NationStates Jolt Archive

We are losing by hundreds of votes stop them now :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!: :!:

wtf are you talking about!?!

MODALERT

wtf are you talking about!?!

MODALERT

The recnt UN proposal on Labor Unions which basically limits the rights of state sovereignty to an international Communist organization.

I don't know about the rest of you, but this shouldn't be dictated to other countries by the UN. Besides, if unions get out of contol and need to be take down, what can you do about it if this resolution passes? It takes away the right to govern your country as you see fit.

Just my $0.02

Huh. McCarthyist n00b. :roll:

MODALERT again.

Respected Delegates

If a union is corrupt than a nation is within it's rights to remove that corruption and that is catered for in the mandate and in your constitutions, however workers should always have the right to form unions in order to protect themselves, if your nation is so fair and does not need unions than your workforce shall not form unions. HOwever if you are supressing your workforce and mistreating them... well you reap what you sow...

At this moment it appears the centerists and leftists control the vote on this particuler issue.

You should consider the methods that you shall use inorder to ensure that the unions work within your laws... not attempt to bar them out right.

Ambassador Delgreece of Twy-Sunrats

Respected Delegates

If a union is corrupt than a nation is within it's rights to remove that corruption and that is catered for in the mandate and in your constitutions, however workers should always have the right to form unions in order to protect themselves, if your nation is so fair and does not need unions than your workforce shall not form unions. HOwever if you are supressing your workforce and mistreating them... well you reap what you sow...

At this moment it appears the centerists and leftists control the vote on this particuler issue.

You should consider the methods that you shall use inorder to ensure that the unions work within your laws... not attempt to bar them out right.

Ambassador Delgreece of Twy-Sunrats
Totally agreed!

If a union is corrupt than a nation is within it's rights to remove that corruption and that is catered for in the mandate and in your constitutions, however workers should always have the right to form unions in order to protect themselves, if your nation is so fair and does not need unions than your workforce shall not form unions. HOwever if you are supressing your workforce and mistreating them... well you reap what you sow...

If this were the case, then the Dominion of Dinoponera would be in favour of the current proposal. However, Clause 4 of the proposal expressly forbids the influence of public bodies over union affairs and would therefore prevent a nation from 'removing that corruption'. It is a charter for undemocratic hard-left monoliths and corrupt leaders. The right to freely associate and the right to free speech are already enshrined in previous UN resolutions. This proposal will do nothing constructive.

The Disputed Territories of New bruno, as the UN delegate from the Mighty Tasty Corndogs of Death, is ready to cast our votes against the resolution.

We are a new region, and are wondering if there are larger blocs with whom we can align.

Nations! Leaders! Delegates!
Think and think well! Please do the right choice - vote AGAINST the new resolution.
If this resolution comes to power, think about the consequences. When some "labor union" is established your contry cannot control or affect these unions. So if someone (or some organisation) wants to "make things as they want" using these unions(strikes e.t.c), the goverment or police, and even military power, can"t stop it because U.N. resolution asks for "free from interference"
Remeber - there is no power without control

Think wise!

Sherlock, Leader of the Free Land of Dark Squirrel

I tend to agree with the majority of delegates here in my opposition to this most recent UN bill. We cannot let our nations have their soverignty taken away from them :!: :!: I would advise a campaign amonst the regions by the UN delegates to gain support in ouropposition to this bill, much like was done with the last bill.

FREEDOM! :o

Nations! Leaders! Delegates!
Think and think well! Please do the right choice - vote AGAINST the new resolution.
If this resolution comes to power, think about the consequences. When some "labor union" is established your contry cannot control or affect these unions. So if someone (or some organisation) wants to "make things as they want" using these unions(strikes e.t.c), the goverment or police, and even military power, can"t stop it because U.N. resolution asks for "free from interference"
Remeber - there is no power without control

Think wise!

Sherlock, Leader of the Free Land of Dark Squirrel

*ahem*

"...free from interference by the public authorities when drawing up their constitutions and rules, electing their representatives, organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programs"

You cannot run unions as entities of the state. They shall be free to set their own internal structures and choose their own goals and campaigns. That is all that this says.

If union members act outside of the law, then the members who do so can be held accountable for their crimes.
AFoFS UN Council

The primary problem with this is that it expressly violates the property rights of business owners.

I tend to agree with the majority of delegates here in my opposition to this most recent UN bill. We cannot let our nations have their soverignty taken away from them :!: :!: I would advise a campaign amonst the regions by the UN delegates to gain support in ouropposition to this bill, much like was done with the last bill.

FREEDOM! :o

You speak of freedom, but the freedom you mean is the "freedom" to rule others. There is no such freedom; in fact we commonly call that sort of "freedom" tyranny and oppression. Freedom means people having rights. Rights to act without the government stomping on them and without big business crushing them. Rights to have a say in the running of their lives. Unions are the only instrument we know of that can allow working people to have any say over their working conditions under the systems that most nations in the world operate under. Freedom loving people should not stand against the means of emancipation.

Freedom loving people also do not rule nations with below average civil rights where political freedoms are unheard of.
AFoFS UN Council

My understanding of this proposal is that, if passed, it would force all nations to recognize and protect any union that was formed. To me, that is WAY too universal, and would undermine many many governments that have been established without provisions for unions. This resolution is seen as a diversionary tactic to force nations into a socialist form of government. I foresee that if there were to be passed, unions would become a powerful enough force within their own countries to assert their influence at a dangerously high level.

In short, this resolution grants unions too much power and forces governments to cowtow to the unions too much.

Please join with the MCToD region's UN delegate, New bruno, and vote AGAINST this resolution. Dangerous. Dangerous indeed.

The primary problem with this is that it expressly violates the property rights of business owners.


It's nearly impossible to have a government that doesn't violate "property rights". And if there is no government to give the people those rights, then they can't exist.

Your "inherent rights" don't mean anything when a man with a gun takes all that property that you previosuly had rights to.

The primary problem with this is that it expressly violates the property rights of business owners.

Property rights are not eternal and unchanging. There is no platonic form. They are created by human beings, not by the gods.
AFoFS UN Council

Freedom loving people also do not rule nations with below average civil rights where political freedoms are unheard of.
AFoFS UN Council

Neither does the nation of Bradtoria to whom you appeared to address that remark.

By the Universe I wish there were a war option so I may launch a crusade against such Communist ilk.

If the Anarcho-Communists succeed in turning the United Nations into the Comintern, there probably would be a war. My nation would be forced to withdraw along with many others and this would do little to save the global peace the UN was intended to promote.

All I'm going to say is a few words..

Unions go on strike alot. 99% of the time it's for stupid reasons ("Hey Bob! I cant afford to buy a Ferrari. Let's strike!" "Ok Jim")

But if you even think of saying unions make people more free...think again. Example...

I want to work..my Union boss gets caught in bed with the company owners wife and decides to strike (because ht eowner threatened to fire him). Now I *want* to work to support my wife, kids, etc. Put food on the table, pay bill, but CANT because someone decides to strike and whine about things like a child. There's talk of big business beiong bad? Ok, the Top three auto makers in the US are dictated to by unions. I believe other car companies are as well. The media is controlled by a union(s).

When a union goes on strike, and you decide to use your *freedom* and not agree with the union people and try to cross a line to say...but food for your kids, you get punched, blocked, whatever. Basically bullied. So in effect, (in the last semi-example), my kids starve because Joe-Bob wants a new truck and is on strike...or the company couldnt afford Charmin and got Cottenelle instead and irked some Union rep.

The measure also, as pointed out prior, contradicts itself. What if a union striker decides to sabotage some government equipment? In my country, that's borderline terrorism (high felony crime possibly terrorism, depneds on what exactly was done). Does this mean I cant jail the person because of the Union Proposal? What about the legal mage for children to work? In the US it's what? 17 but in my country it's 15 (and yes, they get the same medical benefits and pay as the adults..not like India and their Bidi industry)

To ensure further peace in it's country as well as it's security, the nation of Necrotasia votes NO.

If passed, I'll get a NON-Union person to help me move my things out of the UN.

The socialists nations are taking control of the world, just like it is going to happen in the real world. HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE! VENCEREMOS!

Freedom loving people also do not rule nations with below average civil rights where political freedoms are unheard of.
AFoFS UN Council

Neither does the nation of Bradtoria to whom you appeared to address that remark.

Whoa, I offer my most heartfelt appologies. That line was added as an afterthought, but apparently I clicked on the link to Dark Squirrel (the person I had just replied to before) instead of Bradtoria. Again, my apologies to Bradtoria for unfairly attacking their country.

Hey, guys?

No matter how "evil" you think labor unions are, at least agree with me on this:

Unions were formed to keep big buisness in check.

Just as our government has a series of checks and balances, so does society.

In some cases, unions abuse their powers, but don't think that the corperations won't just as soon destroy employee pay if the mimimum wage were repaled.

Heck, the former CEO of Wal-mart even appealed to the US supreme court for exemption from the minimum wage.

If you hate labor unions, at least accpet them as a necesary evil, just like corperations.

Hey, guys?

No matter how "evil" you think labor unions are, at least agree with me on this:

Unions were formed to keep big buisness in check.

Just as our government has a series of checks and balances, so does society.

In some cases, unions abuse their powers, but don't think that the corperations won't just as soon destroy employee pay if the mimimum wage were repaled.

Heck, the former CEO of Wal-mart even appealed to the US supreme court for exemption from the minimum wage.

If you hate labor unions, at least accpet them as a necesary evil, just like corperations.

I'll have you all know that the Republic of Kuntistan has rejected the "rights of labor unions" proposal.

Why? This line primarily:

3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally.

It's hard enough dealing with overzealous union activity on the national level throwing a monkey wrench in the economy, but coordinating GLOBAL strikes? What possible reason can there be for such wide-scale power besides attempting to destroy capitalism?

My people will not stand for it. They do well enough without some tranzi buereacracy holding their hands. If they don't like their job, they quit and find another one, which there are plenty of in a vibrant, open market like that we've established.

The Government of the Dominion of Dinoponera does not oppose the formation of trade unions, or indeed of any free association of citizens. What we do oppose is any attempt to place a non-governmental organisation above the rule of law. We believe that the present bill is worded in such a manner as to give unions unique protection against the laws of the state. Whether this be the intention of the authors of the proposal or not, the wording is such as to make unions overpowerful.

As such we are continuing to urge all fellow nations to oppose this bill.

Should the nation of Free Soviets propose an alternative bill which addresses our reservations, we would wholeheartedly support it. However it is our belief that a number of the clauses in the proposal now before the General Assembly present a direct threat to the rights of democratically elected government to rule.

Hey, guys?

No matter how "evil" you think labor unions are, at least agree with me on this:

Unions were formed to keep big buisness in check.

Just as our government has a series of checks and balances, so does society.

In some cases, unions abuse their powers, but don't think that the corperations won't just as soon destroy employee pay if the mimimum wage were repaled.

Heck, the former CEO of Wal-mart even appealed to the US supreme court for exemption from the minimum wage.

If you hate labor unions, at least accpet them as a necesary evil, just like corperations.

That is exactly right! However, go read provision 7 then read provision 4. Carefully. The wording of this proposal removes the very checks and balances that you speak of!

The very broad wording could be interpreted to mean that a union, in the hands of a corrupt leader, could engage in any manner of unethical, abusive, or downright destructive behavior, and a nation would have no means of stopping it!

Be verrrry careful of these things! It is not so easy to fix a bad law as it is to not pass it in the first place!

The "Vibrant, open market" you describe isn't the best breeding ground for jobs.

As soon as you let corperations off the government hook, they make their buisnesses "more efficent". (read: less safe, more hours, less workers.)

The checks and balances I mentioned don't exist in law.

It's a tradition, and I think that if you were correct, then the point of labor unions would be defeated.

The wording of the resolution obviously recognizes the constant struggle between buisness and unions, as stated by the second point.

The "Vibrant, open market" you describe isn't the best breeding ground for jobs.

As soon as you let corperations off the government hook, they make their buisnesses "more efficent". (read: less safe, more hours, less workers.)

Nobody is arguing for letting corporations do whatever they want. The argument is that corporations should have the same rights as any other free association of individuals, and be free from government interference except when they take a positive action that violates the rights of another individual or group.

If a corporation reduces safety, workers will either not work there or demand higher pay. If a corporation increases hours, workers will either not work there or demand higher pay. If a corporation cuts workers, well that's their right isn't it? The workers they cut probably weren't productive in the first place. If they cut too many workers, they go out of business.

Corporations are evil, so I should probably be for it, but then unions will get too much power, but already have a lot anyway because corporations can't do anything. I always give the workers the 20% pay increase on the issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "1 day since the
last starship accident."

You may have missed the fact that the reason that corperations maintain holds in certain areas only beacuse unions tell them too.

Whenever a company wants to shut down a plant beacuse it has outlived its usefulness, only labor unions will try to stop it.

Since you seem to think that a company laying off workers is perfectly resonable, perhaps you have not fully considered the fact that corperations these days are becoming increasingly anational. If corperations were to move all of its operations overseas except for its headquarters, then what is all the corperate welfare for?

But for the labor unions, corperations may severly restrict the amount of jobs in a nation, and the government would have to make up for that by increasing government jobs.

And don't try to deny that corperations are looking for ways to get less and less educated workers.

Indian scientests have developed a numberless cash register for use by McDonald's employees in Texas.

The Hellspatio region votes against this proposal based on the following criteria:

Severely limiting to the sovereignty of the state

Takes power away from one organization and plops it into the lap of another, both which equally corruptible.

No limiting of power of a union on the state level. If air traffic controllers, the police, and emergency care workers form unions the state can't do a thing about it. Imagine the carnage if they held strikes around the same time. it would hold the State hostage.

This issue is to be addressed by the individual State, not imposed by the world at large.

-Kinf Pretty of Oafish Downtrodden

Sometimes, for the good of the state and it's economy, the government must have the power to step in and stop strikes or impossible demands made by unions.

For this reason, the United Peoples of Moriwen vote against the Labor Union Protection Leglislation and urge other nations to do the same.

Sometimes, for the good of the state and it's economy, the government must have the power to step in and stop strikes or impossible demands made by unions.

For this reason, the United Peoples of Moriwen vote against the Labor Union Protection Leglislation and urge other nations to do the same.

The government has no right to tell unions what they can and cannot demand. Just like the government has no right to tell corporations what they can and cannot offer.

Yeah.

The proposal obviously says that you can.

Read it, please.

2. All nations must take appropriate steps to ensure the ability of unions to engage in industrial actions, and must appoint unbiased mediators to resolve disputes if a strike continues for 60 days or more.

The primary problem with this is that it expressly violates the property rights of business owners.

Property rights are not eternal and unchanging. There is no platonic form. They are created by human beings, not by the gods.
AFoFS UN Council

False. Rights are absolute, and exist because man has the capability to reason.

Property rights are not eternal and unchanging. There is no platonic form. They are created by human beings, not by the gods.

False. Rights are absolute, and exist because man has the capability to reason.

Fine. Then there is no such thing as property rights, only property relations. Because "property rights" change. They can be and are modified to suit human ends.
AFoFS UN Council

No, they can't be. Perception does not create reality. You cannot modify rights; you can only choose to what extent individuals will be allowed to exercise them.

THANKYOU DEAR GOD!!!! ALL THOSE BASTARDS IN NORTH AMERICA DON'T RECOGNIZE THIS AS A COMMUNIST THREAT AND SAYING THAT I NOE NOTHING WHAT SO EVER ABOUT COMMUNISM THANK GOD FOR U PPL NOW THAT I NOE U EXIST!!!! :!: :D

"Rights are never given, only asserted"
-Martin Luther King Jr.

Of course rights can be modified. What do you think the US Supreme court judicial review is for?

The answer is, it's to adapt laws to the changing times.

"Rights are never given, only asserted"
-Martin Luther King Jr.

Of course rights can be modified. What do you think the US Supreme court judicial review is for?

The answer is, it's to adapt laws to the changing times.

Fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property are inalienable. A government that doesn't respect these can legitimately be overthrown.

However, what we call common-law-rights and smaller legal rights can be modified, just as long as they fulfill the advancement of a higher right.

Judicial review is to prevent Congress from getting out of hand. It's designed to protect the Rule of Law, which is the best nonviolent recourse in protecting your rights.

lets look at the facts here. capitalism and globalization are failing all over the world. if we vote YES to this proposal, the nation-state and its sovereign power will actually benefit. by closing the rich/poor gap some, economies alll over the world will improve. of course, some rights of the people will be given up. but we must weigh this with a cost/benefit analysis. the benefit outweighs the cost by much!!!!!! vote YES!!!!!!!!!

False. It's to ensure that laws don't violate absolute principles of individual liberty.

Of course, as of late it's often been failing miserably at that task.

I would like to point out that in the current resolution it states clearly:

3. Unions shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations of labor unions, both nationally and internationally

which means Free Soviets are calling upon civils to rebel against their "capitalist government" or support other communist governments. I don't know about your country but in my country that is high treason and punishable by death.
And i would also like to state; if u noe anything about communism wat so ever thats wat they did in the beginning.

You can't blame us for the increasingly party-line voting in the Supreme court.

Thats what you get for letting a duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties (which have become increasingly similar in the past years) rule the government.

Contenental America, you are sounding increasingly like some columnist from the Cold War era. WAY too suspicious of other governments and way too trusting of yours.

Freedom loving people also do not rule nations with below average civil rights where political freedoms are unheard of.
AFoFS UN Council

Neither does the nation of Bradtoria to whom you appeared to address that remark.

Whoa, I offer my most heartfelt appologies. That line was added as an afterthought, but apparently I clicked on the link to Dark Squirrel (the person I had just replied to before) instead of Bradtoria. Again, my apologies to Bradtoria for unfairly attacking their country.


I will also add that the representative from Free Soviets doesn't know the first thing about communism. I can quote from a book called 'Communism and Why We Should Learn About It'
states clearly first chapter "communists real aims is to create a government owned by the ppl and for the people, everybody is an equal in a communist society no matter what their social status is."

No, they can't be. Perception does not create reality. You cannot modify rights; you can only choose to what extent individuals will be allowed to exercise them.

Ithuania, I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing, other than maybe showing other people you have bad grammar.

Main Entry: 2right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3 : something that one may properly claim as due
4 : the cause of truth or justice
5 a : RIGHT HAND 1a; also : a blow struck with this hand <gave him a hard right on the jaw> b : the location or direction of the right side <woods on his right> c : the part on the right side d : RIGHT FIELD
6 a : the true account or correct interpretation b : the quality or state of being factually correct
7 often capitalized a : the part of a legislative chamber located to the right of the presiding officer b : the members of a continental European legislative body occupying the right as a result of holding more conservative political views than other members
8 a often capitalized : individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian order (as in government) b often capitalized : a conservative position
9 a : a privilege given stockholders to subscribe pro rata to a new issue of securities generally below market price b : the negotiable certificate evidencing such privilege -- usually used in plural

The one highlighted is the one that the term "property rights" refers to, and as you can see, that is not the definition you are using. You seem to be using #4, which is most certainly not the definition of right people are using in the term property rights. If it were, then people would not claim they are entitled to propterty rights under law.

You are doing the same thing with the world moral, if you think you are making some sort of statement by not using correct grammar, then you are incredibly wrong, because from what I have seen, you have not had one single debate with a person on thier actual political stance, only on whether or not these things are rights and what an absolute moral is. Which is completely mundane, because if you do ever manage to convince someone that these things are rights, and that morals are absolute, then you only make those terms meaningless. If a right can exist even if it is not enforced at all, then the term "right" is meaningless, and if morals are absolute, then the common term of moral has absolutely nothing to do with the term absolute morals.

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>

As you can see the very definition makes it impossible for there to be an absolute set of morals.

So quit all this BS and pick some new words, maybe then you can actually start debating politics instead of grammar.

Contenental America, you are sounding increasingly like some columnist from the Cold War era. WAY too suspicious of other governments and way too trusting of yours.[/quote]

Unless you want your country run by communists for a centry then fall then your at the bottom unlike before when u were at the top
EX: Russia

why not vote for the current resolution? it cant hurt. as long as the powers of socialism arent abused, EVERYONE benefits. and whose to sya they WILL be abused? socialism is, in theory, a beneficial system. And it would seem to me that this resolved is quite social indeed. We NEED this.

You people have, quite tipically, mixed up your right-wing insults.

This proposal would be that of a democratic socialist agenda.

In an ideal communist nation, unions wouldn't exist beacuse the working people are the government and they are all organized anyways. Besides, what with the rampant authoritarianisim in REAL communist nations, unions would be seen as submersive, and therefore outlawed.

Continental America, I have no idea what you are saying.

Type with proper grammer. Please.

Tisonica: If you would start thinking you would realize how unnecessary that post of yours was.

lets look at the facts here. capitalism and globalization are failing all over the world. if we vote YES to this proposal, the nation-state and its sovereign power will actually benefit. by closing the rich/poor gap some, economies alll over the world will improve. of course, some rights of the people will be given up. but we must weigh this with a cost/benefit analysis. the benefit outweighs the cost by much!!!!!! vote YES!!!!!!!!!

First off get your facts right!!! Capitalism is not falling it is rising on the account of china becoming more capitalist than every before and if we vote yes then communists win theres no point to this game than to start over. Read a couple of books about communism you'll see what im talking about.

why not vote for the current resolution? it cant hurt. as long as the powers of socialism arent abused, EVERYONE benefits. and whose to sya they WILL be abused? socialism is, in theory, a beneficial system. And it would seem to me that this resolved is quite social indeed. We NEED this.

No.

Socialism is based on fundamentally evil ideas; namely:
Collectivism
Self-sacrifice
Subordination of the individual to the whole
Abrogation of individual rights
Slavery
Death

"In an ideal communist nation, unions wouldn't exist beacuse the working people are the government and they are all organized anyways. Besides, what with the rampant authoritarianisim in REAL communist nations, unions would be seen as submersive, and therefore outlawed."
How will the people be incharge of the governmet if there was no union. i rest my case

You people have no respect for the perpetual cycle of politics.

This is how it goes:

1. A new theory comes to replace the old one, which is widley belived to be corrupt.

2. The idea flourishes for a while.

3. Slowly, it becomes corrupt.

4. A new idea is introduced, and thus is percived as the greatest idea ever and is predicted to last forever.

5. Repeat.

This pattern is demonstrated in ancient Chinese politics, modern-day Spanish politics, old monarchies, all over the world.

Continental america, you obviously have no clue as to the base principles of communisim and socialisim.

In these states, Marx predicted that the working people would unite, and bring all people down to their level. Since all people agree with each other and work for the common good, the state would DISSOLVE.

That was the ideal communist nation.

Too bad it can't work.

Don't you people see??!!? When this resolution passes it wouldnt matter if the leader abuses power the people will abuse their rights.
They think they have the right to do everything and when the get in trouble for doing something "bad" you have the '92 riots all over again.

Why would any1 listen to spanish, chinese, and other anchient statistics??

Why would any1 listen to spanish, chinese, and other anchient statistics??

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it
- Sir Winston Churchill

That's why what happened in the past (although "modern day Spain" is hardly the past) is relevant to the present.

Contenental America,

Unfortunatley, I am pretty much unable to navigate your sentences, so I can't respond in an effective way.

You people have no respect for the perpetual cycle of politics.

This is how it goes:

1. A new theory comes to replace the old one, which is widley belived to be corrupt.

2. The idea flourishes for a while.

3. Slowly, it becomes corrupt.

4. A new idea is introduced, and thus is percived as the greatest idea ever and is predicted to last forever.

5. Repeat.

This pattern is demonstrated in ancient Chinese politics, modern-day Spanish politics, old monarchies, all over the world.

Continental america, you obviously have no clue as to the base principles of communisim and socialisim.

In these states, Marx predicted that the working people would unite, and bring all people down to their level. Since all people agree with each other and work for the common good, the state would DISSOLVE.

That was the ideal communist nation.

Too bad it can't work.

Let me clarify; UNION means UNITED. Marx predicted that the working people would unite, and bring all people down to their level. wat dont u get about that??

Why would any1 listen to spanish, chinese, and other anchient statistics??

Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it
- Sir Winston Churchill

That's why what happened in the past (although "modern day Spain" is hardly the past) is relevant to the present.
im sorry please forgive me

Tisonica: If you would start thinking you would realize how unnecessary that post of yours was.

Whats wrong? Couldn't add an insult or two into that and give a long BS explaination of why merriam webster is incorrect because it's definitions do not comply with your absolute morals?

When the dictionary disagrees with you, it's time to admit defeat. :roll:

Contenental America,

Unfortunatley, I am pretty much unable to navigate your sentences, so I can't respond in an effective way.
unfortunatly my country's name is ContinetalAmerica, sometimes i can't tell if your talking to the right person.

Tisonica: If you would start thinking you would realize how unnecessary that post of yours was.

Whats wrong? Couldn't add an insult or two into that and give a long BS explaination of why merriam webster is incorrect because it's definitions do not comply with your absolute morals?

When the dictionary disagrees with you, it's time to admit defeat. :roll:
LOL!!!!

ummmm...

Continental America, what don't I get about that? You seem to know.

Unions in the normal sense of the word wouldn't exist beacuse the entire working class is united.

I...guess then that you could call the entire state a Union. If that's what you were asking. Its kinda hard to tell.

The dictionary is not the be-all end-all.

Rights and morality are absolute, whether or not some lexicographer chooses to accept that fact.

Exactly what im saying hense The UNION of Soviet Socialist Republics

I found away around the resolution. My nation will IGNORE IT if it passes. Ultimatley Kalamshan is a sovereign nation, and will certainly not allow something that harms buisness step foot in it's laws etc. Historicaly all communist nations fail. Hopefully this anti-capitalist will fail to.

I found away around the resolution. My nation will IGNORE IT if it passes. Ultimatley Kalamshan is a sovereign nation, and will certainly not allow something that harms buisness step foot in it's laws etc. Historicaly all communist nations fail. Hopefully this anti-capitalist will fail to.
Can't argue with that.

I will also add that the representative from Free Soviets doesn't know the first thing about communism. I can quote from a book called 'Communism and Why We Should Learn About It'
states clearly first chapter "communists real aims is to create a government owned by the ppl and for the people, everybody is an equal in a communist society no matter what their social status is."

Wha? I'm lost. What's going on?

The UN has no right to tell sovereign nations what they can or cannot do. The UN cannot force thousands of countries to enforce this labor policy just because there is a majority vote. The UN can in fact, protect basic humans rights. It can ask a country to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction. However, unionization is not a basic human right nor is its absense a threat to civilization.

As a matter of fact, there are countries in which labor unions are becoming unpopular. In the United States, most labor workers are forced to pay dues whether or not they want union benefits. The unions in America raise labor costs so that businesses take their facotries elsewhere and the unions are so beurucratic that the dues are never spent effectively. Corporations in America do not ever abuse their workers like they once did in the early 1900's. American labor unions are a thing of the past, so why should states be forced to adopt policy that is unpopular?

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Exactly what im saying hense The UNION of Soviet Socialist Republics


Read this again.

In an ideal communist nation, unions wouldn't exist beacuse the working people are the government and they are all organized anyways. Besides, what with the rampant authoritarianisim in REAL communist nations, unions would be seen as submersive, and therefore outlawed.


You fail to distinguish between ideal and real.

Don't EVER use the US as and example for anything.

Look at other nations.

Labor Unions are on the rise, and even here, while labor unions fall, credit unions rise.

People like to have fair pay around the world. Don't deny that.

Free Soviets:

I don't know either.

I found away around the resolution. My nation will IGNORE IT if it passes. Ultimatley Kalamshan is a sovereign nation, and will certainly not allow something that harms buisness step foot in it's laws etc. Historicaly all communist nations fail. Hopefully this anti-capitalist will fail to.

Unfortunately for you you don't have a choice. The Un enforces those laws whether or not you like it, it's in the FAQ, there is nothing you can do about it.

The dictionary is not the be-all end-all.

Rights and morality are absolute, whether or not some lexicographer chooses to accept that fact.

This is just sad...

Will someone please confirm this for me, is he indeed claiming that he is right... and the dictionary is wrong?

The thought that mediators should be brought in if a strike lasts 60 days is the worst idea I have ever heard. All this will do is guarantee that strikes will last 60 days. In addition this resolution does nothing in the way of recognizing lockouts, mass firings in response to striking employees, or the rights of employees not to join unions.

Yeah. That's what Ithuania just said.

I mean, I know some people with big egos, but this is amazing...

The UN has no right to tell sovereign nations what they can or cannot do. The UN cannot force thousands of countries to enforce this labor policy just because there is a majority vote.

Umm, yes it can. Your nation signs up for the UN and you have essentially signed over some amount of your sovereignty to the UN. If there were enough votes for it, the UN could outlaw gambling in your country. That's just how it goes here.

"Don't EVER use the US as and example for anything.

Look at other nations.

Labor Unions are on the rise, and even here, while labor unions fall, credit unions rise. "

So basically Castivo is ignoring any example where labor unions fail. SHARP COMEBACK CASTIVO!!!

"Every Example?"

The US sure is a lot of examples, isn't it?

(Actually, it's only one)

I challenge you to name a european nation where labor unions are falling.

You say "communist" as though it were a bad thing. :twisted:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "1 day since the
last starship accident."

Was that directed at me?

Communisim is a bad thing, beacuse the government is usually highly autocratic.

Socialisim is a good thing, beacuse of its base anarchist ideals.

Recognize the diffrences.

"Umm, yes it can. Your nation signs up for the UN and you have essentially signed over some amount of your sovereignty to the UN. If there were enough votes for it, the UN could outlaw gambling in your country. That's just how it goes here."

Some amount does not mean your nations ceases to become a sovereign nation. No one would join the UN if it meant the UN had total jurisdiction in one's country. In the same way governments cannot take away a person's freedom of speach, the UN cannot force a sovereign nation to support a policy it does not want. Unless your country is a dictatorship, and you whip your people for talking badly about the government, you might need to remaliarize yourself with limited government.

Someone link this person to the FAQ.

YOU SHMUCK!!!

"The US sure is a lot of examples, isn't it?

(Actually, it's only one)

I challenge you to name a european nation where labor unions are falling."

My point is that just because the europeans are happy doesnt mean that everyone must be like the europeans. Nations have the right to be different. So i dont even have to name another example...

The thought that mediators should be brought in if a strike lasts 60 days is the worst idea I have ever heard. All this will do is guarantee that strikes will last 60 days. In addition this resolution does nothing in the way of recognizing lockouts, mass firings in response to striking employees, or the rights of employees not to join unions.

Then bring in mediators at 30 days. Or a week. This resolution just sets minimum standards. And no, it doesn't say anything about lockouts or the right to not join a union. Do you realize how much more yelling there would be if we had included specifics on all of the various labor issues and possibilities?
AFoFS UN Council

I'm sorry... I'll stop talking until there is finally a decent counter point.

"Don't EVER use the US as and example for anything.

Look at other nations.

Labor Unions are on the rise, and even here, while labor unions fall, credit unions rise. "

So basically Castivo is ignoring any example where labor unions fail. SHARP COMEBACK CASTIVO!!!

My point is that just because the europeans are happy doesnt mean that everyone must be like the europeans. Nations have the right to be different. So i dont even have to name another example...

You should hold yourself to the same standards that you hold your enemies.

Some amount does not mean your nations ceases to become a sovereign nation. No one would join the UN if it meant the UN had total jurisdiction in one's country. In the same way governments cannot take away a person's freedom of speach, the UN cannot force a sovereign nation to support a policy it does not want. Unless your country is a dictatorship, and you whip your people for talking badly about the government, you might need to remaliarize yourself with limited government.

here's what i want you to do:
follow this link. its a link to the page where you make proposals.
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_new_proposal
take a look at it. look at the options in the category list. look at what the effects are for each of them. then look at the strength - legalize/outlaw - industry affected - decision menu. you can choose various options. that is what the un can do to your country. and that is all that the un can do period. in this world, the un is only around to violate national sovereignty at the vote of the plurality of member nations.

The primary problem with this is that it expressly violates the property rights of business owners. :wink:
Does it? I think not, as "property rights" have been used to ban ANY laws helping the poor workers get their proper share of business' fat profits. Remember, any time such worker-friendly laws are suggested, business ALWAYS screams that such laws will bankrupt them, and somehow life goes on and business survives after the laws are passed. People are getting tired of hearing these dire warnings from those who have SO much more than most of us. Even if these laws cost business some profits, the costs are never that bad. Let's level the playing field a little. Business isn't going to fold just because it has to pay out a penny more.

Unions have out lived their usefullness. If you canttreat your workers good enough then too bad for you. Unions are motivated by the workers in them and for their own good and not the good of the country. Prices will go up and Countries without unionized laborers will undercut you and your products causing economic hard times for you and your people. There for forced unions should not be so and unions should not be forced upon thoes who dont want them.

The esteemed leader of Um Um Chich-a-wa
Kubla Krause

The resolution doesn't force unioniziation.

It just requires nations to respect unions should the workers want one.

Which they usually will.

Wise words from Kubla Krause...

By the way,

You act as if corperations always look out for the benifit of their home country.

I urge you to read the entire debate.

The Debate over the labour union resolution is ubsurd. Nations have the right to self determination. The recent resolutions put forth by this "governing body" has been infringing if not completely overriding the choices and rights that were given (in some cases seized) to us as the ruling body. This and all other resolutions that take away from the power of a national government must be denied in a way to show the world leaders rights are absolute and are sacred.

The Prime Minister Of Tragas
Me :!:

My problem with the proposal is it gives the Unions too much power over the nations. All making them international will not solve the problems caused by international corporations it will just create additional problems. The Jurian States people would rather have the government be stronger then both unions and corporations then to be subjected by a UN resolution made by the leader of a Communistic nation that cares not for their ideals.

Nations that do not wish the UN to steal their sovereignty should vote down this resolution because it limits the right of governments as well as individuals to regulate their own economy with their own methods.

I'm gonna make you guys read the entire debate.

Hey, guys?

No matter how "evil" you think labor unions are, at least agree with me on this:

Unions were formed to keep big buisness in check.

Just as our government has a series of checks and balances, so does society.

In some cases, unions abuse their powers, but don't think that the corperations won't just as soon destroy employee pay if the mimimum wage were repaled.

Heck, the former CEO of Wal-mart even appealed to the US supreme court for exemption from the minimum wage.

If you hate labor unions, at least accpet them as a necesary evil, just like corperations.

We tend to agree with our comrades Free Socialism in making this resoulation and urge everybody to vote FOR it. Unions are there to fight for the workers to make sure there is fair pay. Without unions there would not be fair pay. All it says is that you have to recognize the God given right of workers to organize against corrupation.

Stephanie Rosen
Premier
Socialist Union of Kerla

Castivo who are you implying in your last post?

Yet My nation does not hold that ideology to be truthful. The government is made to keep business and many other aspects of the nation in check. Therefore a nation would be just promoting an evil that is unnecessary.

The Prime Minister of Tragas


I'm gonna make you guys read the entire debate.

Hey, guys?

No matter how "evil" you think labor unions are, at least agree with me on this:

Unions were formed to keep big buisness in check.

Just as our government has a series of checks and balances, so does society.

In some cases, unions abuse their powers, but don't think that the corperations won't just as soon destroy employee pay if the mimimum wage were repaled.

Heck, the former CEO of Wal-mart even appealed to the US supreme court for exemption from the minimum wage.

If you hate labor unions, at least accpet them as a necesary evil, just like corperations.

Isn't this a violation of national soverienty?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "1 day since the
last starship accident."

I wouldn't really put that much faith in government.

This resolution is a basic outline of rules for the government to follow: See Free Soviet's previous posts.

Isn't the UN a violation of national soverienty?

Very much so. A lot of the resolutions have been.

We tend to agree with our comrades Free Socialism in making this resoulation and urge everybody to vote FOR it. Unions are there to fight for the workers to make sure there is fair pay. Without unions there would not be fair pay. All it says is that you have to recognize the God given right of workers to organize against corrupation.

Stephanie Rosen
Premier
Socialist Union of Kerla
Unions aren't the only way to ensure fair pay, politicians are willing to create minimum wage laws if enough of the voting public is willing to vote them out if they don't. However, I think some people are assuming that everyone who votes against the bill is anti-union which is not the case. As I and a few others who voted against this proposal have said we would support a toned down version of the proposal which shows we are willing to compromise and respect the need for Unions. We just think that the current proposal is to flawed which could cause for harm then good and must of us know that amendments to resolutions never make it far enough to be voted on. So it has to be right the first time it gets passed or it will never be fixed.

I dont hate labor unions. They may be important in many nations. However, there are also nations in which labor unions are simply not necessary. I just don't think these nations should have their labor unions granted immunity from the government. Even corporations are subject to government regulations. This bill tips favor too much toward the labor unions in these countries. I just think we should let individual governments decide what their own countries need. Its not my responsibility to tell you what to do in your country or vice versa.

I have read the posts by the honorable delegate from the Free Soviets, yet my people cannot, and will never follow the resolution as it is stated. There has been too much power removed from the member states and has been given to various organizations (OOC: that do not exist) and therefore my people nor anyone that shares our position can within reason vote yes to this resolution.

The Prime Minister Of Tragas
Me

(OOC: I just think people are trying to get rid of all the issues)

I wouldn't really put that much faith in government.

This resolution is a basic outline of rules for the government to follow: See Free Soviet's previous posts.

Isn't the UN a violation of national soverienty?

Castivo, I trust the checks and balances in a government more than I trust the good faith of Union leaders and CEOs. Besides have the Unions and corporations lobbying the gov't for their interests creates more checks and balances since niether wants to alienate the general republic which can boycott the products of corporations and support businesses when the union goes on strike by buying goods or taking jobs away from union members.

Once again the United Nations is attempting to regulate the domestic affairs of member states. Please vote down this absurd resolution. We do not believe in socalist ideals, please do not force them on nations that do not believe them.

The Foreign Ministry of the States of Stephenson

I've got news for anyone complaining about the UN meddling in domestic affairs - that's what it's been doing since day 1 of this site.

Enodia, ive got news for you. I've never read a single proposal that has been passed by the UN!

Enodia, ive got news for you. I've never read a single proposal that has been passed by the UN!
Well perhaps it might be handy if you did so, and before engaging in debate about the current one for preference.

I've got news for anyone complaining about the UN meddling in domestic affairs - that's what it's been doing since day 1 of this site.

Yes, but it should not. It should not try to pass laws just to be passing laws. I will vote against every single resolution that infringes on national sovereignty unless it is designed to keep peace.

I've got news for anyone complaining about the UN meddling in domestic affairs - that's what it's been doing since day 1 of this site.

Yes, but it should not. It should not try to pass laws just to be passing laws. I will vote against every single resolution that infringes on national sovereignty unless they are designed to keep peace.

The FAQ explains this much better than I can, but just remember that the UN isn't here to debate things and then create the option of obeying (as in the real world). It's here to debate things and then inflict compliance upon you.

This is actually more like the real world than you think. The real UN is rarely going to bother going to war in order to back up its policies. And here, war is impossible. Now how else with this UN INFLICT compliance?

This is actually more like the real world than you think. The real UN is rarely going to bother going to war in order to back up its policies. And here, war is impossible. Now how else with this UN INFLICT compliance?
When a resolution passes, you'll receive a little telegram which will read something like the following:

From: Compliance Ministry
Sent: So-and-so minutes ago
Laws have been enacted to bring the [title] of Mad Cash Money into compliance with the "Blablabla" Resolution.

Just like that, you're in compliance. No second chances, no "I didn't mean to", no nothing. Trust me, I've been around these parts almost a year now.

Hey, I just want to say that this was a real classy debate. It was nice to know that I was having a political discussion with another kid who is probably on the other side of the globe. Even though the debate gets a little heated sometimes, I hope everyone still understands that this was just for fun. Mad Cash Money has to take a break right now, so I didn't want my last message to some smart ass remark.

Respectfully,
Mad Cash Money

Several nations have come to the conclusion that the instillment of unions is accepting of communism. Communism and unions are separate. Unions exist to protect employment rights. Communism is a philosophical perspective of society based on a flawed understanding of human nature. The protection of employment rights in an inequitable workplace is a noble end, and should be supported.

It is the Unamimous opinion of the Royal Family of SGWarning that the current resolution under consideration by the U.N. would represent a grave threat to the sovereignity of U.N. member nations. A nation and its leaders should have the power to control their own economy. The collective power of the workers within a nation is exercised in the voting booth under severly controlled conditions.
Some nations might protest that this removes the workers from a position of actual power. It is the constant opinion of the Royal Family Rulling Council of SGWarning that the farther the great unwashed masses are from actual power, the better. I ask the rulers of the nations of Wysteria, have you ever actually seen the people of your lands? They're ugly, they smell bad, they butcher our national language, basically they lack the capacity to rule themselves. Do not make the mistake of extending them that power!

Contessa Kiki Von Putz
Member of the Royal Family Ruling Council of SGWarning
Delegate to United Nations