NationStates Jolt Archive

It was the only way to protect the lives of innocent people whom UN tryants may deem unworthy of life.

My nation has resigned too....but only until tomorrow. I did it to avoid having the laws enacted legalising the murder resolution in my nation.

UN tyrants?! :x Are you mad we are a very large group of nations who work together for the common good not kill anyone who stands in our way.

My nation has resigned too....but only until tomorrow. I did it to avoid having the laws enacted legalising the murder resolution in my nation.


Uh... I don't think this really works, as I understand things.... your nation will be affected by the resolution in exactly the same way it WOULD have been, only one day later.

My nation has resigned too....but only until tomorrow. I did it to avoid having the laws enacted legalising the murder resolution in my nation.


Uh... I don't think this really works, as I understand things.... your nation will be affected by the resolution in exactly the same way it WOULD have been, only one day later.

That is true, when you join the UN you have to accept all the resolutions, also resolutions that have been accepted in the past.

Tyrants? Ha! We have nations complaining about the UN being too liberal and you come in and proclaim that they are, of all things, tyrants! HA!

It was the only way to protect the lives of innocent people whom UN tryants may deem unworthy of life.

Not really. As far as the laws affecting your own nation, the resolution (thanks to the unintended benefits of what I see as poor writing) leaves considerable room for governments who are clever enough to make legal euthanasia impossible within their nations--we can find other laws to create that happen to outlaw things that are done during euthanasia, to be vague :P What worries me is the nations who will establish no tighter laws than this, or even more so the nations in which the government itself will abuse this law.

So basically, there's no need to resign, you can just get around it; *that* isn't the problem.

I'm relatively new to NationStates, and have been enjoying it. But I believe I'm on my way out of the UN as well. Not because of the euthanasia decision exactly, but rather what the decision (in conjunction with past ones) indicates of the membership's attitude. The UN is deemed to be all-powerful and there is no such thing as something that isn't the UN's business, excepting the topics the game does not handle. National sovereignty? Jurisdiction? Fat chance.

Now, I can understand how this came to be. The roles the UN plays in real life generally don't exist in this game, as international relations are largely the province of role-playing. So the UN has become a higher-level legislative body because it would otherwise have little to do, and that doesn't make for an interesting game.

So perhaps I should have read the FAQ a little more closely:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

Since I'm not particularly interested in telling anyone else what to do, and I'm not impressed by the UN's decision-making skills so far, I guess I'd be happier looking after my nation and leaving everyone else to theirs.

My nation has resigned too....but only until tomorrow. I did it to avoid having the laws enacted legalising the murder resolution in my nation.
Uh... I don't think this really works, as I understand things.... your nation will be affected by the resolution in exactly the same way it WOULD have been, only one day later.
That is true, when you join the UN you have to accept all the resolutions, also resolutions that have been accepted in the past.
Sorry, it's NOT true. You are only affected by UN resolutions that occur while you are a member. If you resign before a vote is finished, then rejoin the day after it has passed, you are not affected.

While this technique is possible, it's also rather juvenile. If you wish to have your voice heard, you must accept the price of that choice. Since joining the UN, Frisbeeteria has been on the losing side of every proposal. Nonetheless, we remain members despite the damage done our nation and our people, because it is the only acceptable way to appear on the international stage.

We have a voice. We will be heard. We will accept the consequesnces of that decision.

M.J. Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

Not really. As far as the laws affecting your own nation, the resolution (thanks to the unintended benefits of what I see as poor writing) leaves considerable room for governments who are clever enough to make legal euthanasia impossible within their nations

Indeed, you can have something be legal and yet be so strictly regulated as to be well nigh impossible to achieve. The resolution as passed is as full of holes as a bolt of cheesecloth.

look what happens when you allow people to kill one another..
and this man would not have spent any time in prison in
the crazy NS world:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-01-30-cannible_x.htm

Greetings from the Lone Star Republic Parliament. We are committed to raising awareness of and taking action for nation's rights. To the "Spirit of Athine", we understand your frustrations with UN mismanagement and the abuses in the system. Our goal is to take sensible steps to correct many of the injustices without trampling on gameplay rules (although we will recommend gameplay changes to the founders of this site).

We have begun work on a national sovereignty coalition, a 10,000-member voting and lobbying block designed to strengthen awareness of national sovereignty. The point is to bring balance to the senseless passage of undignified and offensive resolutions by getting other nations to think about their own governing powers.

Please give the UN one last try. We think that a coalition of 10,000 UN members CAN make a difference, rather than having 10,000 disenchanted nations making no difference outside of the Assembly.

Peace and Prosperity,
The Lone Star Republic Parliament

Alar supports your resignation, we too have resigned from the world body that is attempting to force laws on our nations.

For a UN to work, it cannot enact laws in violation of the constutions of member states.

The current UN structure simply supercedes a nation's laws and customs by majority vote, and this is unaceptable.

Posted elsewhere, but related:

To all Honourable representatives of sovereign states, and especially to the states who act as governing delegates of the United Nations:

We in the Kingdom of Burkonia are torn by current UN decisions, especially the decision to force sovereign states to legalize the murder of their sick. We joined the body of the UN to further integrate ourselves into the international community and to do our small part to bring about a world less likes Hobbe’s war of all against all and more like Kant’s perpetual peace. Unfortunately, a body that flagrantly violates the rights of both its member states and the citizens of those states offers little towards such a peace.

We in Burkonia hold that life is an unalienable right. As such, it is a right that cannot be taken away or given up, even by the right holder. Thus, any law that allows for suicide or “euthanasia” would violate a central premise of our, and we believe, all just and legitimate governments.

We have considered the option, proposed by some states, of creating such restrictions on the actual practice of the UN resolution as to make it meaningless. This would, however, be an unacceptable result. It would imply that in theory we thought that in some cases, the UN resolution could be morally acceptable. In practice, it would weaken a respect for life and might at some later date lead to a loosing of laws protecting human life.

We have also considered withdrawing from the United Nations. We may well choose this option soon, but we still hold hope that the UN can be an institution for good.

Our measured response to the murder resolution will be one of civil disobedience and willful non-compliance. We hold to a Natural Law legal philosophy. With Cicero, we hold that “true law is right reason in agreement with nature.” The purpose of civil law is to bring human action into accordance with moral reason. Further, civil law that does not do so, or worse, violates moral reason, is not fully law. As Aquinas explains, “A tyrannical law, since it is not in accord with reason, is not a law in the full sense (simpliciter); rather it is a perversion of law,” and “Human law has the nature of law insofar as it is in accord with right reason, and it is clear that, according to this, it is derived from the Eternal Law. However, inasmuch as it deviates from reason, it is called an unjust law, and, thus it does not have the nature of law but rather of a sort of violence.” That is, immoral or unjust law is not fully true law and thus is not legally or morally binding.

Thus, we in Burkonia formally declare that we consider all laws allowing for suicide or euthanasia to be contrary to moral reason and moral law, and thus invalid and unbinding morally or legally. We reject all such laws and openly defy them in our own state actions and laws. Further, we provide full legal protection of innocent human life from conception to natural death and reject any laws that interfere with the natural unalienable right to life. [OOC: We realize that the game mechanism does not allow for us to act in defiance as it brings all states into compliance, bur if the role play is to be kept in any way realistic, we must allow for defiance. As far as we can tell, there is little in the “forced compliance” that significantly affects individual stats other than a telegram.]

We recognize that some will claim that we must withdraw from the UN if we are to violate its resolutions. We do not accept this assessment based on our belief that, on the most fundamental levels, the UN resolution in question is not true law. We do recognize the right of the UN as a body to act to expel members for whatever reasons it sees fit, and we can do little if we are expelled. We will not, however, remove ourselves completely from the international community and its discourses of our own will.

We encourage other nations to take similar actions, remaining engaged in the international community, but still protecting moral law and human rights within their own boundaries.

With great respect and concern,
HRH, King of Burkonia

My nation has resigned too....but only until tomorrow. I did it to avoid having the laws enacted legalising the murder resolution in my nation.


Uh... I don't think this really works, as I understand things.... your nation will be affected by the resolution in exactly the same way it WOULD have been, only one day later.

It does for me. :wink:

I wish I had thought of that. However I did save the euthanasia issue for just such an occasion. It was banned as soon as it was legalised. The only effects of the UN resolution was a slight increase in human rights.