NationStates Jolt Archive

I think most of the UN proposals would actually be better as individual laws for countries. To have so many laws that countries must follow takes away from their sovereignty. I would leave the UN, but without the UN, nationstates is kinda boring . . . heh.

Well, at least to me, I (ideally) view the UN as dealing with free trade and inter-country relationships.

In reality, most proposals seem like individual laws for individual countries. I actually view the UN as some sort of parliament or congress, and each "nationstate" is actually a voting member, representing their party/district. Sort of like we are all in one big country, representing different districts in that country, rather than individual countries.

No harsh criticism implied, just an observation. =)

Theseus51, there is a proposal currently under consideration that deals directly with defining the role of National Sovereignty in the UN.

Have a look: Declaration of Rights and Duties of UN States (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117900)

I'd appreciate your support and endorsement. I'd even welcome your criticism. These things work best when we hear what everyone has to say.

I absolutely agree with you %100. A lot of acts passed are kind of stupid and cost a lot of money with something that should be made law by an individual country. I think it should be mandatory for all UN to comply with the acts passed or it is meaning for there to be the UN. EG - The United States going to war in Iraq. If for some odd reason Kuwait had a huge military force or at least a capable army of Defeating Iraq the UN would go in there and stop Kuwait, even if Kuwait is part of the UN. Since it is the US there is nothing anybody can do, who is going to send an army against the US in the UN? That is why the UN is somewhat not fully but somewhat meaningless. Anyway I think a way to solve this dilemma would be to screen the proposals better, form a committee to pass or reject proposals.

Most UN proposals should be issues, why don't people just write more issues?

OOC: I'd like to be able to review proposals.

But the whole purpose of the UN is to unite all people under common laws and to make sure taht everybody, within the UN, follows its resolutions. What is the point in the UN otherwise?

I agree with Catholic Europe. If you’re not going to follow the rules why be in the UN at all?

One nations ‘national sovereignty’ is another’s excuse for tyranny.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Back New World

I follow the rules and accept the new UN laws, even if I don't agree with them. Like I said, nationstates is not really any fun without it . . .

I guess I'm just saying that it's more like we are all states or provinces within one country, and we are all representatives (senators, delegates, members of parliament, etc.) or whatever.

We each debate and vote and even submit bills, but it has the feel not really of a "united nations". Rather, at least to me, it has the feel of a the legislative branch of a single country.

All decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level.
Dogcatchers is a local issue; city or township level, maybe county.

Education is and has always been a state or provincial issue.

War, tarrifs and other trade issues, currency, these are national issues.

This "principle of subsidiarity" is democratic in nature and allows for the wisest use of governmental resources.

I agree, local governance is the best. I think it was President Thomas Jefferson that said something to the effect of "democracy is the best system, but ineffective at anything larger than the town level".

Most UN proposals should be issues, why don't people just write more issues?

OOC: I'd like to be able to review proposals.




*coughs and points to Euthanasia proposal*

If you agree with the aims of this topic, you really should check out (and talk up) Frisbeeteria's UN Rights and Duties proposal.