NationStates Jolt Archive

we of the Eastern Alliance wish to announce that as of 13.00 EST, January 19, 2004 we will be withdrawing our membership from the UN

as a sovereign nation we have become increasingly disenchanted with the increasing interference in matters of solely national interest

we feel that the UN is no longer a valid institution, but merely a pawn of special interest groups who prefer to cater to the whims of political correctness rather than address the real concerns of the international community

we encourage other like minded nations of the world to join us in this repudiation of a corrupt and obsolete organization by resigning their memberships in the UN

thank you
and...have a nice day

It was a sad day when i realised that the UN was worthless, and that day was the very SAME day i had joined. Thus, i abandoned the UN with my soverign nation, and proceded to colonize a new place, and send them to do my bidding. This here is my colony, which voices it's oppinion in the UN. I encourage you to do the same, and abandon the UN, but replace your membership with a pawn, much as the UN is a pawn itself.

It was a sad day when i realised that the UN was worthless, and that day was the very SAME day i had joined. Thus, i abandoned the UN with my soverign nation, and proceded to colonize a new place, and send them to do my bidding. This here is my colony, which voices it's oppinion in the UN. I encourage you to do the same, and abandon the UN, but replace your membership with a pawn, much as the UN is a pawn itself.

Due to the UN's legalization of Euthanasia I have regretfully left the UN.

Why6 bother leaving? Is compromising on thingsTHAT BAD?
IRL.all law is a compromise...

Why6 bother leaving? Is compromising on thingsTHAT BAD?
IRL.all law is a compromise...

Only if it is a compromise. There is no compromising in the UN voting process; all or nothing.

most members of the UN vote on bills just to vote, without even knowing what the heck they're voting for. Personally, I'd rather keep my independence and run my own country without having to worry about the UN.

I do run my own country.

Euthansia is still illegal in my country, and will be forever.

I simply switched U.n membership to a puppet, :D

I simply switched U.n membership to a puppet, :D

The mighty glory of the nation of Bahgum is also becoming increasingly disenchanted with the UN. Mostly through the sheer boredom which most of the debated proposals instill. It seems that almost all proposals are written without any of the kind of fun or quirkiness with which the game itself is written. Surely a serious issue can have a few light-hearted examples to it? Anything really fun and off the wall is either deleted by misery guts moderators or pulled apart in the most abysmally serious fashion possible.
Unless some originallity magically appears, then Bahgum will also leave, reluctantly, and advise fellow fun-loving nations to follow suit......or should we write a follow up to the camels free trade proposal....or perhaps the human rights position (or lack of) of mothers in law? ~Grins~

I do run my own country.

Euthansia is still illegal in my country, and will be forever.

WRONG!! I respectfully point out this little tidbit of official rules...

So I'm a UN member. Now what?

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. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Read the last line: your nation, like it or not, according to game mechanics now provides euthanasia according to the NS resolution.

We have also left the UN, but will soon be sending in a puppet just as many other nations have.

Our main reason for leaving was the euthenasia resolution, but also the infringement of the UN on our nation's rights.

What do people have against the euthanasia vote?
Honestly, what's wrong with putting people out of their misery if they request it? I'd like someone to give me a good reason for that; so far, anyone I've asked has replied with nothing but religious issues.

What do people have against the euthanasia vote?
There are about 30 topics in this forum detailing the reasons. Read them, then come back.

The people who voted against this resolution had, for the most part, no objection to euthanasia. They were opposed to the resolution itself, which was worded so badly that it could be used as legal justification for murder and/or genocide.

The leaders of the Commonwealth of Strong Minds have come to a similar opinion. Our nation joined the UN and only then read all of the resolutions that have been passed; we should have researched what we were getting into before joining. "Citizen Rule Required"? Democracy isn't for everyone. And how will that deter the formation of "rouge nations"? We did not know that makeup was such a problem in the world today. "Protect Historical Sites"? How can this be mandated? "The Metric System"?! First of all, why are the arguments for the resolution included as part of the resolution (there are many other examples of this)? Second of all, the arguments make no sense; has this really improved the ability of countries of poor economic standing to compete in the international marketplace? Third of all, our nation's "robo system" of measurements is superior to the "metric system" -- it's simpler and more intuitive. So why not force member nations to adopt the robo standard instead? "Freedom of Humor" is frivolous and utterly useless because of the clause that says, "except where said exercise is contrary to the accepted moral standards of the community." "Required Basic Healthcare [Replacement]"? This resolution simply cannot be followed by all member nations; many are too poor and/or lack the medical resources to follow its requirements.

The leaders of the Commonwealth of Strong Minds would like to encourage a more thoughtful United Nations. We encourage member nations to read and carefully consider resolutions before voting on them. We encourage member nations to rescind endorsements of nations who propose or vote for inappropriate resolutions such as those above. We encourage member nations to have a discussion about revoking all such resolutions that have passed so far, and, when some consensus has been reached, to actually compose a resolution for revoking them. We would then encourage more thoughtful solutions, which are relevant, sensible, possible, and do not infringe so badly on the rights of individual nations. In order to achieve this, we also encourage nations to remain as members of the United Nations and try to achieve these reforms before turning to isolationism.

It seems that almost all proposals are written without any of the kind of fun or quirkiness with which the game itself is written. Surely a serious issue can have a few light-hearted examples to it? Anything really fun and off the wall is either deleted by misery guts moderators or pulled apart in the most abysmally serious fashion possible.
You could always go for more involvement in writing issues - they also affect the game directly, and have a potentially wider audience, the main difference seems to be people have the option to dismiss them. And there seems to be no restriction on the weird and wacky effects they can have on the country description ("rampaging kittens", anyone?).

SC

What do people have against the euthanasia vote?
Honestly, what's wrong with putting people out of their misery if they request it? I'd like someone to give me a good reason for that; so far, anyone I've asked has replied with nothing but religious issues.

My biggest problem with the euthanasia vote is that the issue should be resolved within each nation. Much like the abortion debate, euthanasia is an area where the UN should not infringe on a nation's rights to decide what is best for that nation.

Well Shee City, you've hit upon what Bahgum intends to do next, a few important but (hopefully) slightly quirkily written issues. Still dosen't solve the lack of imagination problem with the UN proposals.
Bahgum has no problem with people dismissing issues, but lets have a little fun doing it!!!!
Now how about issues on asteroid protection, lieing politicians, passing wind in public, national animal attacks etc... plenty of scope for some fun and some serious thinking hand in hand......

In other words...

"There comes a time in the lives of men..."

You won't see compromise legislation until there is a way to incorporate all the real back-room politics and discussion that goes on in a real governmental body. The UN is just to darn big to do that. So, instead of coalition building, the truest test of a legislator, we get a whole bunch of presidents, governor, prime ministers, and dictators playing Red Vs. Blue. Whoever has the most votes on a binary issue at the end, wins. Why compromise when you can steamroll?

So, at this point, since there is no parlimentary procedure to protect them, the minority is essentially disenfranchised, thus, they rebel (reference "there comes a time...") and leave, making it harder for the remainder to force compromise and easier for the majority to steamroll.

This is why Ben Franklin said the natural evolution of government was Anrachy, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Anarchy. It took work to create Democracy, and unless protected, Democracy becomes Anarchy, becomes Monarchy... You get the idea.

We're in the final stages of Democracy. Much like splits in churches or governments, unless everyone is confident that they are safe, they will break away and break away until there is a homogenous group left. Normally a Monarch and then a dictator, et cetera.

This curse, incidentally, effects the rebels too. Reference the French Revolution. I've heard it called the Second Law of PoliticoThermoDynamics. Or, political entropy.

As for what's wrong with Euthanasia:

Dismissing an argument because it is religious is like dismissing a country because you don't like them. It doesn't matter if you believe it, they believe it. They are going to act on it. Whether you agree or not, exercise your empathy and understand why a religious belief would cause them to vote against empathy.

And my reason for opposing Euthanasia: I don't trust people to not abuse it. Under current real law (and thus, my law) there are various ways to let a terminal patient die. They involve forethought, red tape, written instructions, and governmental supervision. Any Kevorkian types running around are arrested.

Under the new law, the patient can be killed without any of these safeguards (unless the individual countries were to figure out ways to create them without violating the resolution or hacking the game code) kicking in.

Without extensive safeguards, including the written consent of the patient, in his hand, signed in the presence of a Justice of the Peace and approved by two doctors certified to make the decision by the SGI Medical Association; I'm afraid Patricide and Matricide for the inheritance, out of general dislike, or in revenge for some past wrong become all to plausible.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles

If people have this attitude about the UN, no offense, then of course it is not going to work.

We need to stick out together through the good and bad times/decisions, not leave permanently, as I have come to realise. If we don't do this then the UN will never work.

As the great imaginary president Jed Bartlet is fond of saying, decisions are made by those who show up.

Though The Most Serene Republic of Lubria is disinherited by the state of the UN, we are optimistic that a small group of thoughtful and committed citizens can change the world, because it’s the only thing that ever has. Leaving the UN only removes your voice from the democratic process, and what will happen if one day a resolution is passed forcing all nation states, whether members of the UN or not, to abide by the UN's edicts.

The Most Serene Republic of Lubria will thus remain a member of the UN. We agree with some of her resolutions, and disagree with others. We will work to bring compromise and thoughtfulness to the process. The UN only has power if the world believes in it. The United Nations can be a place of great debate, where all nations are treated equally, and no one gets left behind. Or it can become a mob the likes of which has not been seen since Rome. A simple turn of the thumb will bless or condemn nations and peoples. Only those who are members can prevent or bring about these visions.

The United Nations is the only legitimate governing body of the world, and therefore The Most Serene Republic of Lubria will remain a member in the hopes that our efforts, and those of our compatriots, will bring about a better, stronger world community.

I do run my own country.

Euthansia is still illegal in my country, and will be forever.

WRONG!! I respectfully point out this little tidbit of official rules...

So I'm a UN member. Now what?

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. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Read the last line: your nation, like it or not, according to game mechanics now provides euthanasia according to the NS resolution.

Elevator music has been replaced by thrash metal played at maximum volume, homeless people are periodically found dead upon altars to assorted deities, euthanasia is illegal, and the nation has opened its arms to an influx of refugees.
Go figure.