NationStates Jolt Archive

I have two questions for the assembly concerning the current issue of prostitution and general policy. I do not want responses on why you support/detract the legalization of prostitution. I want responses to these questions. Also refrain from comments of "The mechanics allow it." That means that something CAN be done, not that it SHOULD.

Question 1) Is it just for the UN to dictate largely domestic issues for individual nation states perfectly capable of deciding these issues themselves, especially in cases which do not affect international relations significantly?

Question 2) Is it just for nations to form coalitions to briefly capture other regions in order to steal delegations in opposition to their position and thus force issues to fall in their favor by pseudo-military force?

I ask Question 1 because the Holy Empire of Kokablel finds that it is unjust for the United Nations to decide matters that it is perfectly capable of handling justly and discreetly. We do not need to follow the precise methods of other nations in handling our internal problems, and it is actually possible that our nations may not have the internal problems that several other nations might have. Therefore, imposing an economic model on nations with distinct religious connotations is neither just nor within the UN charter. It is possible for it to do so, but it should not do so.

This is especially the case considering the presence of theocracies and the right of religious tolerance. This means that the UN has denied theocracies the right of self-rule, a clear violation of national sovereignty and its own policies, placing it under its own bans.

I ask Question 2 for a very different reason. I, Shamsiel, have had little to do this weekend and was able to observe the fluctuations of the vote tallies in this question. On multiple occasions, the negative has significantly dropped in a short span of time and the affirmative has raised by an equivalent number.

I am aware that occassionally groups will capture regions in the closest parody of military action available to our world. Is it just to do so specifically to force a position through the UN via a manipulation of the delegate system? While it is almost impossible to verify that this is what has occured, it is becoming apparent from appearances that this is a reasonable possibility. This means that it is actually quite likely that the results of these votes are not actually legitimate descriptors of UN overall opinion, but merely the result of complicated power plays by pro-active individuals with more time and resources on their hands than is healthy.

Are you just in such action?

Can you? Yes.

Should you? No.

Should you, and claim that you are honorable, just and noble democracies with such liberally kind and healthy intents for your brethren? No. The Holy Empire of Kokablel is a theocracy and has no elections and clearly states this. At least we are honest. You skulk about like little worms when doing it and claim honor in the process.

I congratulate you. The finest lobbyist groups of the United States of America would be most proud of your actions. How utilitarian of you.

So, on your second day in the UN, you feel justified in passing judgement on all 36,657 member nations? How arrogant of you. By most measures, I'm almost as new as you ... but I took a few days to see how the UN works before condemning them.

Per your question one: the UN does not dispense judgement, it dispenses democratic decisions. Proposals go through a known process, and a simple majority of votes cast makes it law. Membership is voluntary, and a theocracy that doesn't approve of democracy has no business joining and subjecting themselves to the rule of law that is in opposition to their way of life.

As to Question two, I've not seen any evidence that region crashers have any interest in UN positions. Altering huge numbers of endorsements is not done instantly. What you are observing is most likely the normal process of voting. Your attempt to ascribe sinster aspects to it needs proof to be credible.
claim that you are honorable, just and noble democracies
Never made such a claim, and neither have many UN forum posters. Frisbeeteria is a corporate oligarchy, and we vote as such. At present, it amuses us to grant rights to the employees of our corporate states. We've seen marked improvements in productivity as a result.

Don't like the way the UN works? You have 2 choices. Work from within for change, or leave. We don't really care which you choose. Just bear in mind as you toss those condemnations to ALL members, that you risk offending those who might have been your allies.

So, on your second day in the UN, you feel justified in passing judgement on all 36,657 member nations? How arrogant of you. By most measures, I'm almost as new as you ... but I took a few days to see how the UN works before condemning them.

We, of the Holy Empire of Kokablel do not feel that we have judged all of the UN so much as the 'apparent' majority who feel it is their right to tell us how to dictate our domestic affairs. Is it unjust or exceedingly arrogant for us to possess an opinion to the contrary concerning how the UN should operate? Or must we cut our teeth on multiple issues before we have the 'right' to speak out?

Per your question one: the UN does not dispense judgement, it dispenses democratic decisions. Proposals go through a known process, and a simple majority of votes cast makes it law. Membership is voluntary, and a theocracy that doesn't approve of democracy has no business joining and subjecting themselves to the rule of law that is in opposition to their way of life.

And this is not a judgement? You are indeed a blind one, little brother, if you feel that they have not made an ethical judgement on the behalf of the world.

A theocracy may enter within the world of the UN if it sees the need to assist its brethren and is willing to accept sacrifice to educate them in proper behavior. Or, must we follow your notions of theocratic behavior when you have read not one page of the Holy Light of Kokablel, may it shine forever?

As to Question two, I've not seen any evidence that region crashers have any interest in UN positions. Altering huge numbers of endorsements is not done instantly. What you are observing is most likely the normal process of voting. Your attempt to ascribe sinster aspects to it needs proof to be credible.

Proof is impossible to acquire without voting records unavailable. However, certain things are clear:

a) Groups are known (even within the logs introducing nation states) for banding together and taking over regions, naming a delegate of their own.
b) Delegates of individual opinions different from the previous delegate will change their vote.
c) Votes shift repeatedly at various points. Generally, when the difference lessened to around 1500 votes, a sudden shift would occur. Around 200 votes would be lost and replaced.

While hardly proof, these are consistent with the previous two tendencies. Some will occur because a delegate has been swayed by bribe or legitimate argument to change their vote. However, it is logical that occassionally some will use tendency a to increase the odds of victory, making the true representation of this delegate system questionable at best.

It is an unalterable fact, but the question remains, asking those who do this (if indeed there are any) if such practice is just. You obviously do not, and therefore it is not directed at you, brother.

claim that you are honorable, just and noble democracies
Never made such a claim, and neither have many UN forum posters. Frisbeeteria is a corporate oligarchy, and we vote as such. At present, it amuses us to grant rights to the employees of our corporate states. We've seen marked improvements in productivity as a result.

Don't like the way the UN works? You have 2 choices. Work from within for change, or leave. We don't really care which you choose. Just bear in mind as you toss those condemnations to ALL members, that you risk offending those who might have been your allies.

Always my brethren retort with this. An individual requests a justification for tendencies in this august assembly and the response is always the same: Put up or shut up and leave. At least you had the decency to offer the option of reform, but the arrogance in your attitude is at least equal to ours in your thought that we must consider leaving merely because we do not approve of a resolution.

Did you think we were not reformers? Why would we ask these questions in this environment, if not with the intent to reform? Nay, we are here to reform, and I sincerely doubt that a few resolutions will halt the Light of Kokablel so easily.

(On a side note: I am playing a role, and the Holy Empire of Kokablel is run by a nutcase head of a crazed religion with an obsession regarding national sovereignty and a desire to assist his 'brothers' ruling other nations. My opinions are mine, but expect my 'role' to be a bit arrogant. It's a given. If we are not allowed to have strong opinions in this place, perhaps we should strike that 1st amendment right from the record. Perhaps strong opinions aren't allowed.

And, newness to nation states does not mean that I am unfamiliar with basic tactics and some political theory. I noticed a means by which the system could be abused. It might not be abused that way in reality, but if I was prone to those abuses as Ezeqeel, Grand Vizier of Kokablel, I would gladly do them. It's a quick way to ensure victory at the last when the vote is close. As coalition capturing of delegation seats is legitimate and the closest thing to 'war' in this place, it seems fitting that this could be standard tactics in UN politics.)