NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations Liberal Caucus is designed to allow liberal nations in the United Nations to band together to get worthy legislation passed. It is open to all United Nations members who consider themself liberal. Simply post here to join.

Current Members

Etamah
Feline
Gurthark
Ursoria
Boa Vista
Inya
Dalradia
Ganymerica
Demo-Bobylon
Rocky Open Sea
_Myopia_
Oilermania
Castivo

A few definitions of "Liberalism"

Feel free to contribute your own in the thread below (serious ones only, please)!

My definition:

A political philosophy that believes that government should allow their citizens wide-ranging civil and politicial rights and liberties, all the while pushing forward social progress and helping the unfortunate.

Merriamwebster.com:

A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

Dictionary.com:

A political theory founded on the [b]natural goodness of humans[/n] and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

OOC Notes:
Hold on, the poll is getting buggy, I'll bring it back soon.

I chose not to vote on this poll, as "liberal" and "conservative" are too vague of terms.

You should at least add "libertarian", and "national socialist" (there are a stunning number of nazis in NS, and they do not care to be called such)

"moderate" might be added too come to think of it.

Can't say for sure...fairly centrist...

Modern liberalism is centrist.

Liberalism and Conservatism are incredibly limited, you cannot simply put everyone into one of these categories (if you insist on two categories only then left wing or right wing are far better as these can at least be said to include most ideologies).

OOC: I get what you're saying, but the poll thing was just to draw people in, to get them to look at the thread. I just had to come up with a poll that made some sense along with the topic of the post.

You might have more success if you at least define your terms in terms of nation categorizations. For example, you could define "liberal" to include the following categorizations (these are the left-leaning or left-wing non-totalitarian regimes):

Left-Wing Utopia
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
Civil Rights Lovefest
Left-Leaning College State
Liberal Democratic Socialists
Democratic Socialists

And define "conservative" to mean their counterparts on the right:

Right-Wing Utopia
Free Market Paradise
Corporate Bordello
Capitalist Paradise
Conservative Democracy
Moralistic Democracy

I'm not saying these are the only way to divide up nations into "liberal" and "conservative", but you could say it's an arbitrary decision for the sake of the poll. That would at least stem arguments about what you mean.

(I left out totalitarian regimes, like "Iron-Fist Socialists" on the left and "Corporate Police States" on the right, from the above, because most self-identified "liberals" and "conservatives" don't like being grouped in with dictators. I also left out centrist states, of which there are many, such as the ever-popular "Inoffensive Centrist Democracy".)

(By the way, by the above definition, and most--but not all--others, Gurthark is "liberal", and would be interested in joining such an alliance.)

OOC: Pretty good breakdown...

IC:
Gurthark, welcome to the UNLC!

I'm an Anarcho-socialist, and I'm based in the UK. Over here the term Liberal refers to our minority centerist party. I'll join if you change your phrasiology

I am a far-right, religious conservative. Liberals are doomed.

I know the connotations Liberal holds in the UK, but what else to call it?

A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

If you fit that description, then join up!

We chose not to vote in this poll, but would like to join your organisation anyway. Ursoria is a democratic monarchy, with absolute freedom of thought and expression, so there is plenty of disagreement among our own people as to the "liberal vs conservative" circus. However, by and large, we tend to be philosophically conservative in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas and Edmund Burke--which makes us pretty "liberal" in today's political climate.

Welcome to the Caucus, Ursoria.

There is much debate in our society as well... but a liberal government is in power, and most of the population is liberal.

OOC:
Anyway, if you could describe those philosophies for me... I'm sort of interested in the subject of political philosophy, and I've heard their names, I just don't know their ideas too well.

Why not, sign me up. I'm a democratic socialist, and wouldn't mind if there was a socialist (no not a totalitarian one, that's not socialism, I'm an enemy of centralization) caucus instead. But whatever, this works too.

Welcome, Etamah. Feline is sort of a socialist, sort of a capitalist. I wrote up a description of our economic system, I'll have to post it sometime.

A UN "liberal" (actually left-wing) caucus is redundant, somewhat like having a white caucus within the Ku Klux Klan.

I am a far-right, religious conservative. Liberals are doomed.
Oh look! A madman!

OOC: Funny, Demo-Bobylon.

IC: Would you care to join, Demo-Bobylon?

And it is not redundant. Look at all the conservative nations within the United Nations.

A UN "liberal" (actually left-wing) caucus is redundant, somewhat like having a white caucus within the Ku Klux Klan.

I agree! Though there are right-wing nations within the UN, it is the left-wing resolutions that are pushed through. The right-wingers do not have any power in the UN, as they are not numereous enough to block left-wing proposals, or push through right-wing issues. Heksefattania is STRONGLY considering leaving the UN, as the latest resolution has done catastrophic damage to our economy. Heksefattania - and its home region has decided to all leave the UN if the next resolution bears any similarity to the latest AIDS-resolution, and if it is on its way to be passed, that is - we'll leave before it is passed, to avoid another disaster!

Yours Godly
Heksefatter
God of Heksefattania

Welcome to the Caucus, Ursoria.

There is much debate in our society as well... but a liberal government is in power, and most of the population is liberal.

OOC:
Anyway, if you could describe those philosophies for me... I'm sort of interested in the subject of political philosophy, and I've heard their names, I just don't know their ideas too well.

I'll do the best I can in this short space:

St Thomas Aquinas (who lived in the 13th century A.D.) was probably the most important philosopher of the Middle Ages, and is still the "official philosopher" of the Catholic Church. He wrote on a great many topics, both secular and religious, and considered the nature of human beings in relation to civil society, the Church, and God. Like most mediaeval thinkers, Aquinas believed that the "powers that be" are ordained by God--but he also believed that they have a duty to serve the interests of those they govern. Unlike many Christian philosophers, Aquinas believed that human beings have an innate capacity for knowledge, progress and goodness. He considered freedom both necessary and proper, but felt that it has meaning only in relation to other people and to God. Since life is a condition for both freedom and religious piety, Aquinas believed that government has a duty to provide the people with the necessities of life, whenever necessary and to the best of its ability. Aquinas wrote a great many works (more than any other philosopher), but his best-known writings are the "Summa Theologica" and the "Summa Contra Gentiles".

Edmund Burke was a great English-Irish parliamentarian, political thinker, and historian who lived in the 18th century. He had a long career in Parliament, and strongly supported the rights of the American colonists, as well as Catholic emancipation and other "progressive" causes. However, he was appalled by the French Revolution, and published his most famous work, "Reflexions on the Revolution in France" in response to Thomas Paine's well-known book, "The Rights of Man". Butke attached great value to what he called "enlightened prejudice"--the nearly-unconscous habits of thought, beliefs, and social attitudes that most people take for granted. He felt that political progress consists in perfecting the humane and libertarian values already embedded in our civilisation--rather than in scrapping civilisation and "starting over". Like Aquinas (and Adam Smith, for that matter), Burke believed that government has a duty to help the poor, both in their own interest, and for the sake of society as a whole.

I realise that the above summary is so short as to be almost painfully over-simplified. However, a great many books have been written about both men and their ideas. In regard to Burke and other conservative thinkers, I especially recommend "The Conservative Mind" by Russell Kirk. I don't know if it's still in print, but it's a great book.

Very interesting. Thank you.

The Most Holy Republic of Eredron condemns the establishment of a Liberal Caucus, as it does nothing more than bring division to a body dedicated to international cooperation and unity.

Yes, the UN is dedicated to international cooperation and unity. However, in many assemblies (such as the US Congress) bodies are formed to allow greater cooperation between like-minded nations. This does not mean we (Feline, at least) will not cooperate with conservative nations if we both have the same goals in a particular situation.

Ursoria is a democratic monarchy

Welcome to the Caucus, Ursoria.

1: A democratic monarchy is a contradiction, if you only have one ruler how can there be a choice?

2: Why are you letting a monarchy (which goes against liberalism) into a liberal alliance?

First of all, anyone who considers themself liberal can join.

Second of all, I think he means "constitutional monarchy," like the United Kingdom has.

First of all, anyone who considers themself liberal can join.

Second of all, I think he means "constitutional monarchy," like the United Kingdom has.

So since you are using any definition of liberal that means you will have neo-liberals (classical liberalism) allied with socialists (American bunch of arse liberalism). I am not seeing much common ground here.

Constitutional monarchy is fair enough, though in the UK liberals want to abolish the monarchy.

Ursoria is a democratic monarchy

Welcome to the Caucus, Ursoria.

1: A democratic monarchy is a contradiction, if you only have one ruler how can there be a choice?

2: Why are you letting a monarchy (which goes against liberalism) into a liberal alliance?

Surely the meaning of a word is different from its entymology. The word "monarchy" originally meant "rule by a single individual". But it has long since ceased to have that as its primary meaning. Today, "monarchy" generally refers to a government whose head of state is chosen according to some sort of hereditary principle.

Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Canada, and the U.K. are all examples of democratic monarchies in the modern world.

Goobergunchia is a proud liberal member of the United Nations and would request admission into this caucus.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Welcome, Goobergunchia!

Thank you.

I am a Corporate Police State, and I would like to join your alliance, so that I may poison your wells, steal your women, and generally wreak havoc. I mean... uh... help the... err... poor. Yeah. :roll:

Our constitution contains the following provisions:

"The Kingdom of Ursoria is a free, independent, and inalienable Realm, with sovereignty residing in the people. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy."

"The Head of State shall ensure that the government of the Realm is conducted in the fundamental interest of all the people, with special regard to the needs of the poor."

"All citizens who are at least eighteen years of age, and not serving a sentence lawfully imposed by a Court in a criminal matter, shall be eligible to vote in all elections, and to serve in all offices of government except Head of State."

"All persons are born free and equal in their humanity, and are possessed of inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the purpose of government to secure those rights within the context of a just and peaceful society."

"Human life being a necessary condition for human freedom, all people shall have a right to the requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care, to be provided at public expense, if necessary."

That is BOTH liberal and democratic. The last public opinion poll I saw indicated that over 90% of Ursorians support the monarchy. Wouldn't it be highly UNDEMOCRATIC to deprive our people of a form of government they overwhelmingly want?

Decaptio: No. You are not even a UN Member.

Our constitution contains the following provisions:

"The Kingdom of Ursoria is a free, independent, and inalienable Realm, with sovereignty residing in the people. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy."

That isn't constitutional monarchy at all then, in countries like the UK the monarchy is merely symbollic and real political power is held (in theory at least) by the Prime Minister and parliament. A hereditory government goes against all forms of liberalism because it eliminates the peoples ability to choose their leader.

"The Head of State shall ensure that the government of the Realm is conducted in the fundamental interest of all the people, with special regard to the needs of the poor."

"All citizens who are at least eighteen years of age, and not serving a sentence lawfully imposed by a Court in a criminal matter, shall be eligible to vote in all elections, and to serve in all offices of government except Head of State."

But if the head of state holds any power at all this is not democratic. Not forgetting that even in constitutional monarchies, where the monarchy has no real power, liberals still campaign to remove it.

"All persons are born free and equal in their humanity, and are possessed of inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the purpose of government to secure those rights within the context of a just and peaceful society."

"Human life being a necessary condition for human freedom, all people shall have a right to the requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care, to be provided at public expense, if necessary."

That is BOTH liberal and democratic. The last public opinion poll I saw indicated that over 90% of Ursorians support the monarchy. Wouldn't it be highly UNDEMOCRATIC to deprive our people of a form of government they overwhelmingly want?

and just before the war 100% of Iraqis elected Saddam Hussein.

I honestly don't know why we're having this dispute with Wolomy. If the people of Wolomy don't want to live under monarchy, that's their business. We don't try to tell Wolomians what form of government to have, and Wolomy shouldn't try to tell Ursorians what form of government they can have.

We ARE a constitutional monarchy, since the monarch's powers are defined and strictly limited by a written constitutions, portions of which I have just quoted.

The comparison with Saddam Hussein's Iraq is ridiculous. Iraq was an absolute dictatorship with only one political party. Ursoria has multiple parties, with five being represented in Parliament and several lesser parties. Our Parliament is elected partly on the basis of single-member constituencies, and partly on the basis of proportional representation. It selects a cabinet, headed by a Prime Minister, who is responsible for the day-to-day government of our country. Our government is a coalition of three parties of the center and moderate left (including the Greens).

None of the major political parties is opposed to the monarchy--even though there is absolutely nothing to prevent that if they feel so inclined. Furthermore, our constitution gives the people the right to amend the Constitution, by direct referendum. If the people didn't want our monarchy, it wouldn't last very long.

We strongly opposed the "Bill of No Rights" and other right-wing proposals in the U.N., and are rated as a "Left-Leaning College State". Our government is described as "liberal". If that isn't sufficient to make us "liberals", then what is? Do we have to adopt an alien form of government just to please Wolomy?

That isn't constitutional monarchy at all then, in countries like the UK the monarchy is merely symbollic...
A constitutional monarchy is (surprise) a nation with a monarch limited by a constitution. England has been a constitutional monarchy since 1215, but it's safe to say that Henry VIII was not "merely symbolic".

Not forgetting that even in constitutional monarchies, where the monarchy has no real power, liberals still campaign to remove it.

George Orwell (Eric Blair) was a devoted socialist, a "liberal" by most definitions, AND a committed monarchist. So was Harold Wilson.

England has been a constitutional monarchy since 1215, but it's safe to say that Henry VIII was not "merely symbolic".

Neither were Queen Wilhelmina and King Haakon "merely symbolic" during WWII. Both monarchs took an active role in organising resistance to the Nazis in their respective countries. Neither was King Juan Carlos "merely symbolic" when he acted to prevent a fascist military coup in Spain.

One of our previous kings put it best when he said: "Monarchs reign in order to serve. Under our system, they have no real power beyond their ability to inspire the affection of the people. Those who love monarchy, and most especially those of us who are monarchs, should always remember that fact."

One of our previous kings put it best when he said: "Monarchs reign in order to serve. Under our system, they have no real power beyond their ability to inspire the affection of the people. Those who love monarchy, and most especially those of us who are monarchs, should always remember that fact."
Sorry the only good royal is a dead royal. By the way our 'beloved HRH in the UK still has executive powers. No act of parliament in the UK can become active unless it has recieved royal approval. IE had the old imperialist sig scrawled across the bottom. The monarch don't sign it don't get enacted.
Whilst the problem of the royal scrawl not being applied has never arrisen (to my knowledge) it still exists and pro-royalists get very edgy if you ask them what would happen if the monarch refuses to sign. The UK tradition (we don't have a writain constitution by the way, so again the term 'constitutional monarchy' is misleading) infact give the monarch an absoult veto, and therefore we still have an absolute monarch who allows parliment to function by royal grace and favour.

Sorry the only good royal is a dead royal. By the way our 'beloved HRH in the UK still has executive powers. No act of parliament in the UK can become active unless it has recieved royal approval. IE had the old imperialist sig scrawled across the bottom. The monarch don't sign it don't get enacted.
Whilst the problem of the royal scrawl not being applied has never arrisen (to my knowledge) it still exists and pro-royalists get very edgy if you ask them what would happen if the monarch refuses to sign. The UK tradition (we don't have a writain constitution by the way, so again the term 'constitutional monarchy' is misleading) infact give the monarch an absoult veto, and therefore we still have an absolute monarch who allows parliment to function by royal grace and favour.

Since the Labour Party is the most leftwing of Britain's three major parties, the following quote by Prime Minister Tony Blair might be in order:

I have always thought that. I think my generation has come to have a great respect for the Queen and we have a clear constitutional position: The Government is the Government and the Queen as head of state enjoys enormous popular support, affection and respect."

Sorry the only good royal is a dead royal. By the way our 'beloved HRH in the UK still has executive powers. No act of parliament in the UK can become active unless it has recieved royal approval. IE had the old imperialist sig scrawled across the bottom. The monarch don't sign it don't get enacted.
Whilst the problem of the royal scrawl not being applied has never arrisen (to my knowledge) it still exists and pro-royalists get very edgy if you ask them what would happen if the monarch refuses to sign. The UK tradition (we don't have a writain constitution by the way, so again the term 'constitutional monarchy' is misleading) infact give the monarch an absoult veto, and therefore we still have an absolute monarch who allows parliment to function by royal grace and favour.

Since the Labour Party is the most leftwing of Britain's three major parties, the following quote by Prime Minister Tony Blair might be in order:

I have always thought that. I think my generation has come to have a great respect for the Queen and we have a clear constitutional position: The Government is the Government and the Queen as head of state enjoys enormous popular support, affection and respect."


Traditionally the labour party has been the most left leaning, but not anymore. they now follow a monetrist policey similar to Thatchers Right wing conservative party in the 1980's. from a policy stand point, the old centrist liberal democrats are the leftist party. But again they are pretty limp wristed with their ideals. Blair can speak for himself and his middle england cronies, but he doesn't speak for me or a lot of people . Hence the reason the turn out at UK elections has fallen to an all time low and people are deserting the old three parties in their droves. problem is under the UK electorial system (first past the post) minority parties cannot gain any power at all, so dispite parties like the Greens, The SWP, and (regretably) the BNP all increasing their share of the vote they have no voice at all.

And please don't for one minute think that the british monarchy is universally loved and respected.

I am interested in joining, but first want to know - when you say we are joining together to push through worthy legislation, how would we go about doing that? Do you mean on the forums, or by telegramming?

And please don't for one minute think that the british monarchy is universally loved and respected.

How could anyone NOT love Queen Elizabeth. She's such a nice old lady, and she has those cute little corgis. I mean, come on!!!!

You know 92% of conservatives supported the civil rights movement as opposed to 64% of liberals. Just throwin that out there. Robert Byrd was in the KKK. Hipocrytes

You know 92% of conservatives supported the civil rights movement as opposed to 64% of liberals. Just throwin that out there. Robert Byrd was in the KKK. Hipocrytes

did you know that 62% of all statistics are made up on the spot? One word: Dixiecrat

The People's Republic of Schim may be interested in joining. But, we'd like to hear more about this group first.

And please don't for one minute think that the british monarchy is universally loved and respected.

How could anyone NOT love Queen Elizabeth. She's such a nice old lady, and she has those cute little corgis. I mean, come on!!!!
I interviewed a former royal protection office once when writing for a now defunct left wing magazine. He had to spend 8 hour a day with 'darling' Lizzy2 and her foul mouthed bigot of a hubby and he said they were the nastiest, snobbiest, most racist people he had ever come across. They look upon the rest of the British population as something who's their to serve them, dispite what ever they may say on the record.

A socialist caucus would be more to Schim's liking.

And please don't for one minute think that the british monarchy is universally loved and respected.

How could anyone NOT love Queen Elizabeth. She's such a nice old lady, and she has those cute little corgis. I mean, come on!!!!
I interviewed a former royal protection office once when writing for a now defunct left wing magazine. He had to spend 8 hour a day with 'darling' Lizzy2 and her foul mouthed bigot of a hubby and he said they were the nastiest, snobbiest, most racist people he had ever come across. They look upon the rest of the British population as something who's their to serve them, dispite what ever they may say on the record.

Maybe they just had a bad day.

And please don't for one minute think that the british monarchy is universally loved and respected.

How could anyone NOT love Queen Elizabeth. She's such a nice old lady, and she has those cute little corgis. I mean, come on!!!!
I interviewed a former royal protection officer once when writing for a now defunct left wing magazine. He had to spend 8 hour a day with 'darling' Lizzy2 and her foul mouthed bigot of a hubby and he said they were the nastiest, snobbiest, most racist people he had ever come across. They look upon the rest of the British population as something who's their to serve them, dispite what ever they may say on the record.

Maybe they just had a bad day.

He was with the RPS for 3 years, 2 1/2 of them with The queen herself, that's a lot of bad days.

And please don't for one minute think that the british monarchy is universally loved and respected.

How could anyone NOT love Queen Elizabeth. She's such a nice old lady, and she has those cute little corgis. I mean, come on!!!!

I know this is OT but what I admire about her is how she was an active, skilled Jeep mechanic during WW II.

Is it possible that monarchy gives the media someone else to talk scandal about than politicians? Maybe they act as a lightning rod, making life a little safer for Parliament.

And please don't for one minute think that the british monarchy is universally loved and respected.

How could anyone NOT love Queen Elizabeth. She's such a nice old lady, and she has those cute little corgis. I mean, come on!!!!

I know this is OT but what I admire about her is how she was an active, skilled Jeep mechanic during WW II.

Is it possible that monarchy gives the media someone else to talk scandal about than politicians? Maybe they act as a lightning rod, making life a little safer for Parliament.

That's another complaint against them, while the press is running about after the inbred imperialist paracites the government tries to get away with loads of stuff. When the Queen Mother died the government tried to put out some bad economic and crime figure on the same day, so they would be over looked in the media royal feeding frenzy.

Ursorians are among the most devoted monarchists in the world. We love the panoply of royalty--the pomp, the ceremony and the colour. We love having a large golden crown on our flag. Our King regularly walks the streets without any bodyguards whatever, and chats with ordinary people from all walks of life. Does the President of the U.S. do likewise? So who is the more "democratic"--our King or their President? (Come to think of it, the U.S. President received fewer votes than his opponent. So much for republics and "democracy" going together.)

If our people seriously wanted a republic, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent them from amending the Constitution to have one. The reason we're a monarchy is that most of our people want to keep our form of government just as it is. That IS democracy.

Could somebody please answer my question? Preferably the founder of the caucus...

I am interested in joining, but first want to know - when you say we are joining together to push through worthy legislation, how would we go about doing that? Do you mean on the forums, or by telegramming?

I mean like different caucuses do in the US Congress... just a loose coalition of congressmen (or in our case nations) working together to ring attention to legislation that they think should be passed, getting it to a vote, and then lobbying for the vote to happen. It's just a framework for people with similar ideas to make things happen with. And I really don't have any special power in the caucus, other than editing the first post in the thread.

Thanks. I don't think i'd be much help if i joined, being a casual player n not knowing many people on here.

Ursorians are among the most devoted monarchists in the world. We love the panoply of royalty--the pomp, the ceremony and the colour. We love having a large golden crown on our flag. Our King regularly walks the streets without any bodyguards whatever, and chats with ordinary people from all walks of life. Does the President of the U.S. do likewise? So who is the more "democratic"--our King or their President? (Come to think of it, the U.S. President received fewer votes than his opponent. So much for republics and "democracy" going together.)

If our people seriously wanted a republic, there would be absolutely nothing to prevent them from amending the Constitution to have one. The reason we're a monarchy is that most of our people want to keep our form of government just as it is. That IS democracy.

Arh yes but in a game like this we can do that, I run a hardline communist one party state where everybody looks to the party as their protector and life giver, so we don't even have to have gullags or salt mines. Even the youngestchild can feed an idea into the lowest level of the party system and have his ideas recognised by the leader if enough people support it on the way up. We allow factions within the party, but not other parties (that is the road to corruption and vote buying).

Sadly in the real world monarchy's tend to be a bunch on self interested inbreed snobs who wouldn't know about real life if it stung them on their pampered rumps.

I run a hardline communist one party state where everybody looks to the party as their protector and life giver, so we don't even have to have gullags or salt mines.

Somehow, I think that having a monarchy with a King who enjoys chatting with ordinary people is more believable, in terms of the "real world", than having a "hardline communist one party state" without gulags or salt mines.

I run a hardline communist one party state where everybody looks to the party as their protector and life giver, so we don't even have to have gullags or salt mines.

Somehow, I think that having a monarchy with a King who enjoys chatting with ordinary people is more believable, in terms of the "real world", than having a "hardline communist one party state" without gulags or salt mines.

That is a matter of personal opinion my friend.
Also for an interesting view on the history of European royalty why not track down the book 'Royal Babylon' by Karl Shaw (published by Virgin books in the UK, I dunno about elsewhere) it does make very interesting reading.

We are interested in the UNLC.

Do you have any questions? The only requirements are that you be liberal and a UN Member.

bump

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF BOA VISTA

The President of the Commonwealth has approved the proposal to apply for membership of the United Nations Liberal Caucus. Although the Commonwealth Government is officially classified as an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, our fundemental government and foreign policies and beliefs are of a liberal nature.

The Commonwealth Government believes this can be a great oppotunity for the liberals to improve the world.

Sincerely
Joao Ferreira
Presidential Minister for Public Relations
The Commonwealth of Boa Vista

bump

We would be interesting in joining such an organization, before the conservative (or, god forbid, the totalitarian) nations band together and get absurd and offensive resolutions like "ban homosexuality" through to the U.N.

peace and love,
Mandie
Princess of Inya

I wish to build and safegaurd a fair, free and open society, which seeks to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslavd by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

If the Liberal caucus wishes to accept me, then I wish to join.

bump

I would go forth with this, but I am not in the UN. I am a "liberal" though, being more of a Anarcho-Socialist (the true Anarchists).

bump

IC: Would you care to join, Demo-Bobylon?



Erm, Ok. Though I'm really an authoritarian on economic matters (I'm anarcho-communist). Am I still in?

(these are the left-leaning or left-wing non-totalitarian regimes):

Left-Wing Utopia
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
Civil Rights Lovefest
Left-Leaning College State
Liberal Democratic Socialists
Democratic Socialists

Ganymerica would like to point out that it is by the UN classified as a "New York Times Democracy", and that it thinks it's politics, along with it's UN rating qualifies it as a liberal nation.
Therefor, Ganymerica hereby would like to apply to join the UNLC.

A UN "liberal" (actually left-wing) caucus is redundant, somewhat like having a white caucus within the Ku Klux Klan.

I agree! Though there are right-wing nations within the UN, it is the left-wing resolutions that are pushed through. The right-wingers do not have any power in the UN, as they are not numereous enough to block left-wing proposals, or push through right-wing issues. Heksefattania is STRONGLY considering leaving the UN, as the latest resolution has done catastrophic damage to our economy. Heksefattania - and its home region has decided to all leave the UN if the next resolution bears any similarity to the latest AIDS-resolution, and if it is on its way to be passed, that is - we'll leave before it is passed, to avoid another disaster!

Yours Godly
Heksefatter
God of Heksefattania

Beating on Israel and decrying capitalism are typical left-wing resolutions but not particularly liberal... but here in NS, yes, any resolution which makes it to the vote is generally humanist, liberal or both. Incidetally, have you noticed that every resolution proposed has been passed?

In any case, the Parliament of Rocky Open Sea, an inoffensive centrist democracy with ambitions on the status of Scandinavian Liberal Paradise, has seen fit to apply for membership in the Liberal Caucus but reserves the right to make any vote a free vote if left-wingers supplant the liberals.

_Myopia_ has reconsidered and would also like to join. I am not sure however, whether those here are liberal as Americans seem to use the term (i.e. left-wing economically as well as actually liberal with rights etc) or just liberal with rights and a wide range of economic opinions. I am of the former, being very liberal in the sense of rights etc., and fairly socialist.

(these are the left-leaning or left-wing non-totalitarian regimes):

Left-Wing Utopia
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise
Civil Rights Lovefest
Left-Leaning College State
Liberal Democratic Socialists
Democratic Socialists

Ganymerica would like to point out that it is by the UN classified as a "New York Times Democracy", and that it thinks it's politics, along with it's UN rating qualifies it as a liberal nation.
Therefor, Ganymerica hereby would like to apply to join the UNLC.

Admittedly, there's something a bit wrong with the list. It includes nations where civil rights are *more* important than economic rights. It doesn't say anything about the *absolute* levels of importance of any of those rights.

A New York Times Democracy has an economy as regulated as a Civil Rights Lovefest, and a society as socially open as Liberal Democratic Socialists (it's just that its economy isn't as regulated as Liberal Democratic Socialists, nor is its society as open as a Civil Rights Lovefest). So it could arguably be included. As could an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, for that matter.

Frankly we think that terms like "liberal", "conservative"--and even "socialist", "capitalist", "libertarian", "anarchist", and "Marxist"--have so many different and conflicting meanings that it's impossible to think in those terms. We prefer to apply our principles (which we think are reasonably humane and civilised) to each specific issue as it comes up, without being put in any kind of ideological straitjacket. We try to maintain a healthy economy--but we want it to work for the benefit of everyone and not just a few. We are a monarchy--but we see our monarch as the Defender of the Poor. We love freedom--but we want freedom to be about enjoying life. Other people can put whatever labels they want on us--we think of ourselves simply as Ursorians.

So...um...are any of us accepted as members?

The social democracy of oilermania would like to join this prestiges caucus of fellow liberals.

For us, monarchy is not primarily about inherited privilege. It is primarily about inherited service. Our crown belongs to the people--and especially to those who have no other protection. A King's highest duty is to defend the poor. He is their voice in the councils of the mighty.

do you have a list of current members at ths time?

I have posted on another topic and I think the post would be somewhat significant here.

If you do think the UN is corrupt, I think I know why.

Look at the passed resolutions. Very few are free trade resolutions and there is only one increase in military spending resolution. The reason is rather obivious.

Left-wing countries are far more likely to stay in the UN if a resolution passes they do not like, out of respect for the democratic process. More capitilist countries will leave out of disgust, saving their own nation from the consecuences but in turn furthering the agenda of those left-wing countries.

Thus, dictatorships and capitalist nations tend to hate the UN. But if they leave, it isn't exactly helping.

This is from the ongoing Wold Bank debate.

The prospect of a liberal caucus sounds intriguing and my country, as a Scandanavian Liberal Paridise, is interested in joining.