. The same thing goes for the United nations.

Sorry to pick on you for this but I really like it;

CITIZNES.

The clothes for your man.

CITIZNES.

A name that says skill and power.

CITIZNES.

Unleash your MAN.

Ah, but have you considered that some people would want to live in a psychotic dictatorship? What if the dictatorship was performing every social function you needed for you and making all of your decisions for you? That's not necessarily bad if you agree with everything the government is doing. In fact, that would be ideal for those people. Just because it would not be ideal for most people, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. The UN, in the interest of keeping peace, admits all nations willing to participate, regardless of their government. The UN is not in the business of trying to change them all to democracies.

Then you should've answered "only in certain cases" lol.

No; we think there are *no* cases where we should impose *one* form of government on a country. But there are *many* cases were we should give them a choice of several.