NationStates Jolt Archive

We would like to see this thread be an open-ended discussion, on a more-or-less philosophical basis, of what the U.N.'s mission ought to be. We hope that the discussion can be kept separate from views (pro and con) concerning any pending U.N. proposals.

Like all human institutions, the U.N. (both in NS and in the "real world") is constantly evolving to reflect changing views and conditions. Closely linked to our views concerning its mission will be our opinions as to what value, if any, the U.N. has in the world today.

In keeping with the more elevated and philosophical nature of this thread, we would also hope that invective and name-calling can be kept to a minimum, or (better yet) avoided altogether.

I think the purpose of the UN is simply to exist...

Does the UN actually have a military with which it can interfere with world events? I don't think there's a resolution about that and I don't think it's mentioned anywhere else.

If you want a philosophical discussion as to whether I would want the UN to intervene in world affairs if it DID have a military, I can do that.

I think that the UN should be able to intervene if it has the weight to throw around. Why not? If it's a UN country we're invaiding, we certainly can bring them in line with whatever expectations the UN as a whole might have of them. If they're not a UN country and we have the power to stop them from doing something we don't like, why shouldn't we be able to? Any nation can invaid a country. I don't see why we can't as a whole. It'd come down to our interests against theirs. It'd come down to us sticking to our guns or backing down. The majority would decide.

It'd come down to a vote, the majority winning. That's how it works in every other situation. Of course if it won 51% to 49% you might have a bit more discussion to go through. You'd have to exercise some judgment in such a decision.

I don't think the UN should be able to tell other countries they have to legalize same sex marriages, or that they are not allowed to, stuff like that. I do however think they should be able to go into a country and try and prevent genocide and major human rights violations. Any country who joins the UN though knows that some of their sovereignty will be infringed upon if they join. If they don't want that, they shouldn't join. That goes for this game and the real world.

Does the UN actually have a military with which it can interfere with world events? I don't think there's a resolution about that and I don't think it's mentioned anywhere else.

Since this is a nation-simulation game, let's assume that our U.N.--like the "real" one--can summon up "Peace-Keeping Forces" to bring recalcitrant nations into line, provided that member states are willing to contribute soldiers and military equipment.

I think the UN, as reflected in this game, has no
purpose at all other than enabling people here
to feel important and "doing something".

Resolutions will never pass because even those
that are the most basic of human concepts are
shot down just for the sake of feeling the power
to do so.

If, for example, the UN cannot agree that action
needs to be taken against hate groups, then I really
don't know why anyone should care about what
goes on in it ...

i voted that NS-UN as - Only in extreme circumstances because thats what it suppose to do and not play god. that's what it is all about and nothing more. NS-UN Peacekeepers only come to my nation only if there is nuclear weapons and i allow them to. sighs...

The UN should be the world-wide legislature. If not then what is it's purpose? If you don't want to abide by the laws passed in the UN you can opt out.

Der neue Weltauftrag kommt!!!

The real-life UN functions as an intervener or in extreme circumstances...like Bosnia. I think the NS-UN shoould function more like the RL-UN.
UN has no right to tell me I can't allow same-sex marriages in my country...or that I can't give free healthcare or education, or any number of the stupid things the conservo-creeps are trying to push just lately.

Has anyone else noticed...the only Resuolutions to fail in UN history seem to be conservatively-slanted...and more recently, two Resolutions in a ROW...both conservative...failed!

When's the last time YOU ever saw two Resolutions in a row fail in the UN?

I think it seems rather clear that the majority of the UN in left-leaning...and this is a good thing!

or perhaps some conservatives (a silly term) saw the resolutions as things not worthy of voting for. :wink:

The UN has to walk a fine line. While I do not believe that the UN should be in the global legislation business, sometimes the best way to end a war is to prevent it. That means that the UN should have the authority to pass binding legislation requiring 'basic' human rights. The sticky part comes in when a country tries to define what 'basic' is. Some nations may believe that universal health care, the ability to have same sex marriages, and drug legalization are basic rights. Other nations understandably do not believe these are as basic as, say the right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness. Unfortunately, the UN is ruled by a simple majority. This means that 51% of member nations could vote to steal the close off the other 49%. This means that sometimes conservatives are going to be naked, and sometimes liberals will be naked. I think as long as conservatives keep complaining that the UN is too liberal and liberals keep complaining that the UN is too conservative, then the UN is probably doing a good job. The time to be concearned is when one side quits complianing.

The UN is a committee of negotiation, not a bunch of warmongers who intervene needlessly.

The purpose of the U.N. is to get folks to TALK to one another instead of SHOOTIN' at one another.

Nothin' more. Nothin' less.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

Yes-They should be the worlds legisature.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55467)
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

I'm not always sure where we should draw the line. Based on history, I believe that if a government abuses its people in too extreme a fashion, it becomes a matter of international concern. Things like slavery, genocide and "ethnic cleansing" are not purely internal affairs, since they shock the conscience of humanity. But what about less extreme forms of persecution, such as apartheid, or the practice in some Islamic countries of outlawing Christianity?

The recent debate over the "Bill of No Rights" shows that nations cannot always agree as to which rights ARE fundamental. Many people claim that their concept of human rights rests on objective truth. But I can look out my window and see a tree. I can't look out my window and see a right.

I think it seems rather clear that the majority of the UN in left-leaning...and this is a good thing!

Mister, I done voted against those last two things, but I ain't no left-leanin', bleedin' heart LIBERAL. And ya best be takin' back them rumors lest I be callin' ya out on them fightin' words. And then where'll we be?

In fact, I done AGREED with them proposals, but I knows it ain't my place to tell folks in other lands that's how they HAVE to live. Fact is, it ain't the U.N.'s place to be telling folks what they should or shouldn't be doin' in their own back yards.

It ain't how folks lean that gets things done 'round here. It's realizin' that it ain't the U.N.'s job to tell folks how to live that gets stuff done 'round these here forums.

-Prez Billy Bob Hicklee

The NSUN IS a legislative body. Just read the FAQ.

Plus tehre are resolution categories about thinkgs like drugs, gun control, and gambling. It is obviously supposed to be a legislature.

Perhaps I am naive, but I thought that if this is supposed to be a "Nation Simulation Game", our version of the U.N. should follow the same principles as the real one.

It also seems to me that allowing as much leeway as possible for individual nations has a real utility, since it allows ideas to be tried out on a local basis before being applied to the world as a whole.

Different peoples have different histories, cultures and traditions, and such differences can legitimately be reflected in different policies. For example, Ursoria has complete religious freedom and total separation of church and state. But the vast majority of our people are Catholic, and our view of human rights has been strongly influenced by Thomistic philosophy. Other nations have different perspectives. We can perhaps respect each other's differences and agree to disagree, reserving the U.N. for correcting extreme abuses.

The real-life UN functions as an intervener or in extreme circumstances...like Bosnia. I think the NS-UN shoould function more like the RL-UN.
UN has no right to tell me I can't allow same-sex marriages in my country...or that I can't give free healthcare or education, or any number of the stupid things the conservo-creeps are trying to push just lately.

Has anyone else noticed...the only Resuolutions to fail in UN history seem to be conservatively-slanted...and more recently, two Resolutions in a ROW...both conservative...failed!

When's the last time YOU ever saw two Resolutions in a row fail in the UN?

I think it seems rather clear that the majority of the UN in left-leaning...and this is a good thing!

Wait... Cato was conservative? Most of the opposition to that came from the conservative people. LoL.

"Nature always does contrive
that every boy or girl born alive
is either a little liberal
or a little conservative."

Gilbert & Sullivan

the NS-UN is just a forum made for mods controlling what we should say and do. and they don't care if the proposal is silly or real. that is what i believe NS is.

There is no social order without supportive police power.
The U.N. should be used to intervene in situations of denial of basic human rights such as those documented by Amnesty International.