NationStates Jolt Archive

The moderators deleted this thread, lock-stock-and-barrel. Lord knows I don't know why. It actually applies to the UN.

We started with a comparison of two propositions. It is OK for a city or a country to have prayer over a loudspeaker if the majority wants it, and it is OK for the UN to ban landmines, torture, whatever, if a majority votes for it.

Now, those pushing for national sovereignty would agree with Proposition A and disagree with Proposition B.

We had the input of Monocatotha and Adriano-Trace. A prayer over a loudspeaker can be ignored. It cannot be an IMPOSITION on the people if it is not ENFORCEABLE.

This was the last post of the previous thread:

"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."

So, the new question is: what rights and protections SHOULD political minorities have?

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."

So, the new question is: what rights and protections SHOULD political minorities have?

I believe I addressed this question , briefly, in the last thread but thank you for the opportunity to expound on it.

First: As "an all volunteer" organization it should be a condition of membership , like it is now, that all Member nations will comply with resolutions Passed by an actual (50%+1) Majority.

Secondly: A system of checks and balances should be established for the UN. One example a UN Charter Council that exist to ensure that any proposed Resolutions would not be in violation of either individual Human Rights and the Right to Self Determination of Member Nations Prior to them being allowed to be place up for a vote. ( Of course a UN Charter that guarantees such Rights would have to be adopted first.) Then perhaps a Second Body (Not necessarily a "Security Council") made up of rotating membership of a set odd number of "Regional Representatives" that must also pass any proposed Resolutions in order for them to become binding upon Member Nations.

I think if the likes of what I have described above were to become the norm it would provide the maximum opportunity for the debating of any proposal AND all Member nations would know that any Proposed Resolution would not infrenge upon their national rights.

Added Note: I do think a "Security Council" needs to be set up, if for no other reason to help protect the UN Member Nations form Non UN Member Nations and to enforcement of Peace between UN Member Nations. Every UN Member nation should be required to contribute Equally (per capata) to any endeavors mandated by the "Security Council".

It's all well and good if you have a 100% voter turn out for an issue but that is not going to happen.

It seems the logic, then, follows the "Due Process" model.

As long as there is a sufficient amount of checks and balances and a limitation of power, then the members should accept whatever happens.

This describes the powers of a state.

Giving up certain rights in the knowledge that everyone else is giving them up too. The minority is protected in the knowledge that no one can take away their right to exist (the people maintain the right to live). The guarentee of this is limited power, checks and balances, and a charter/constitution.

Same old problem, though, if it successfully navigates all the checks and balances, is it still OK for the UN to ban homosexuality or to ban torture? Remember, the answer still swings both ways.

If a resolution passes the system, must we accept it as voluntary members of the society or, is their something else that has to be satisfied for a resolution to be right?

**Hint** there's a clue to the answer in the fourth paragraph.

#tag# for future reference...I may get involved later.

In the meantime, I'd like to point out that you may want to take this to the Technical forum if you ever want to see your ideas adopted (plus get mod/admin input).

This has been an OOC post.

This from "This must be how (fill in minority) feel."

Eric the Half a Bee
Spokesperson


Founded: 03 Dec 2003
Posts: 16

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:56 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric the Half a Bee brings up a few valid points. A purely democratic system is flawed. Reference Ben Franklin, "A mob is a beast with many heads and no brains."

Intorduced to the system now are the ideas of a real majority, something akin to the US House of Representatives and Senate (218 votes required, 51 votes required) verses the idea of a virtual majority, akin to how said Congressmen and Congresswomen are elected.

And we still come back to UN membership being voluntary.

We also see the introduction of the proposition "Voting in the UN is a RIGHT."

There are now four questions:

1.) Just because a resoltion garnered a majority (either one) is it by definition a right, good, resolution?

2.) Is voting in the UN a right, or is it something else?

3.) What about voluntary membership? Is a willing mob any more right than an unwilling mob?

4.) And what about pure democracy? Is it the only way? Reference Sir. Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others."

Continue the debate. Class isn't over yet.

And as a postscript, I have no interest in trying to reform the United Nations YET. I am more interested in having people examine their arguments and beliefs because I believe (on strong evidence) that doing so will make people think, and that is always good. However, if one of you wants to take ideas and arguments that are presented here and place them in the technical forum, I won't stand in the way.

DELETED: Multiple Post

Deleted: Multiple Post

[quote="Oppressed Possums"]It's all well and good if you have a 100% voter turn out for an issue but that is not going to happen.[/quote

While I agree to the improbability of a 100% voter turn out under the current "ways of doing things"I do not see why the NS UN could not develop provisions that facilitate 100% voter turn out.
For example;
Providing greater time frames for every vote,
Turning the UN System into a System like the "Issues" that all NS get but only for UN Member Nations.
Simply Requiring Every UN Member Nation to vote on every proposed Resolution as a condition of continued membership. I mean if I was actually a real Head of state and My UN Rep missed every UN vote that person would not be my UN Rep very long!!

I think that the adoption of these and those ideas I proposed in the above post would greatly enhance the functioning and solidarity of the NS UN.