NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support my proposal that brings freedom to oppressed people throughout the entire world and calls for the disarmament of dictators that threaten world peace, even if this calls for military intervention. If the United Nations is an organization devoted to world peace, it must play an important role in the furtherment of democracy throughout the world. The proposal, like this thread, is called "Let Freedom Ring".

In order to have world peace, we must first establish world freedom. The United Nations, an organization devoted to world peace, must take action against brutal dictatorships that compromise freedoms and pose a threat to the rest of the world. Such dictatorships must be disarmed so that their citizens can live freely and peacefully, and the world can be made safe for democracy, even if this calls for military intervention. All of mankind has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even if such liberty is achieved by the free nations disarming the dictatorships militarily, and all dictatorships must increase their political freedoms.

You state that you want to get rid of ‘brutal dictatorships’ yet you seem to be under the impression that all countries should have a democratically elected leader. There are countries that have ‘benevolent dictatorships’, dictators can be good for the people of a country allowing them greater civil rights and living conditions.

We don’t believe that democracy is a prerequisite for peace. A democratically elected leader could be just as blood thirsty as a dictator, it depends on the individual leader.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

The Federation of Soltak refuses to support this proposal. It has a long history of boycotting proposals which threaten the rights of individual nations to govern themselves in the manner which they see fit.

To publish this resolution is tantamount to disagreeing the democracy you hold so dear.

From my reply in the "Dictatorships" forum:

I have and never will support any cruel dictatorships (unlike the United States in real life, sorry, just had to include that, I love my home country). But I also believe in the right for people to choose their own government, and sometimes people do choose to have dictatorships.

I hate to use this example :roll: ; but even Hitler came to power through popular vote, and Germany very much supported his dictatorship. I am sure there have been benevolent dictatorships that have come about as a result of choice by the people as well. Though none come to mind off the top of my head right now.

As a country ruled by democracy and the people, I will not approve such a proposal and will vote against it if it reaches the floor. I of course will not resign from the UN if it passes as it will have no effect on me.

Though I advise all other dictatorship nations to resign the day before if it looks like it is going to pass and perhaps join 2-3 days after the resolution has been implemented.

Good luck to all of you, be you a democracy, a dictatorship, or anything else in between or outside.

Confederacy of the Isles UN Delegate
Hung Tony

But what about those dictatorships that are a threat to world peace? To me, "benevolent dictatorship" sounds like an oxymoron. If the world is to be peaceful, the world must be free. And if a democratic leader is bloodthirsty, that leader can be voted out of office. If that leader were to hijack the elections, it wouldn't be a democracy.

Benevolent Dictatorships are defined by the game as countries with low political freedom, but high civil and economic freedom. In other words, a benevolent dictatorship is a country in which the dictator doesn't do anything. I don't count it as a dictatorship. In fact, I think that the game's definition of benevolent dictatorship is more libertarian than authoritarian.

To the leader of the Adamian States, you say that "If the world is to be peaceful, the world must be free." I think this is one of those feel-good sentiments that are worthless if a stable government is to be attained. For one thing, you don't say what you mean by free. Do you mean for the entire world to be plunged into anarchy? If so, talk to Letila. Do you mean for the entire world to be democratic? If so, then perhaps you should be careful what you wish for, you might not like what you get.

Democracies are wasteful governments. Rather than having a single person direct the nation, they rely upon a group of people to do the same. Chances are that group does not agree on every issue (otherwise why have a group?) and so the country is pulled in two different directions, a little bit at a time. Rather than waste time bickering and debating and passing new laws/resolutions to override past decisions, if a nation has a single leader that follows a single course, the populace will be given the guidance they need, without the excess bickering amongst the government.

Double post, my apologies.

Triple post, really sorry 'bout this.

Well sometimes you need the bickering. Freedom is a messy thing. But it's not nearly as messy as the violent uprisings, genocides, and coups that tend to happen more often in oppressive governments.

Well sometimes you need the bickering. Freedom is a messy thing. But it's not nearly as messy as the violent uprisings, genocides, and coups that tend to happen more often in oppressive governments.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones."
-Winston Churchill

Hey! Aaronakia's national dog is named Freedom!

As with the real world, the UN cannot keep peace without the muscle to back it up. Let each country choose their government themselves, and if we happen to be attacked by a dictator or leader even similar to Hitler, let the UN then force that country to be isolated from the rest, both with military and economic measures. Let them be free to make their own choice, but not free to make ours.

As with the real world, the UN cannot keep peace without the muscle to back it up. Let each country choose their government themselves, and if we happen to be attacked by a dictator or leader even similar to Hitler, let the UN then force that country to be isolated from the rest, both with military and economic measures. Let them be free to make their own choice, but not free to make ours.

No, diplomatically and economically isolating nations tends to only make them more tyrannical, whereas free trade is more likely to cause them to embrace democracy over time.

The nation of Rebeland happens to be classified as "oppressive" and we are. Nonetheless, if you are going to threaten my government with military intervention I would have no choice but to retaliate. United Nations funded coup d'etats are not my cup of tea.

The fact there is no immediate link to the proposal or a copy of it in the initial post where it can be easily reviewed, is a negative pointer to it, let alone the fact it proposes granting the U.N. the right to walk in and remove the government of a nation, and by the sound of its description and other posts in this forum topic, that sounds pretty silly, for a plethora of reasons, let alone simple game mechanics, or that its against the mandate of the U.N., eh, good night.

A Rep of Komokom.

"The most violent element in society is ignorance." - Emma Goldman.

As a dictator myself, my position has been made clear many times in this forum of free thought. While I have highly specific viewson what nations should do, I also have very strong views that nations should do as they see fit. Just don't expect me to support you if you go against my ideals or try to impede on my freedom to run my nation as I please. If you examine my particulars, you will note that we are a young nation with zero political freedoms, our economy prospers and individual civil rights are on the rise. We all work together to make the best nation we can. Does that truly sound so horrible?

Yours,
Masestro Proteus
Progenitor and Caretaker of the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence

being a threat to world peace or even the peace, freedom and well
being of its own people is not a matter of form of government
it is not an automatic spinoff of some nor are there others incapable
of it. a democracy is just as capable of being one as an absolute
monarchy. an absolute anarchy would
seem perhapse a bit less likely to
but that's about it.
right now in the mundane world the biggest threats to world peace and
even the survival of the human species and possibly life as we know
it on planet earth is a supposedly representative supposedly democracy
and globalized corporate capitolism.
so called terrorests knock down a few buildings here and there, blow
up a few cafes and bussess
but global corporate interests have been known to destroy whole
ecosystems openly, blatently and in front of god and everybody
and to do so with the support and backing of democraticly elected
governments and to some degree, perhapse largely through ignorance
and indefference, but none the less, of their populas as well.

the intent of protecting peace freedom and wellbeing of everyone
everywhere is a laudable intent
but before a methodology that works
can be arrived at, some understanding of the mechanisms of
harm is required.

this proposal as currently stated seems to demostrate a blatent lack
thereof, and as such is far more likely to cause far more harm then
to prevent.

=^^=
.../\...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones."
-Winston Churchill
“What's the point of having a democracy, if everybody's going to vote wrong?”

You can find a quote for everything but that doesn’t make what you’re saying true.

But what about those dictatorships that are a threat to world peace?
Then why abolish those that aren’t? What about democratically elected leaders that threaten world peace?

To me, "benevolent dictatorship" sounds like an oxymoron.
dic•ta•tor•ship
n.
The office or tenure of a dictator.
A state or government under dictatorial rule.
Absolute or despotic control or power.
Says nothing about ‘evil’ or ‘warmongering’

If the world is to be peaceful, the world must be free.
Why?
I assume you are talking about political freedom. Sometimes that can lead to the loss of other freedoms.

And if a democratic leader is bloodthirsty, that leader can be voted out of office.
But the damage can’t be undone, no matter what the systme.

If that leader were to hijack the elections, it wouldn't be a democracy.
As I said in an earlier discussion;
It is the belief of our Queen that as long as a system is in place there will be someone who can exploit it, therefore we would not be willing to force any system of government (or absence there of) on any other country.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World

But the whole problem with the UN is the fact that it can't tell free nations from dictatorships.

But the whole problem with the UN is the fact that it can't tell free nations from dictatorships.
How so?

But the whole problem with the UN is the fact that it can't tell free nations from dictatorships.
How so?I think he's refering to the fact that outlawing dictatorships would make it a mechanics purposal since it would remove certain forms of goverment as legitimet for U.N. members thus it can't. Either that or newbie hasn't been following the conversation.

Actually Jewceland has been following the conversation. That was me posting on my other nation, because I thought I was logged on as Adamian States. Sorry about that. What I meant was that the UN does not distinguish between dictatorships and free states, but perhaps I was referring too much to the real UN, not the NS on. My mistake.

A benevalent dictator can't exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Actually Jewceland has been following the conversation. That was me posting on my other nation, because I thought I was logged on as Adamian States. Sorry about that. What I meant was that the UN does not distinguish between dictatorships and free states, but perhaps I was referring too much to the real UN, not the NS on. My mistake.
Aha. Now I see where you're coming from.

A benevalent dictator can't exist.And Why not a dictator is somone who holds absolute power, now think for a moment, what about a dictator who uses his absolute power to better the lives of his people in every way possible? Of course that belevolent dictatorship is only assured to last out the current dictator but that wouldn't really be a problem here since when nation's leaders stop visiting the site the nation simply disapears and does not become the property of a dictator who hates everyone. Simply put a belevolent dictator can exist and I'm proud to be one of those (though I also control a civil rights lovefest).

dictatorships can be good for the people. I would dictate that all must live in reasonable accomodation if I were a dictator, AND I've been told at least 1 real world country has this kind of dictatorship.


-- Patto,
Emperor, Empire of Phued
President, U.G.C.
Phued Representative, CA
http://www.nationstates.net/images//flags/kyrgyzstan--53.jpg
.: P H U E D :.

War is not the answer.