NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll just offer the problem and let everyone else argue about it:

Logic:
1. The people of Santa Fe, TX want a prayer before their football games.
2. If you don't want a prayer before your football games, don't go to Santa Fe, TX.
3. If you have to come to Santa Fe, TX for a football game, you don't have to agree with the prayer, pray, or even blink.
Conclusion: There is no problem with prayer before football games in Santa Fe, TX.

Comparison:
1. The nations of the UN want "X."
2. If you don't want X, don't join the UN.
3. You never have to come to the UN.
Conclusion: There is no problem with the UN passing "X."

Problem:
I would wager most people who agree with the first logic set disagree with the second. So, why is it OK for Santa Fe, Texas to have prayer before football games (which offends atheists) but not for the UN to ban landmines (which offends militarists).

So, why?

I feel sort of stupid, because I disagreed with the first, but agreed with the second... I guess that makes me a hypocrit...

Well, then again, the sole purpose of the UN is to make proposals, and teh purpose of watching a football game is for foorball, not praying. So, there is a difference, I guess.

That's assuming Santa Fe exists here in the first place...

The Kingdom of Skullzz is always right. Therefore, if The Kingdom is against banning landmines, it would be best if everyone were to agree.

I actually agree with both.
As both involve choices:
1. Choice of whether or not to particapate (in the sport)
2. Choice of whether or not to particapate (in the UN)

Just as in RL. Nations make the choice of whether or not to belong to the UN, based on the regulations, they need to follow, in order to belong.

First of all, I don't agree with the first one. Not everyone in Sante Fe could possibly want prayer before football games, even if there is a majority who do. The only thing that really gives them the authority to have prayer before the football games would be a majority who want it, as is the case with UN resolutions. It is not a matter of one issue. People who disagree with a resolution stay in the UN for other reasons, like other resolutions that they may agree with, just as many people who live in Sante Fe remain there because they like the football games in general, or they have friends or a job or a life there. That doesn't mean that they can't argue against prayer, though, just because they agree to stay. An atheist still has the right to express his/her beliefs, even if the majority is against it. Your logic is a bit off.
Having said that, I think the current resolution on torture is incredibly vague and I agree with a lot of the others in the forum who hate this resolution, despite the fact that it is currently passing by a 3:1 ratio. And I'm not going to quit the UN just because one resolution passed that I disagree with. In fact, I'm going to continue complaining about it every chance I get, and there is nothing you can do to stop me. Mwahaha.

When people stop complaining about resolutions you should start worrying because THAT'S when an underground league of nations have formed a military alliance bent on destroying all of the bleeding heart pansies.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

It's important to remember that the U.N. in NationStates is completely different from the U.N. in real life. That's a fact I see a lot of people disregarding. In real life, the United Nations is seperated into two primary bodies: the General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly (which is what the NationStates U.N. represents the most) is only allowed to make SUGGESTIONS. These suggestions are non-binding on Member States, however they carry the weight of the international community. Countries are still allowed to follow their own national policies. The Security Council on the other hand is the body which passes resolutions that are binding on Member States. Defying a Security Council resolution can mean big trouble (see Iraq).

What we have in NationStates, however, is a General Assembly with the authority of the Security Council. In real life, the Security Council is small (15 nations) and five of the world's most powerful nations hold veto power. This helps to keep crazy things from happening. In NationStates, though, we have tens of thousands of people (half of them acting like jackasses) voting on proposals that are binding.

Because the real U.N. and the NationStates U.N. are so different, you have the problem of people in NationStates wanting to quit the U.N. because all of the proposals are binding on their nation. In the real U.N., countries simply have the option of not following the suggestions of the majority of the international community (except decisions of the Security Council, which always deal with threats to international peace & security and not things like torture or landmines).

The ideal situation would be the formation of a General Assembly and Security Council in NationStates, and someone making sure idiots don't somehow get on the Security Council. But I think that's a pretty lofty goal (on more than one account). :?


---
Rev. Dr. Hezekiah Giradoo
Prime Minister of the Federation of Giradoo

"Outside of the killings, Giradoo has one of the lowest crime rates in the region."

I will note at this point (and also bump the forum) that no one is actually addressing the problem. Whether the logic is right or not is irrelevant, why do people believe one is right but not the other one. If you agree with both or neither of them then you are consistent (possibly foolishly: we shall see). I want to give the people who are contradictions a chance to bridge this philosophical chasm.

Suggestions for UN protections and "If we just did this..." resolutions don't really belong here. Here we assume a winner-take-all democratic set up, so why is it OK for Santa Fe to institute prayer but not for the UN to ban landmines when the process is the same.

Incidentally, the Santa Fe logic was the real logic used in the Supreme Court case (disregarded 6-3) that leaned heavily on the Open Microphone analogy of previous cases (also rejected).

I'll just offer the problem and let everyone else argue about it:

Logic:
1. The people of Santa Fe, TX want a prayer before their football games.
2. If you don't want a prayer before your football games, don't go to Santa Fe, TX.
3. If you have to come to Santa Fe, TX for a football game, you don't have to agree with the prayer, pray, or even blink.
Conclusion: There is no problem with prayer before football games in Santa Fe, TX.

Comparison:
1. The nations of the UN want "X."
2. If you don't want X, don't join the UN.
3. You never have to come to the UN.
Conclusion: There is no problem with the UN passing "X."


Let me try to point out the falicies in your examples;

First : Santa Fe: one can got to Santa Fe and NOT HAVE TO PRAY!!

Second: The UN: your assumption of "The nations of the UN want "X." is just that an assumption. What I mean is if you look back at the Resolutions passed you will noticed that a vast majority of them were "passed" with approval from far less than a majority of nations.

I find it very odd, to say the least, that this "UN" can require compliance to all resolutions it passes but yet seems un able or, more likely, unwilling to "require" all member nations to actually vote on all proposed Resolutions, not to mention respecting the right to self determination of all member nations, but thats another issue.

You see I , for one, can respect the demands of a majority in an organization I willingly belong to, however I do not agree with having the will of an obvious actual minority within that organization imposed upon me.

... Defying a Security Council resolution can mean big trouble (see Iraq).

Not necessarily, Isreal has ignored them for years.

Just had to point this out.

Let me attempt to be more plain.

I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF THE LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't matter if you believe it, the people making the complaints believe it.

So, once again, the question is:

"Why is it OK for a majority of the voting citizens of Santa Fe, TX,to pass a proposal to pray before a football game, but not OK for a majority of the voting UN nations to pass a proposal to ban landmines, promote gay marriage, et al?"

St Georges, if it were as simple as "majority rules" in RL, there would still be prayer in public schools in RL United States, Nativity Scenes would be permitted on public grounds, and the BC cartoonist would not be under fire for allegedly insulting the entire Islamic faith with an outhouse cartoon which depicts a crescent moon on the door [which has been an American icon on outhouses since colonial times] and the comment "is it me or does it stink in here?".

IMHO, the Game lacks consequences for a)not voting for resolutions; b)not abiding by resolutions passed by a majority of the NationStates; and c)failing to fully participate in the Game through UN membership [understanding full well the implications since some players only want the RPG option afforded by the Game]. This is just the way it is but I feel the Game could benefit from some "participation required" standards.

The Game itself leans more toward a socialist/liberal big-government paternalism in it's issues presented to individual NationStates and the rather outrageous black/white alternatives offered [other than dismissal which is a cop-out]. What ever algorhythm is in use in determining growth and social conditions is out of kilter with RL impacts of similar decisions in the RL not manifested in the "ratings" of the NationState.

Your points are, as usual, thought provoking and a bit seditious. Keep up the good work!

My $.02

Nilserb of Monacatootha

"Why is it OK for a majority of the voting citizens of Santa Fe, TX,to pass a proposal to pray before a football game, but not OK for a majority of the voting UN nations to pass a proposal to ban landmines, promote gay marriage, et al?"

BECAUSE the people of Santa Fe can not MAKE YOU PRAY, even while you are at a football game in Santa Fe and the UN IMPOSES ALL resolutions upon every member nation EVEN WHEN THOSE RESOLUTION ARE"PASSED" WITH LESS THAN A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF MEMBER NATIONS!!!!!!!!

THE BIG DIFFERENCE BEING: On the one hand ( Santa Fe) you have a MAJORITY saying we are going to Pray (with no measure of IMPOSING you to do so) and on the other hand ( The NS UN) you have a ACTUAL MINORITY IMPOSING ITS WILL UPON THE MAJORITY!!!!!!!

It only took 15 posts, but FINALLY, someone answers the question.

It's a majority(?) in the UN IMPOSING a view and ENFORCING the view. In the example about Santa Fe it is merely the EXPRESSION of a view (open microphone analogy).

The US Supreme Court struck down Santa Fe's case saying that the EXPRESSION over a city owned PA system is IMPOSITION. This is a protection afforded to minority groups by the US CONSTITUTION.

The ENFORCEMENT issue is still not addressed.

Now it is appropriate to attack or defend the USSC logic, the Logic of Adriano-Trace, and the protections afforded minority politcal groups. (Minority defined as less than 50% of the votes cast.)

Let the debate continue.

Ignoring, for the moment, the ludicrousness of invoking minority protection vis a vis the separation of church and state brought about by the use of a PUBLICLY OWNED loudspeaker to either announce the intention of prayer or God forbid - the actual prayer itself with all its nefarious subliminal suggestions, a pre-game prayer at a football game does not represent state-mandated prayer inasmuch as a thinking person could reasonably and rationally say that a) it was not mandatory for all participants or attendees; that b) no consequence was dealt to those not participating and that c) those who did participate did so willingly in accordance with their consciences and that d)attendance and participation in the sporting event which followed was not predicated upon participation in the prayer.

whew. we be picking at the nits here.

If one embraces the "majority rules" priciple in elections, parliamentary proceedings, then it cannot be a far stretch of the imagination to one day find that all such voters violate SOMEONE'S perceived rights or priviledges.

Therefore, unless one embraces the concept of total anarchy, at some point rules for societal behavior and intercourse must be agreed upon and put in place for the protection and benefits of society.

The GAME does not require participants to join the UN nor does it provide a consequence for failing to join or abide by its mandates. If the UN outlawed "darkness" would it bring perpetual sunshine to the planet? No, I think not.

the world is a tragedy to those who feel and a comedy to those who think.

Nilserb of Monacatootha

If one embraces the "majority rules" priciple in elections, parliamentary proceedings, then it cannot be a far stretch of the imagination to one day find that all such voters violate SOMEONE'S perceived rights or priviledges.

Therefore, unless one embraces the concept of total anarchy, at some point rules for societal behavior and intercourse must be agreed upon and put in place for the protection and benefits of society.


That is not necessarily true. I embrace the "majority rules" priciple in elections, parliamentary proceedings," and see nothing wrong with it. The problem , within the NS UN, is that it IS NOT "majority rules". It is "Majority of those who vote rules" and this concept in an all voluntary organization is simply madness. As I have stated before, I have no problem going along with the majority in a voluntary organization. BUT I have a real problem of having the will of the Minority Imposed upon the Majority. It absolutely boggles my mind that the NS UN does not "require" member nations to vote on every proposed resolution as a responsibility of membership as it "requires" compliance by all member nations with every Resolution that passes under its current anti-democratic system. Its as though they want it both ways. "Oh as a Member Nation you will be required to comply with all passed resolutions." yet "Oh don't bother voting on proposals, other member nations will ensure that your nation is developed in the best possible way for you."

I mean if they are going to IMPOSE Responsibility for full compliance why could they not Impose Responsibility for full participation, part of which would include Voting? :?

I too feel that the Game could be enriched if more participation were required of the game players, not just those who have joined the UN.

However...

1. What sactions do you propose to lay on those not joining the UN?
2. How much time do the sysops for this game have to mete out justice?


Just curious. Your points are well taken although I think wehave both strayed far afield of the original intent of the posting.

Nilserb of Monacatootha

Actually, lately you've been on topic.

We hear that a tyranical minority of activists has taken over the UN and is imposing its will, NAZI style (re, German general election 1937) on the unsuspecting public. Further, with the imposition comes, by definition, enforcement.

Monacatootha has said that minority rights don't apply to the Santa Fe example because the prayer (which was over a public loudspeaker) was not a condition of going to the football game, you were free to ignore it.

If there is no enforcement, there is no imposition. This is perhaps like the real UN.

Both people seem to agree that the will of a real majority (50% plus one of total delegates) would be a better grounds for the passing of resolutions.

This now brings us to a new problem. If 50% plus one nations pass a resolution like the banning of torture how is this not an imposition with enforcement on the 50% minus one Psycotic Dictatorships that are members of the UN?

This is an issue of the rights of political minorities. Just because they lose one vote, can an entire wing of people be marginalized and forced to change? Keep in mind the answer will swing both ways.

Continue the debate and I encourage other inputs than just Monacatootha and Adriano-Trace

Actually, lately you've been on topic.

We hear that a tyranical minority of activists has taken over the UN and is imposing its will, NAZI style (re, German general election 1937) on the unsuspecting public. Further, with the imposition comes, by definition, enforcement.

Monacatootha has said that minority rights don't apply to the Santa Fe example because the prayer (which was over a public loudspeaker) was not a condition of going to the football game, you were free to ignore it.

If there is no enforcement, there is no imposition. This is perhaps like the real UN.

Both people seem to agree that the will of a real majority (50% plus one of total delegates) would be a better grounds for the passing of resolutions.

This now brings us to a new problem. If 50% plus one nations pass a resolution like the banning of torture how is this not an imposition with enforcement on the 50% minus one Psycotic Dictatorships that are members of the UN?

This is an issue of the rights of political minorities. Just because they lose one vote, can an entire wing of people be marginalized and forced to change? Keep in mind the answer will swing both ways.

Continue the debate and I encourage other inputs than just Monacatootha and Adriano-Trace

The reason that not everyone is required to vote is that in the UN, voting is a RIGHT. Those who do not vote agree to accept whatever resolution passes, whether it helps them or hurts them. This makes sense for a number of reasons:
1) Not all nations know enough about every issue to make an informed decision. Requiring people to vote would be like asking a three-year-old to choose between ice cream and salad. They don't know enough about health to realize that the salad is better for them, so they choose the ice cream because it tastes better. It would be better to let the informed parents choose for them.
2) Related to my first point, in many cases, it is actually better if less people vote. I would predict that a larger percentage of actual voters participate in the forums than the percentage of all nations who participate in the forums. This leaves more of the voting up to those who have examined the issue.
This choice of participation is directly linked to the issue of the rights of minorities. Just as any nation may choose to vote, any nation may choose whether to be in the UN or not. If membership and voting in the UN were required, the minorities would lose all of their rights, since they are forced to accept the consequences of any majority-made decision. By making membership optional, the minorities are able to maintain their views.
However, there are other incentives for nations to join the UN, which could make minorities hesitant to quit. This leads to another problem, which in the end comes back to the fact that a huge number of the voters in the "majority" are just plain stupid or uninformed on the issues that they are voting on, because they automatically think that civil rights or saving the environment are intrinsically good. If none of these people voted, we could see the true, participating majority and minority, which leads to yet another problem...
There will always be a small (or maybe large) minority that actually knows what they are talking about. However, due to the democratic system in place, this minority sadly has no rights. Yes, even if they lose by one vote, they still have to obey the laws. In the real world, this is where compromises come in, but in NationStates, compromise is severly limited.
In the end, it all boils down to the fact that democracy is an imperfect system, which is why many nations choose not to join the UN. However, it is nearly impossible to establish any international system that is perfect, because humans are naturally pieces of trash.

The reason that not everyone is required to vote is that in the UN, voting is a RIGHT. Those who do not vote agree to accept whatever resolution passes, whether it helps them or hurts them. This makes sense for a number of reasons:
1) Not all nations know enough about every issue to make an informed decision. Requiring people to vote would be like asking a three-year-old to choose between ice cream and salad. They don't know enough about health to realize that the salad is better for them, so they choose the ice cream because it tastes better. It would be better to let the informed parents choose for them.
2) Related to my first point, in many cases, it is actually better if less people vote. I would predict that a larger percentage of actual voters participate in the forums than the percentage of all nations who participate in the forums. This leaves more of the voting up to those who have examined the issue.
This choice of participation is directly linked to the issue of the rights of minorities. Just as any nation may choose to vote, any nation may choose whether to be in the UN or not. If membership and voting in the UN were required, the minorities would lose all of their rights, since they are forced to accept the consequences of any majority-made decision. By making membership optional, the minorities are able to maintain their views.
However, there are other incentives for nations to join the UN, which could make minorities hesitant to quit. This leads to another problem, which in the end comes back to the fact that a huge number of the voters in the "majority" are just plain stupid or uninformed on the issues that they are voting on, because they automatically think that civil rights or saving the environment are intrinsically good. If none of these people voted, we could see the true, participating majority and minority, which leads to yet another problem...
There will always be a small (or maybe large) minority that actually knows what they are talking about. However, due to the democratic system in place, this minority sadly has no rights. Yes, even if they lose by one vote, they still have to obey the laws. In the real world, this is where compromises come in, but in NationStates, compromise is severly limited.
In the end, it all boils down to the fact that democracy is an imperfect system, which is why many nations choose not to join the UN. However, it is nearly impossible to establish any international system that is perfect, because humans are naturally pieces of trash.

I'll just offer the problem and let everyone else argue about it:

Logic:
1. The people of Santa Fe, TX want a prayer before their football games.
2. If you don't want a prayer before your football games, don't go to Santa Fe, TX.
3. If you have to come to Santa Fe, TX for a football game, you don't have to agree with the prayer, pray, or even blink.
Conclusion: There is no problem with prayer before football games in Santa Fe, TX.

Comparison:
1. The nations of the UN want "X."
2. If you don't want X, don't join the UN.
3. You never have to come to the UN.
Conclusion: There is no problem with the UN passing "X."

Problem:
I would wager most people who agree with the first logic set disagree with the second. So, why is it OK for Santa Fe, Texas to have prayer before football games (which offends atheists) but not for the UN to ban landmines (which offends militarists).

So, why?



Simply - the first is a temporary, passing inconvenience to your personal state. The "harm" done by the exercise of the rights of the majority is only that you are exposed to a set of words for a short period of time. The second instance is a permanent law change, significantly affecting the daily lives and operation of your nation. I can understand about the "force of the majority" for decreeing UN - Black History Month or other such items. But in the instance of "torture" a broadly defined measure affects the core security and the right of the nation to defend itself.