NationStates Jolt Archive

This message is not a formal proposal, but a call for reform of the United Nations. As posted in the first message in the "What is the Mandate of the U.N.?" forum, the United Nations has specific duties. Abysseria charges that the United Nations members regularly do not meet the standards required for the UN to be a viable international governing body. As such, Abysseria recommends, and calls for support of, the following changes:

1. The U.N. forum moderators delete any proposals calling for a resolution that has already been legislated into existance by part of, or the entirety of, a previously passed resolution.

2. That U.N. forum moderators consider a system that requires voters to participate, or at the minimum, view debate on the currently proposed resolution.

3. That U.N. forum moderators delte any proposals that violate the mandate of the United Nations before allowing member nations that are improperly informed the ability to support a misguided proposal.

Abysseria recognizes that these steps are broadly stated, that they give much power to the forum moderators, and that they infringe on the liberty of member nations. However, Abysseria believes that liberty must be sacrificed to create order. The U.N., as it functions now, includes far too many nations that vote without considering debate, or participating in debate. It allows for proposals that violate the UN mandate. It allows for proposals that over-legislate.

Abysseria also recognizes, and firmly believes, that a majority of UN members are uninformed to the point of repeatedly making poor, and that is to say uniformed, decisions that have negatively impacted the UN. Abysseria believes that the four proposals listed here, each calling for UN nations make informed decisions, will better our community.

Regards,

The Commonwealth of Abysseria

Abysseria recognizes that these steps are broadly stated, that they give much power to the forum moderators, and that they infringe on the liberty of member nations. However, Abysseria believes that liberty must be sacrificed to create order.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety [or, in this case, order] deserve neither liberty nor safety [see previous comment]."

While your intentions are good, the execuition is utterly impractical. You cannot FORCE anyone to make an 'informed' decision. There will alwyas be those who vote for whatever side has the nicest name or whatnot.

Also, the people of New Clarkhall seem to be confused on the issue of the UN's powers and mandate. While the thread on the UN's mandate seems to make the point that the RW-UN has a number of limitations. However, it does ot make the jump to stating that the NS-UN also has these limitations. Stephistan's purpose seemed to be to inform us as to what the RW-UN could and could not do and to suggest we model our behaviour on that. Unfortunately a suggestion is ALL it is. The NS-UN has almost NO limitations on what resolutions can be submitted.

The only topic we agree with you apon, is the deletion of resolutions which simply propose something that is already law (such as resolutions calling for free education, even though we already have passed such a resolution).

Abysseria recognizes that these steps are broadly stated, that they give much power to the forum moderators, and that they infringe on the liberty of member nations. However, Abysseria believes that liberty must be sacrificed to create order.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety [or, in this case, order] deserve neither liberty nor safety [see previous comment]."

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and all that is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address

What Abysseria promotes is an environment of a wise and frugal United Nations, which shall restrain us from injuring ourselves. And that is the sum of good government.

While your intentions are good, the execuition is utterly impractical. You cannot FORCE anyone to make an 'informed' decision. There will alwyas be those who vote for whatever side has the nicest name or whatnot.

Also, the people of New Clarkhall seem to be confused on the issue of the UN's powers and mandate. While the thread on the UN's mandate seems to make the point that the RW-UN has a number of limitations. However, it does ot make the jump to stating that the NS-UN also has these limitations. Stephistan's purpose seemed to be to inform us as to what the RW-UN could and could not do and to suggest we model our behaviour on that. Unfortunately a suggestion is ALL it is. The NS-UN has almost NO limitations on what resolutions can be submitted.

The only topic we agree with you apon, is the deletion of resolutions which simply propose something that is already law (such as resolutions calling for free education, even though we already have passed such a resolution).

Abysseria agrees with the people of New Clarkhall in that we cannot force people to make informed decisions - but we can increase the likelyhood that they occur.

Secondly, while Stephistan's purpose was to inform us of what the RW-UN could and could not do, and that the NS-UN has almost no limitations, what Abysseria has proposed is to establish similar limitations as to those in the RW-UN.

Well quoted.

Well quoted.

Indeed

MODALERT :arrow: Technical

We like this idea and do not see it as compromising our liberties in order to improve order. We would, however, like the opportunity to amend or nullify a preevious resolution. Therefore, we believe that the first point should be refined to allow these exceptions, as long as the pre-existing resolution is mentioned in the proposal.