NationStates Jolt Archive

Several UN proposals are being passed which involve an increasing amount of animosity toward industry and the economy. This is a disturbing trend which is hurting nations such as my own. It seems that many of these proposals are being passed with little thought to how it will effect both national and world economies. It also seems that the UN as a whole is very left-leaning, which is disconcerting for more capitalist countries, as socialist ideals are being spread to all member nations. As many of these proposals are restricting, the scale will tip farther and farther to the left as more liberal nations join and more conservative nations depart. This kind of one-sided leadership could be dangerous, because as history has proven time and again, radical ideals never stay for long, as they will fall back towards moderation, or collapse- and right now the United Nations is pushing farther and farther to the left. This is just a warning... I'm sure the bright minds in this forum can decide on a solution.

Well, speaking as a Capitalist Paradise with a frightening economy, oh yeah, and a member in the U.N. , I've no problem with this so called Influx of "socialist ideals" you seem to be worried about,

Then again, I think I am one of these so called "Liberals" you seem so concerned by.

Personally, if the so called "conservative nations"
are leaving then thats their problem, as the U.N. thus caters to its members, the so called "Liberals".

Further more, you claim that these U.N. resolutions being passed are restrictive, so why are more "Liberals" joining, I would think rather that if this was true they would be leaving?

In conclusion,

I doubt your claims are of any concern, the U.N. is after all a democracy and always will be, its no point blaming the U.N. fior its member demographic, rather perhaps you should look to those who do not take part of the game, so to speak?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Putting the original topic aside for a moment,

The UN itself is democratic, yes, but it is not just for democracies! Why should it cater to any demographic which alienates it's other members?

The answer is the same that its always been. The point about the UN being a democracy is that resolutions do not just happen as a terrible act of nature, they happen because people vote for them. All that means is that if you want resolutions to be more...well I don't see any of the resolutions as particuarly 'left'...but for the sake of argument, more 'right', then all you have to do is lobby the right wing nations to join the UN, to write resolutions that won't be laughed out of the UN Halls and then rally people round to vote for them. That's it! I don't think it's that hard. There are after all a hell of a lot of right wing regions out there. If they actually concentrated on doing something other than whinging, calling people names, region crashing and writing red bashing, pro choice or pro gay bashing proposals, then we might see a real sea change.

I would also contend that there is nothing stopping the economically oriented nations from offering up proposals under the free trade category, all of which would increase the economy. If you're so concerned about industry, why not go through the effort to write a resolution that would help it out? Granted, you'll have a hard time with a resolution that says "f*ck the poor, help the rich for a better economy," but I imagine there are a t least a couple "right wing" nations out there who could whip something together.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Putting the original topic aside for a moment,

The UN itself is democratic, yes, but it is not just for democracies! Why should it cater to any demographic which alienates it's other members?

Pained sigh...

No, it is not just for democracies,

And it does not cater to a single demographic and thus alienating others,

Well, ignoring the simple fact it only effects members and non-members, but thats not the argument, just an aside, what my argument is, is:

It caters to all members as a whole, but the form of democracy it has means laws are passed purely on whether or not there is a majority vote either way, so really...

Oh, I see, what I meant to say was do not blame the member demographic for the U.N. after all, its the members who make the U.N. yes, so if...

Okay, simple answer is:

Ignore ideas like conservative or liberal, look to the fact, fact that proposals pass on a yes/no vote with a majority for one side or the other, there no rule which says liberals or conservatives must vote one way and not the other, it all depends on what conclusion individuals come too and which way they vote, yes their political ideals may be of influence in what way they decide, but thats nothing to do if one lot vote yes and a smaller disagree-ing lot vote no, that just the way it is, game mechanics and paying your money and making your choice and see-ing if you've won.

- The Rep of Komokom.

:lol: I guess I've been laying it on pretty thick with you tonight, but all I'm really trying to get across is that it seems (to me, at least) that the proposals which do get passed make little room for compromise with those which are against it.

paying your money
:steps in before people mistake what Komokom said:

No, we don't actually pay money to the UN, I'm sure the Rep. of Komokom was just using a figure of speech.

The UN is not a two-party system in a fake democracy where votes predominantly split down the middle (left/right, liberal/conservative, whatever). The nations in the UN are diverse, stubborn, fickle, dogmatic, inconsistent, contradictory, uncooperative and, in my eyes, all the more beautiful for it.

You're concerned about the UN's recent legislation? Find some allies, like-minded nations with the energy and passion to effect change. Chances are, Ecopoeia will oppose you on any free trade issue but we have to deal with the consequences of being on the 'wrong' end of a resolution just like you are having to at the moment.

Best wishes
Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

If you're so concerned about industry, why not go through the effort to write a resolution that would help it out?


*gasp*

I can't believe you are asking all of the nations that constantly cry about this kind of thing to actually step forward and submit themselves to the exact same type of treatment they dish out on the rest of us!

Can you imagine how they will feel after having to fight for endorsements to listen to hundreds of complaints about their poor grammar and spelling ... or should that be grammer and speling? Then to also have to bear the hundreds of, "This does nothing!" or "This is not specific!" or "My nation doesn't agree with the word is so we've redefined what a year is, because you are a moron."

;)

All sarcasism aside, I've been asking myself the very same question. If your nation uses the "but this will hurt my industries" argument, why in the world aren't you doing something to help your industries? Why?

Talk is cheap.

10kMichael
p.s. though I mock poor arguments and don't trust nations that restort to them, my nation takes all proposals and resolutions seriously ... meaning if a nation wants to address free trade, I'm not going to use similar poor debating tactics against any idea

In Rehochipe, we believe that above a certain level of income extra capital ceases to become a means of supplying oneself with needs and pleasures and becomes a tool of elitism and political influence. Not seeing why one citizen deserves more political influence than another, we therefore have a high rate of income tax for the rich. Indeed, we believe this essential to social justice - the income disparity your proposal would create would constitute social injustice, in our book.

This line that 'if I earn more money, I clearly deserve it' is bunk, in a capitalist nation. If you earn more money that means you are able to get it - nothing more. Plenty of people who contribute nothing useful to society have ludicrously high-paying jobs; such people do not deserve more money, they are only able to get it. Market forces do not determine what one deserves. This is the core of any ethical system: might is not right, ability is not desert, the actual outcome is not necessarily the best one. Any attempt to say that higher taxes for the rich constitutes social injustice is thinly disguised amorality.

Kamquin Dakar
Ministry of Trade and Industry