NationStates Jolt Archive


A statement of open defiance in accordance with Natural Law

01-02-2004, 09:34
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
Komokom
01-02-2004, 10:17
(Rude Noise)

Get over yourself.

Your restrictions upon the right of individuals under your rule to end their own life is contrary to the will of said individuals and as such means you restrict their rights to freedom and enforces a life of maximum lenght but with the likelyhood of minimal quality being increased.

That aside,

Get over yourself.

The problem with the U.N. system currently is that there are too many passers-by voters who click before they read an proposition and ponder its meanings and effects upon the society of the U.N. mebers at large. Also we have not at this time any democratically elected board to administer control over what proposals are placed on the floor for voting. Naturally that is a problem to leave until N.S. 2 is in construction, due to the ever present "game mechanics", a kettle of fish I do not plan on even prodding with my 50 ft barge poll at this time. (Need coffee)

In conclusion,

Get over yourself,

the problem is the thoughtless clickers and the stream of pointless "non-specifica" proposals flooding in, e.g. our current text stirrer on "legalising prostitution"

A Rep of Komokom.
04-02-2004, 06:30
We have no intention of “getting over ourselves.” We have stated a rational, ethical position and have no intention of modifying that statement or position.

“Restricts their right to freedom” is a vague and nebulous statement. Individuals have rights to specific freedoms: freedom of expression, freedom of worship and belief, etc. Freedom in general may be a political good, and an important one, but it is not a right in itself. (We would go so far as to argue that it is the most important of political goods, but that it is an instrumental good. That is, it is not a good that is good for its own sake, but good because it allows one to achieve other inherent goods.) Governments restrict freedom and prevent individuals from acting in accordance with their will in almost any legislation.

By its very nature, the term “unalienable right” means a right that cannot be taken away for any reason, even by the right holder. That is, by definition, what it means for something to be unalienable.

On a logical/ethical note, the fact that quality of life may decrease hardly in itself makes ethical ending the life. On a practical, political note, you have no idea what government or non-profit private sector programs may be in place in our state to preserve “minimal quality of life” for the sick.

If our position is absurd, then the position of a good number of liberal democracies around the world is absurd, as many do not allow for euthanasia. While such an appeal to authority hardly justifies a position, it does indicate that we may not be that far out of what is commonly considered reasonable. (We have already offered the logical reason for our position.)

As to the problem of game mechanics and UN voter apathy/ignorance, we are in full agreement. The solution, however, certainly is not to demand that states that take reasoned, considered positions “get over” themselves. If more states took UN resolutions as seriously as we have, we might find fewer “thoughtless clickers.”

For the People of Burkonia,
HRH, Monarch of Burkonia
04-02-2004, 06:43
The isle of Skye is in full support of Burkonia.

Sovereign nations cannot be forced to abandon their moral views of right and wrong.

We refuse do do so.

Emperor William III,
Isle of Skye