NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly...

Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve their political bonds with another and to assume its sovereign powers over its people and its territories.

We have now reached that time.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that people are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, not to be violated without the due process of law. That all people by right ought to be equal before the law. And that whenenver a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is and should of right be abolished and replaced. Prudence dictates that governments shall not be overthrown for light and transient reasons, but when a long train of abuses and usurpations inovkes a design to reduce the people to a state of bondage under arbitrary power, it is their right and duty to throw off such government. The recent history of the United Nations is one of repeated injuries and injusticies, all having in object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the Commonwealth of the Global Market, its constituents, and the entire free world.

The United Nations has refused to assent to laws, the most proper and necessary for promoting liberty in the world.

It has endeavored to block the liberty of the Commonwealth and the world, for that purpose creating laws directed against our sacred civil, economic, and political freedoms, through legislation euphemistically categorized as 'moral decency', 'law & order', 'social justice', and 'environmental', though they are truly no more than vile affronts against those of us who still love reason and liberty.

It has made legislators completely dependent on its will alone, through the erection of a despotic ministry of compliance.

It has plundered our treasuries, ravaged our territories, and imposed taxes on our citizens to which they have neither approved nor consented.

It has refused to assent to legislation such as the Bill of No Rights, thus violating the right of sovereign nations to voluntarily be free.

It has refused to assent to laws improving the health of the world based on solid biology, rather choosing to pass legislation that will have the effect of increasing AIDS infection and death rates, for that purpose robbing people who's leaders have had high school biology of their money.

It has obstructed justice, by creating laws designed to spread tyranny and poverty, degrading the lives and violating the liberties of our citizens.

It has deliberately acted as an instrument, not of peace, but of conflict, being abused to rob and plunder the treasuries of the free world.

It has sought to criminalize our states, by forcing us to tax our citizens and destroy their inalienable rights.

It is at this time acting as an agent to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with a spirit of perfidious despotism scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and completely unworthy of a league of free nations.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble of terms, but our repeated petitions have only been met with repeated injuries. A government, whether national or international, that is marked by such abuses may only be properly called a tyranny.

It is with only the heaviest heart that we, the Senate of the Global Market, once a staunch supporter of the United Nations, has, by a vote of 192 to 33, acquiesced to the demands of liberty and of justice, and has hereby withdrawn from the United Nations until it reverts to a just agency.

Our complaint is not that the United Nations has violated our national sovereignity, but rather that it has violated our individual liberty, a cause to which we, as representatives of the free world, have pledged our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor.

We regret that circumstances have forced us along this path. We wished the best for the world and the United Nations, but alas this would not come to pass. We now have no choice but to completely dissolve the bonds that have so successfully united ourselves with the United Nations.

We do not believe the United Nations to have bad intentions. Rather, it is a very noble organization but has descended into despotism. Experience teaches us to be most on guard to protect liberty when government's purposes are beneficient. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel encroachments by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty are men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

And so we set on this great and glorious path without the United Nations. May the great blessings of peace and prosperity continue to be bestowed upon ourselves and our posterity.

So help us God.

RESPECTFULLY SIGNED:
Praetor Gunther Kreisau,
Chairman for the Office of Very Foreign Policy,
15th October 2003

Approved in the Senate, 192-33

The government of New Clarkhall, for one, regrets your decision to withdraw from the United Nations.

Though in recent memory, we have never seen eye to eye on any issues, and despite the fact that we often consider your words to be nothing more than a product of single-minded arrogance, we cannot help but feel some kinship with a nation which cries out against the tyranny of the present structure.

We too once fought to curtail the power of the UN...but to no avail. Our parent nation was ejected, our resolutions demanding a limitation to the UN's powers were deleted, and our very lands were threatened with nuclear holocaust. However, we rejected the possibility of giving up on the UN. We felt that we could do more good as a member and at least try to curtail the obvious excesses of the UN than to simply give up the good fight.

In any case, the people and government of New Clarkhall ask you to reconsider, but if this is your course, so be it. It is your right...perhaps the only true one you have under the current UN structure.

-New Clarkhall

Acting on advice of the Executive Directorate, the Federal Assembly of Rational Self Interest has resolved in session to endorse the above declaration of The Global Market, with the added provision that solemn observation has determined that the United Nations is controlled by a bunch of Hug-the-World Hippie Airheads with the IQ of snails.

Director of International Affairs,
Federation of Rational Self Interest,
Thomas J. Mill

I will probably rejoin the United Nations at a later date.

Thats too bad, nows gonna talk sense into these commie bastardsx

We will miss your rational and mannerly debate.

(What a fine transposition of the Declaration!)

:lol:

Only about 60% of it is altered from the US declaration of independence.

Heh...you said "erection"...heh

That's the word the Declaration of Independence uses... "[George III] Has erected a multitude of new offices..." :lol:

Although we often disagreed with you, we are sad to see you go. You were always one of the more articulate members of this body.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

...[The U.N.] has refused to assent to legislation such as the Bill of No Rights, thus violating the right of sovereign nations to voluntarily be free...

...solemn observation has determined that the United Nations is controlled by a bunch of Hug-the-World Hippie Airheads with the IQ of snails..."

To The Global Market and Rational Self Interest: We really are sorry to see you leave the U.N., despite the fact that our nations have had many sharp disagreements. We respect (and truly share) the deep love of freedom that obviously exists among your people.

However, we wish you would recognise that not everyone who disagrees with your philosophy is malicious or stupid. Reasonable people, coming from different backgrounds, can have legitimate philosophical disagreements. The ability to see other points of view is a sign of maturity and rationality.

This is a good day for fascist, communist, socialist and national socialist nations everywhere. By withdrawing from the UN, the global market has lost much of it's influence and control over world events. It is no longer able to force it's so-called concepts of "democracy" upon other, usually non-willing nations. What the global market failed to realize is that the true key to a nations prosperity and well-being is a supreme central authority that will keep things running smoothly and efficiently. But the scourge of humanity known as the global market is gone now. Totalitarians everywhere, rejoice!

RESOLVED, that the government of our Most Serene Republic endorses The Global Market's resolution. It was with thunderous applause that our MPs read it. We have also questioned our nation's connexion to this liberal-dominated organization; indeed, there were certain resolutions and proposals that held us back from joining ourselves to the harlot known as the UN (those who read, let them understand). We will immediately contact our allies to discover their opinions on the matter.

Respectfully,
His Serenity, President Hart.

ADDENDUM: We must assume that the delegate from Aveia failed to read the last two sentences of the Ursorian message:
Reasonable people, coming from different backgrounds, can have legitimate philosophical disagreements. The ability to see other points of view is a sign of maturity and rationality.

Let the loss of some of the more prominent members of our brotherhood be a beacon to avoid our impending future by.

When one enters a international treaty which is created to make laws and standards when it comes to human rights and other issues, you have already given up some of your soverign rights.¨

Complaining about it afterwards does not help anything, you made a choice and you are free to leave but dont say it was we who pushed you out by not agreeing to your terms.

See the thing is if you read my entire manifesto, I WASN'T COMPLANING that my sovereignity was violated. As you should know if you read my arguments during the Cato Days, I am NOT a fan of national sovereignity.

I WAS complaning that my sovereignity was violated... IN THE NAME OF TYRANNY.

It is one thing to violate a nation's sovereignty to INCREASE its liberties. It is quite another to do so to DECREASE its liberties.

See the thing is if you read my entire manifesto, I WASN'T COMPLANING that my sovereignity was violated. As you should know if you read my arguments during the Cato Days, I am NOT a fan of national sovereignity.

I WAS complaning that my sovereignity was violated... IN THE NAME OF TYRANNY.

It is one thing to violate a nation's sovereignty to INCREASE its liberties. It is quite another to do so to DECREASE its liberties.
And, of course, you get to define "liberty" and "tyranny"... how convenient. :roll:

What you're basically saying is that it's okay to violate a nation's sovereignity to push YOUR agenda, but it's not okay to do the same to push ANOTHER agenda.

Congratulations! You won the hypocrite-of-the-year award!

Liberty is something that expands individual rights.

Tyranny detracts from it.

These are generally accepted definitions.

Liberty is something that expands individual rights.

Tyranny detracts from it.

These are generally accepted definitions.
Oh good, so you've replaced the word "freedom", with the expression "individual rights". That changes absolutely nothing. You still get to define "individual rights" however you like.

For example, I support the individual right to free health care. You don't. But then again, you don't consider it to be an "individual right" in the first place...

- multiple post -

Liberty is something that expands individual rights.

Tyranny detracts from it.

These are generally accepted definitions.
Oh good, so you've replaced the word "freedom", with the expression "individual rights". That changes absolutely nothing. You still get to define "individual rights" however you like.

For example, I support the individual right to free health care. You don't. But then again, you don't consider it to be an "individual right" in the first place...

For example, I support the individual right to free health care. You don't. But then again, you don't consider it to be an "individual right" in the first place...

That's because it's not.

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly...

Sometimes in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve their political bonds with another and to assume its sovereign powers over its people and its territories.



You too? It seems so many people have ceased their ties with the UN...

:cry:

Liberty is something that expands individual rights.

Tyranny detracts from it.

These are generally accepted definitions.
Oh good, so you've replaced the word "freedom", with the expression "individual rights". That changes absolutely nothing. You still get to define "individual rights" however you like.

For example, I support the individual right to free health care. You don't. But then again, you don't consider it to be an "individual right" in the first place...

Government policies should be consistent with the commonly accepted axioms of arithmetic. For example, someone has to pay for healthcare. Therefore, your "free" healthcare is only free to a small minority of your citizens, namely those who don't pay taxes.

For example, I support the individual right to free health care. You don't. But then again, you don't consider it to be an "individual right" in the first place...

That's because it's not.
Rights are subjective. If a government makes it a right, it is. Same as free speech, for example.

For example, I support the individual right to free health care. You don't. But then again, you don't consider it to be an "individual right" in the first place...

That's because it's not.
Rights are subjective. If a government makes it a right, it is. Same as free speech, for example.
False, as I've explained several times before.

False, as I've explained several times before.

No you haven't. You've just said certain rights are fundemental, and certain aren't, but you've never explained why.

Yes, I have. You've either missed them or refused to read them or are simply abdicating reality, reason, and thought.

Yes, I have. You've either missed them or refused to read them or are simply abdicating reality, reason, and thought.

I may have missed them. Care to sum it up?

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over again. Search.

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over again. Search.

Dude, I'm not going to go search through pages of old threads when you can just spend two minutes and summarize.

Because he says so. :roll:

Government policies should be consistent with the commonly accepted axioms of arithmetic. For example, someone has to pay for healthcare. Therefore, your "free" healthcare is only free to a small minority of your citizens, namely those who don't pay taxes.
Alright, replace "free" with "public". Happy now?
The point is that fundamental biological necessities (such as food and health) are fundamental human rights and should be available to all.

Of course, you may disagree on what those "fundamental human rights" are in the first place... and so we get to the fact that you build your argument on different axioms than mine. I believe humans have the right to Life, with all that it includes. You believe humans have this right only if they can pay for it.

Because he says so. :roll:

Government policies should be consistent with the commonly accepted axioms of arithmetic. For example, someone has to pay for healthcare. Therefore, your "free" healthcare is only free to a small minority of your citizens, namely those who don't pay taxes.
Alright, replace "free" with "public". Happy now?
The point is that fundamental biological necessities (such as food and health) are fundamental human rights and should be available to all.

Of course, you may disagree on what those "fundamental human rights" are in the first place... and so we get to the fact that you build your argument on different axioms than mine. I believe humans have the right to Life, with all that it includes. You believe humans have this right only if they can pay for it.

"Public" is generally a bad connotation. Like... what's cleaner? Your home restroom or "public restrooms"? What's better... more or less private education or public education... etc, etc.

Public = bad.

Because he says so. :roll:

Government policies should be consistent with the commonly accepted axioms of arithmetic. For example, someone has to pay for healthcare. Therefore, your "free" healthcare is only free to a small minority of your citizens, namely those who don't pay taxes.
Alright, replace "free" with "public". Happy now?
The point is that fundamental biological necessities (such as food and health) are fundamental human rights and should be available to all.

Of course, you may disagree on what those "fundamental human rights" are in the first place... and so we get to the fact that you build your argument on different axioms than mine. I believe humans have the right to Life, with all that it includes. You believe humans have this right only if they can pay for it.

"Public" is generally a bad connotation. Like... what's cleaner? Your home restroom or "public restrooms"? What's better... more or less private education or public education... etc, etc.

Public = bad.

Because he says so. :roll:

Government policies should be consistent with the commonly accepted axioms of arithmetic. For example, someone has to pay for healthcare. Therefore, your "free" healthcare is only free to a small minority of your citizens, namely those who don't pay taxes.
Alright, replace "free" with "public". Happy now?
The point is that fundamental biological necessities (such as food and health) are fundamental human rights and should be available to all.

Of course, you may disagree on what those "fundamental human rights" are in the first place... and so we get to the fact that you build your argument on different axioms than mine. I believe humans have the right to Life, with all that it includes. You believe humans have this right only if they can pay for it.

Wrong.

Everyone has a right to life. No one has a guarantee to life--especially not at the expense of someone else.

You believe humans have this right [health] only if they can pay for it.

While I cannot by any means speak for TGM, I can say that he probably would disagree with your dissection of his thought processes. As the head of a fellow liberty-loving nation, I believe you are responsible for your own life and health. Manage it badly, and you get sick and/or die. Why should the state (and, via taxation, everyone else in your country) be responsible for your health? Certainly, healthcare shouldn't be prohibitively expensive; but free/public? I disagree.

For an analysis on the UN's tyranny, let us examine which political wing puts forth the most proposals which seek to interfere with decision-making in member nations. Looking at the current list of proposals, as well as resolutions passed throughout history, it becomes apparent that the left wing is the most tyrannical. There are certainly some conservative proposals that would interfere with policies in liberal nations; but their numbers are few in comparison. As an example, I don't want to be forced to legitimize behaviors (such as homosexuality) that I and my people consider wrong; similarly, a liberal nation would not want to be forced to ban abortion.

Come, let us reason together.

Signed,
His Serenity, President Hart

EDIT: I posted this before TGM replied.

Wrong.

Everyone has a right to life. No one has a guarantee to life--especially not at the expense of someone else.
...because you say so. :roll:


"Public" is generally a bad connotation. Like... what's cleaner? Your home restroom or "public restrooms"? What's better... more or less private education or public education... etc, etc.

Public = bad.
Huh? That was supposed to be an argument? "Public = bad"? Wow, I bow before your superior oratoric skills... :roll:

While I cannot by any means speak for TGM, I can say that he probably would disagree with your dissection of his thought processes. As the head of a fellow liberty-loving nation, I believe you are responsible for your own life and health. Manage it badly, and you get sick and/or die. Why should the state (and, via taxation, everyone else in your country) be responsible for your health? Certainly, healthcare shouldn't be prohibitively expensive; but free/public? I disagree.
All nations proclaim themselves "liberty-loving", my friend. The fact that you do the same proves nothing.

As for your argument, the fact is that human beings are not solitary hunters. We are social animals, and the actions of other people affect us, and our health. For better or for worse, we have certain responsibilities towards each other. Most of the diseases you're likely to suffer from are transmitted by other people. You do not live in a glass jar.

Since we constantly affect each other's health, it is our common responsibility to ensure that we may all benefit from health care, regardless of whether we are rich or poor. That is why health care is a basic human right.

While I cannot by any means speak for TGM, I can say that he probably would disagree with your dissection of his thought processes. As the head of a fellow liberty-loving nation, I believe you are responsible for your own life and health. Manage it badly, and you get sick and/or die. Why should the state (and, via taxation, everyone else in your country) be responsible for your health? Certainly, healthcare shouldn't be prohibitively expensive; but free/public? I disagree.
All nations proclaim themselves "liberty-loving", my friend. The fact that you do the same proves nothing.

As for your argument, the fact is that human beings are not solitary hunters. We are social animals, and the actions of other people affect us, and our health. For better or for worse, we have certain responsibilities towards each other. Most of the diseases you're likely to suffer from are transmitted by other people. You do not live in a glass jar.

Since we constantly affect each other's health, it is our common responsibility to ensure that we may all benefit from health care, regardless of whether we are rich or poor. That is why health care is a basic human right.

I have more personal, economic, and political freedoms than you.

Therefore I am promoting more liberty lol.

Wrong.

Everyone has a right to life. No one has a guarantee to life--especially not at the expense of someone else.

Ok

Now prove it. Then you have an argument.

The United Nations has refused to assent to laws, the most proper and necessary for promoting liberty in the world...

It has refused to assent to legislation such as the Bill of No Rights, thus violating the right of sovereign nations to voluntarily be free.

It has refused to assent to laws improving the health of the world based on solid biology...

If we understand your position correctly, you believe that your people's rights were violated because the U.N. failed to pass the resolutions you proposed. What kind of a "right" is that?

How did the failure of the U.N. to endorse those proposals (the "Bill of No Rights" and "GenetiCorp") affect IN ANY WAY your people's right to govern themselves (both individually and as a nation) according to whatever principles they find most persuasive?

The United Nations has refused to assent to laws, the most proper and necessary for promoting liberty in the world...

It has refused to assent to legislation such as the Bill of No Rights, thus violating the right of sovereign nations to voluntarily be free.

It has refused to assent to laws improving the health of the world based on solid biology...

If we understand your position correctly, you believe that your people's rights were violated because the U.N. failed to pass the resolutions you proposed. What kind of a "right" is that?

How did the failure of the U.N. to endorse those proposals (the "Bill of No Rights" and "GenetiCorp") affect IN ANY WAY your people's right to govern themselves (both individually and as a nation) according to whatever principles they find most persuasive?

1) The Bill of No Rights was a negative sovereignity act. By rejecting it the UN has forced us to rob our citizens.
2) GenetiCorp failing did NOT violate our country's rights. However, teh AIDS resolution passing DID. I was just showing that medical resolutions are being passed on a whichever-was-written-with-less-biological-basis.

The United Nations has refused to assent to laws, the most proper and necessary for promoting liberty in the world...

It has refused to assent to legislation such as the Bill of No Rights, thus violating the right of sovereign nations to voluntarily be free.

It has refused to assent to laws improving the health of the world based on solid biology...

If we understand your position correctly, you believe that your people's rights were violated because the U.N. failed to pass the resolutions you proposed. What kind of a "right" is that?

How did the failure of the U.N. to endorse those proposals (the "Bill of No Rights" and "GenetiCorp") affect IN ANY WAY your people's right to govern themselves (both individually and as a nation) according to whatever principles they find most persuasive?

1) The Bill of No Rights was a negative sovereignity act. By rejecting it the UN has forced us to rob our citizens.
2) GenetiCorp failing did NOT violate our country's rights. However, teh AIDS resolution passing DID. I was just showing that medical resolutions are being passed on a whichever-was-written-with-less-biological-basis.

Thank you for responding. You write that by rejecting the Bill of No Rights, the U.N. forced you to "rob" your citizens. How? Did the failure of that Resolution require you to provide ANY social benefits that you would not have otherwise have provided? If so, please name just one.

Concerning your second point: The central premises of GenetiCorp were that 1) individuals have a right to to clone themselves; and 2) private individuals and corporations engaged in civilian biotechnology should not be restricted by international law. Both of these premises rest upon (highly debatable) principles of ethics. "Solid biology" is a science, and as such rests on controlled observation and experimentation, plus the formulation of testable hypotheses--not on theories of ethics.

We ourselves have strongly disagreed with some of the resolutions passed by the U.N.--most recently the "Outer Space Initiative". Frankly, we would have preferred not to tax our people to pay for space exploration, and we have deep reservations about changing our educational system to provide "cradle-to-grave" hyping of the benefits of such exploration. But we recognise that one of the costs associated with belonging to an international organisation is that we are sometimes obliged to accept things with which we disagree. On balance, we feel that the U.N. can play an indispensable role in allowing nations with vastly differing philosophies--such as Ursoria and The Global Market--to share the same planet without tearing ourselves (and everyone else) apart.

The United Nations has refused to assent to laws, the most proper and necessary for promoting liberty in the world...

It has refused to assent to legislation such as the Bill of No Rights, thus violating the right of sovereign nations to voluntarily be free.

It has refused to assent to laws improving the health of the world based on solid biology...

If we understand your position correctly, you believe that your people's rights were violated because the U.N. failed to pass the resolutions you proposed. What kind of a "right" is that?

How did the failure of the U.N. to endorse those proposals (the "Bill of No Rights" and "GenetiCorp") affect IN ANY WAY your people's right to govern themselves (both individually and as a nation) according to whatever principles they find most persuasive?

1) The Bill of No Rights was a negative sovereignity act. By rejecting it the UN has forced us to rob our citizens.
2) GenetiCorp failing did NOT violate our country's rights. However, teh AIDS resolution passing DID. I was just showing that medical resolutions are being passed on a whichever-was-written-with-less-biological-basis.

Thank you for responding. You write that by rejecting the Bill of No Rights, the U.N. forced you to "rob" your citizens. How? Did the failure of that Resolution require you to provide ANY social benefits that you would not have otherwise have provided? If so, please name just one.

Concerning your second point: The central premises of GenetiCorp were that 1) individuals have a right to to clone themselves; and 2) private individuals and corporations engaged in civilian biotechnology should not be restricted by international law. Both of these premises rest upon (highly debatable) principles of ethics. "Solid biology" is a science, and as such rests on controlled observation and experimentation, plus the formulation of testable hypotheses--not on theories of ethics.

We ourselves have strongly disagreed with some of the resolutions passed by the U.N.--most recently the "Outer Space Initiative". Frankly, we would have preferred not to tax our people to pay for space exploration, and we have deep reservations about changing our educational system to provide "cradle-to-grave" hyping of the benefits of such exploration. But we recognise that one of the costs associated with belonging to an international organisation is that we are sometimes obliged to accept things with which we disagree. On balance, we feel that the U.N. can play an indispensable role in allowing nations with vastly differing philosophies--such as Ursoria and The Global Market--to share the same planet without tearing ourselves (and everyone else) apart.

The United Nations has refused to assent to laws, the most proper and necessary for promoting liberty in the world...

It has refused to assent to legislation such as the Bill of No Rights, thus violating the right of sovereign nations to voluntarily be free.

It has refused to assent to laws improving the health of the world based on solid biology...

If we understand your position correctly, you believe that your people's rights were violated because the U.N. failed to pass the resolutions you proposed. What kind of a "right" is that?

How did the failure of the U.N. to endorse those proposals (the "Bill of No Rights" and "GenetiCorp") affect IN ANY WAY your people's right to govern themselves (both individually and as a nation) according to whatever principles they find most persuasive?

1) The Bill of No Rights was a negative sovereignity act. By rejecting it the UN has forced us to rob our citizens.
2) GenetiCorp failing did NOT violate our country's rights. However, teh AIDS resolution passing DID. I was just showing that medical resolutions are being passed on a whichever-was-written-with-less-biological-basis.

Thank you for responding. You write that by rejecting the Bill of No Rights, the U.N. forced you to "rob" your citizens. How? Did the failure of that Resolution require you to provide ANY social benefits that you would not have otherwise have provided? If so, please name just one.

Concerning your second point: The central premises of GenetiCorp were that 1) individuals have a right to to clone themselves; and 2) private individuals and corporations engaged in civilian biotechnology should not be restricted by international law. Both of these premises rest upon (highly debatable) principles of ethics. "Solid biology" is a science, and as such rests on controlled observation and experimentation, plus the formulation of testable hypotheses--not on theories of ethics.

We ourselves have strongly disagreed with some of the resolutions passed by the U.N.--most recently the "Outer Space Initiative". Frankly, we would have preferred not to tax our people to pay for space exploration, and we have deep reservations about changing our educational system to provide "cradle-to-grave" hyping of the benefits of such exploration. But we recognise that one of the costs associated with belonging to an international organisation is that we are sometimes obliged to accept things with which we disagree. On balance, we feel that the U.N. can play an indispensable role in allowing nations with vastly differing philosophies--such as Ursoria and The Global Market--to share the same planet without tearing ourselves (and everyone else) apart.

Sorry about the multiple postings. Our browser showed that our message hadn't gone through, when in fact it had. Hell, we might support the "Bill of No Glitches"!!!

Heksefattania stronglu agrees with The Global Market, we have, however, not yet decided to actually leave the UN. But that the UN is disgustingly liberal is proved by the new AIDS resolution.

Heksefatter
God of Heksefattania

Liberal I wouldn't mind. The UN is disgustingly authoritarian and irrational.

Yes, but when I say liberal I use it as a term for left-leaning politics in general. I believe the UN to be left-wing in these days, and this is - in many cases - the same thing as being authoritarian and irrational. That said, I'm aware of the other meaning of the word "liberal", meaning tolerant and supportive of liberty. However, I used the word in the other sense.

Yours truly
Heksefatter
God of Heksefattania

Even within political leftness, I'd say that there's two main kinds:

-The libertarian/rational kind. These are ideologically closer to libertarian than socialist. They might support government social spending but also believe in a high degree of personal liberty, non-aggression, and some property rights. Stephistan comes to mind.
-The authoritarian/irrational kind. These are people who want to do things like restrict free speech of people they disagree with, abolish gambling and pornography, abolish private property, etc. These people often strongly support affirmative action, which is incredibly ridiculous.

Unofrunately its the authoritarian left, not the libertarian left, that controls teh UN.

Well I liked "The Genticorp Convention", but I can not say that I will be missing "The Socializm Acts" and "The Right to Enslave".

Whilst it is sad to see a nation leave the UN, we feel that Global MArkets absurd policies and proposals would only ruin the UN, if they were passed.

Thus we are happy to see that such threat of said policies is now diminshed.

Well you're a religious fundamentalist with no respect for human liberty, so....

Shame to see you leave the UN.Your views and ideas may not have been the same as mine, but your perspective was a possible neccesary influence on the UN to reflect the non-liberal viewpoint.