NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this resolution makes no sense at all.

1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society;

Well, duh.

2) Strongly encourages leaders to imagine how different the world could be, if from an early age, people were free to exercise genuine choice in what they read, watched and learnt;

So, he's saying that parents should not be allowed to raise their children. The children themeselves, from an early age, can choose what to watch and read. Mein Kampf? Go for it. Hard core porn? It's yours. Snuff films? Sure.

3) Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers,

Come on, a Star Trek episode could tell you this.

and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this;

Now this is really wacky. If someone wonders what the Prime Minister's head would look like with a butcher knife stuck in it, is it okay to find out?

4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;

People should not be judged by the decisions they make? It seems like the author was curious about crack cocaine and LSD before writing this thing.

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

According to their own consience? So forget all the laws, rules, and regulations. If you're not sure wether or not you should steal that guy's car, let your consience decide.

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies,

Okay, this clears it up a bit. So if I wonder what someone's house would look like burned to the ground, I should be able to find out, as long as I don't injure them.

b) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State,

Umm... that's how it is in real life, man.

6) Declares a moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising pending independent internationally-coordinated research into its effects on the capacity of individuals and wider society to make rational decisions.

Put on your tin-foil helmets, kids!
http://www.thetempleofmetal.gr/cinema/signs/signs_03.jpg

This is the most foolish and pointless resolution since "Hippos Really Are Quite Large". I believe people should be able to make choices, and I choose not to vote for this piece of garbage.

Yes, the UN Resolution should be rejected!!!!

The Republican Military Junta of Ustasha

National Motto: "The Junta now controls this city. Surrender, or die."

UN Category: Corporate Police State

Your unease is noted, and the reasons for it are understood. :wink:

My Resolution does not undermine the rule of law at all, provided the laws in question do not involve psychotic abuses of civil rights. Given your views, it will obviously not be to your liking, but since your objections stem from your ideology and not the Resolution itself, there is nothing I can really do about it.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

There was already a good discussion going on about this.

Why start a new thread? :?

Ego?

This resolution undermines the laws of my country. I will not vote for this. My reasons are the same as Ustasha's.

Please vote against this proposed resolution, your people don't need freedoms and subversion is a great way to keep the people in line.

Simply because you can't reliably lead your people, and you can't trust them to choose you as their leader, doesn't mean you should inflict your weakness upon the nations who either a) believe in this, or b) are confident their population will make the same choices they always have.

If this threatens your only means of controlling your population (or your best means, for that matter), then it's only a matter of time until you don't have a nation to represent here anyway.

Please vote against this proposed resolution, your people don't need freedoms and subversion is a great way to keep the people in line.

My nation was undecided, and while there are plenty of better arguments for voting both for and against this proposal, this silly justification was nearly enough for my knee-jerk response to be to vote YES.

That said, my nation is still interested in listening (reading) the debate. I assure you I will not allow my nation's opinion to be swayed by only but the reasoned arguments presented.

10kMichael

DUDE! That was fucking funny. But really this is an insane resolution especially the subliminal message part. Well i'll use my newfound freedome to blow the writers car up as long as he doesn't get hurt.

DUDE! That was f--- funny. But really this is an insane resolution especially the subliminal message part. Well i'll use my newfound freedome to blow the writers car up as long as he doesn't get hurt.

Why? Could you quote the subliminal message part? Surely if you want to use your free dome to blow up cars, you'd also be willing to explain to the rest of us why this resolution is insane.

10kMichael

I've always wanted to read Mein Kampf

I posted this in the other forum, but decided it could go here as well:


I see the main purpose of this bill, and please correct me if I'm horribly mistaken, as a protection of a person's right to think, feel, and believe as they want to, and sometimes act on it. I'm wondering why we need a bill such as this.

A person will already believe and think what they want to.

As for letting people do as they please, I recall a group of 19 people doing as they pleased a few years back. They ended up dying as a result, but were very happy that they made September 11, 2001 a day that none of us will ever forget.

As for not judging people by their actions, HOW IN TARNATION ARE WE GOING TO JUDGE THEM? I know! let's judge them by race! or religion! or both! how about we kill all the catholics, and jews, and blacks, and homosexuals, and the polish(hopefully you've seen the reference to Hitler, and 1930s-1940s Germany)! no one can judge us by our actions, so why not? Of course, that would only leave us with, eventually, a few blonde hair blue eyed people left. While the Sweedes(being blonde haired and blued eyed more often than not) might be very pleased with this idea, I'm not.
IF WE DON'T JUDGE PEOPLE BY THEIR ACTIONS, WE HAVE NO LOGICAL GROUNDS ON WHICH TO JUDGE THEM.

As for the political ideology, it seems to be an attempt to force people to have a democracy. Forcing people into a free state is getting rid of free choice. Let's take a step back and remember that this is only a game. It's also about thousands, perhaps even millions, of people worldwide to see what would happen if they were in control of a country, and to see what precedents they might set by accident.

Nationstates.net runs on the freedom to choose.

But who's freedom to chose?

Mine. And Your's. The guy how thinks just like you. The guy who disagrees with everything you've said. We all have the right to choose.

Isn't the freedom to choose what's right?

Well, this bill would undermine what's right and wrong, because it would change right and wrong from one person to the next.

I had mentioned the 9-11 terrorist attacks. To them this was not only right, but also and honor and a duty.

So was it right?

According to this bill? Yes.

According to what you might believe, no.

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. It's freedom limited by responsibility.

So what's my point?

We can't ever expect people to be responsible for themselves.

The whole reason for the government and nationstates.net is that people, individually will make mistakes, and won't know what's right.

Only society as a whole can decide what actions are needed.

But Wait! We don't have whole societies here! We only have us and our morals!

Exactly.

Therefore each one of us must go against reality and choose how each of us wants to run our own country.

It's our right to choose to do what we want.

Therefore, this resolution stands up for principles that it (the bill) itself goes against, and therefore undermines it's own effectiveness.

THIS BILL, WHILE TRYING TO GIVE EVERYONE FREEDOM OF CHOICE, TAKES THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AWAY FROM THE ONLY REAL PEOPLE IN THE GAME, THE NATION'S LEADERS!

I will forever allow the "citizens" of Aeolian to do as they please, and think a they want.

This will NEVER give me the right to make you do the same.

Let's vote down this bill, and bring some REAL freedom to this world.

While I appreciate the work that went into this resolution, we need to finally escape this rut of passing every resolution that isn't complete trash. Contrary to popular belief, a resolution can indeed be well written, but not passage material. It's not personal, it's business.

In this case, I would like to chime in on a couple of points that force my vote against:

subliminal advertising--not to beat a dead horse, but to force the UN to take a position on something in an admittedly temporary manner is reckless. If the UN is to make policy that affects member nations (as they all do, since there is never any by choice opt-in), it should do so only AFTER all deliberation and research. Since the author admits that this issue is still unclear and not supported by a preponderance of research, the UN should delay passage of any resolution that references it.

child parenting--what exactly is an "informed decision"? I'm willing to bet that if you poll 10 people on the definition you'd get a myriad of differing answers. This is a perfect example of the vague wording that pervades this resolution. Nice try, but we should not pass any legislation that is then forced on member nations that is not clear and direct. Enforcement, after all, depends on it.

And lastly, as a final thought on what I hope was a frustrating retort by Tactical Grace, I reject any argument that says "support this resolution or exercise your right to quit the UN." As the delegate says, the UN does indeed impact on national sovereignty, which is EXACTLY why we need to be EXTREMELY careful that what we pass is absolutely necessary.

This resolution does not pass muster on any of these points and thus needs to be rejected. A better, more concrete version can always come back up at a later date.

Andrew St. Fallsworth
Human Rights Delegate
Republic of Dunlend

The Republican Military Junta of Ustasha

National Motto: "The Junta now controls this city. Surrender, or die."

UN Category: Corporate Police State

Your unease is noted, and the reasons for it are understood. :wink:

My Resolution does not undermine the rule of law at all, provided the laws in question do not involve psychotic abuses of civil rights. Given your views, it will obviously not be to your liking, but since your objections stem from your ideology and not the Resolution itself, there is nothing I can really do about it.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

My objections do stem from the resolution itself! Did you read my comments? My issue is that this resolution is pointless! Why not simply make a resolution entitled "Repeal all laws"?

For the life of me, I can't figure out the purpose of this thing. I'm quite curious about it's meaning. I think I'll send 12 armored divisions of troops into the Capital of Tactical Grace, to loot and pillage and burn all your government buildings until I get some information. Don't worry, I won't hurt anyone, and I might find some documents beneath the rubble that might clear this whole thing up. Sound good?

Moogi's citizens are worried they'll be told to keep doing what they're already doing, and in so doing, not do it anymore, because then they'd be being told what they can and cannot do, and that will not do.

* Stares at Ustasha,

For the life of me, I can't figure out the purpose of this thing. I'm quite curious about it's meaning.

Thats nice dear, read the proposal.

My objections do stem from the resolution itself! Did you read my comments? My issue is that this resolution is pointless! Why not simply make a resolution entitled "Repeal all laws"?

Incorect on so many levels, I'd go into it but, eh, I've a proposal to re-write, more on this as detail comes in.

- The Rep of Komokom.

It would appear to me that passing this resolution would, in fact, restrict some freedom of choice for a substantial group of people. The effort to homogenize all nations under a given subset of freedoms would simply restrict the ability of people to migrate to a country that protects their own individual ideals. Certain people may want governmental protection from certain actions and ideals of other people. Removing the ability for a country to enact such protectionist laws would, in fact, restrict the rights and choices of the very individuals this misguided resolution claims to protect.

Please, for the love of humanity, between glass-blowing for bongs and the munchies, my people barely get out of bed in the afternoon. Telling them they have more choice would make things, like electricity, hard to pull off. Man.

* Stares at Ustasha,

Thats nice dear, read the proposal.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I've read it. And re-read it. And re-re-read it, and so on.

With respect to Tactical Grace, the idea is good in theory. But my main beef is that the proposal is too vauge. What does it do? Legalize drugs? Repeal gun laws? Abolish traffic laws? Free Mumia? What? People need to undestand that saying "Laws in general" is not good enough. You need specifics... like:

"This resolution will let people choose if they want to be euthanised."
"This resolution will let people choose the wallpaper at the Department of Motor Vehicles."
"This resolution will let people have sex with farm animals, if they choose to."
"This resolution will give you THE ULTIMATE CHOICE! Coke or Pepsi? You decide!"

People need to understand, a little bit of specific information goes a long way. Why do you think that those endless "End Racism" proposals never reach quorum? A good idea, but they never have any specific information as to what the resolution actually does.

We can't ever expect people to be responsible for themselves.
Yes we can and we do because if they weren't then they couldn't be held accountable for their actions if these have some negative consequences for others.
The Federation of Wetland after reviewing the arguments has decided that its apprehension for this resolution is justified. We will vote against this resolution because it takes away freedom and protection from our citizens.

Ambassador Molan
Federation of Wetland

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from responsibility. It needs to establish, yes, you are free to find out what a butcher knife in your wife looks like, but no you are not free from the consequences of your actions.

* Stares at Ustasha,

Thats nice dear, read the proposal.

- The Rep of Komokom.

I've read it. And re-read it. And re-re-read it, and so on.

With respect to Tactical Grace, the idea is good in theory. But my main beef is that the proposal is too vauge. What does it do? Legalize drugs? Repeal gun laws? Abolish traffic laws? Free Mumia? What? People need to undestand that saying "Laws in general" is not good enough. You need specifics... like:

"This resolution will let people choose if they want to be euthanised."
"This resolution will let people choose the wallpaper at the Department of Motor Vehicles."
"This resolution will let people have sex with farm animals, if they choose to."
"This resolution will give you THE ULTIMATE CHOICE! Coke or Pepsi? You decide!"

People need to understand, a little bit of specific information goes a long way. Why do you think that those endless "End Racism" proposals never reach quorum? A good idea, but they never have any specific information as to what the resolution actually does.

(Splutters repeatedly)

ARGH ! What is it with people and wierd arguments? Geeez.
1) Euthanasia is already legalised, so people have the choice to any-way.
2) No, and thats silly. It does nothing of the sort.
3) Well, if we want to, why not, if its legal in that country, but, oh wait, you don't get that bit do you...
4) Yes, ironically enough your right, it does give us the ultimate choice, no more secret subversive subliminal adverts. Nail hit on the head there you did.

Okay, thats it, I give up, it seems that like mine, this proposal, you either get it or you don't. Tactical Grace, you've got my vote, but you'll have to do this minus my vocality for now, I am beavering away on 3 more proposals right now, AND I'M DUMBING THEM DOWN ! :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

All these arguements against this resolution at vote are all, fundamentally the same arguement. It is disappointing that so many people cannot read the resolution, and cannot read the discussion that went on when this resolution was in draft format.

Legalize drugs? Repeal gun laws? Abolish traffic laws? Free Mumia? What?

I'll try answering this one.

This point was raised when this resolution was in draft form, indeed section 5a was drawn up to recognise that people should not have the freedom to do something that can potentially harm themselves or others. Taking drugs without medical advice is generally a bad thing, so that's not likely to happen under this resolution. The same goes with gun and traffic laws - they will pose a risk to the induvidual and others, so they cannot simply ignore them.

A good idea, but they never have any specific information as to what the resolution actually does.

That is because of the text limitation on the number of characters you can enter on a proposal. This proposal was incredibly detailed earlier in the process, but some bits have had to be chopped out to make room for the rest. I suggest you look at earlier discussions on this resolution to see the entire process and a greater degree of detail on this resolution.

We will vote against this resolution because it takes away freedom and protection from our citizens.

How do you figure that?

Certain people may want governmental protection from certain actions and ideals of other people.

Again, section 5a covers this, plus it was discussed in depth earlier in the process. Have a look at the earlier discussions.

Why not simply make a resolution entitled "Repeal all laws"?

***Sigh*** This is getting boring now...this resolution does NOT repeal all laws.

I think I'll send 12 armored divisions of troops into the Capital of Tactical Grace, to loot and pillage and burn all your government buildings until I get some information. Don't worry, I won't hurt anyone, and I might find some documents beneath the rubble that might clear this whole thing up. Sound good?

Good luck trying that - Tactical Grace is quite a lot bigger than you, a lot more respected than you, so one or two friends of his might decide to help him out if he needs it....

As for letting people do as they please, I recall a group of 19 people doing as they pleased a few years back. They ended up dying as a result, but were very happy that they made September 11, 2001 a day that none of us will ever forget.

So what happened on September 11? the events of the real world should not be used to justify arguements in NS
Anyway....

I had mentioned the 9-11 terrorist attacks. To them this was not only right, but also and honor and a duty.

So was it right?

According to this bill? Yes.

Yet again, no this bill does not justify terrorist attacks. If you read it you would realise this does not permit a person exercising their will to harm another or themselves.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Rep. Ustasha, are you saying that Rep. Tactical Grace should have listed every last choice a person could make?
Rep. Dunlend, the phrase "informed decision" is actually fairly easy to define. "Informed" acts as an adjective to "decision;" it describes what kind of decision is being made. The definition of "informed" is easy to acquire. "Decision" is likewise easy to acquire. If you put them together, it's a decision based on reliable information.
Now, for those of you who are opposed because, in theory, this Resolution will allow people to break laws at their leisure, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone...
First, I have yet to see anyone come up with a single example of a crime that doesn't harm anyone physically or psychologically. However, I'll pretend that Prostitution is a crime, and we'll assume that prostitution is truly a victimless crime (regardless of how you may feel, that's what we'll assume, for the sake of argument. So some guy, named John, goes and picks up a prostitute. Has he broken a law? Yes. What enabled him to do that? Logic would dictate that it's not this Resolution, but rather his own innate ability to make a choice. Now, we'll continue, since I know some of you aren't disputing this so far...
4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;
Firstly, to address concerns, let's look at one important facet of a criminal trial in ANY UN NATION. Article of 7 of the "Definition of Fair Trial" Resolution reads:

7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

If a criminal is brought to trial, he will not be judged by society based on his actions. He will be judged by an impartial judge. Singular. Here is where I agree that this Resolution oversteps its bounds: Society is not permitted to judge John based on his decision to solicit a prostitute. However, that does not prevent a legal institution from prosecuting John.

I hope that answered questions, and didn't tread all over Tacical Grace. ;)

Rep. Ustasha, are you saying that Rep. Tactical Grace should have listed every last choice a person could make?


No, but something specific would have been nice. If I made a resolution called "More Freedom!!!!" people would probably vote for it by the thousands. But I need to be specific about what the resolution does. Maybe it repeals all laws, maybe it just legalizes jay-walking. Who knows?

That is my issue here. The resolution says "More Choices", and that's about it. It doesn't say what choices in specific. And if the resolution is meant to give choices to EVERYONE for EVERY possible situation? Then that's just rediculous.

I think I'll write up a resolution called "Make Everything Better". Then when people ask what it's about, I'll say, "What the hell do you mean? It makes everything better!" And if someone said, "Well, it's too vauge. I can't vote for it if I don't know what it does." I could say, "What the hell is wrong with you? What do you mean you don't know what it does? Did you even read it, you freaking moron? It makes everything better!!! If you don't vote for it, you're a freaking Nazi!"

See my point?

DUDE! That was f--- funny. But really this is an insane resolution especially the subliminal message part. Well i'll use my newfound freedome to blow the writers car up as long as he doesn't get hurt.
I'd claim psychological harm and sue your a** off! :lol:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

My objections do stem from the resolution itself! Did you read my comments? My issue is that this resolution is pointless! Why not simply make a resolution entitled "Repeal all laws"?
For the last time, your criminal laws will not be affected. Just because people might choose to kill someone, doesn't mean that this Resolution will mean a successful defence - it specifically says in subclause 5a that you can prosecute them as normal. You are seeing something that simply isn't there.

I think I'll send 12 armored divisions of troops into the Capital of Tactical Grace, to loot and pillage and burn all your government buildings until I get some information. Don't worry, I won't hurt anyone, and I might find some documents beneath the rubble that might clear this whole thing up. Sound good?
Way to seize the moral high ground - threaten invasion. Given the relative strengths of our nations, I would not advise that. :wink:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Yes it protects peoples lives but not their property and it takes away some of the freedoms that parents need. That is my view and I hope that it will be the opinion of the majority in the UN.

With respect to Tactical Grace, the idea is good in theory. But my main beef is that the proposal is too vauge.

You need specifics... like:

"This resolution will let people choose if they want to be euthanised."
"This resolution will let people choose the wallpaper at the Department of Motor Vehicles."
"This resolution will let people have sex with farm animals, if they choose to."
"This resolution will give you THE ULTIMATE CHOICE! Coke or Pepsi? You decide!"

People need to understand, a little bit of specific information goes a long way.
Real-life UN legislation does not tend to be like that. It is quite broad in scope. It gives general rights for people, such as the right to not be tortured or mistreated, but does not actually say "This Resolution will address and outlaw all forms of electrocution." I was, in fact, trying to follow UN conventions. The UN rarely deals with specifics.

And so my Resolution writes down and protects the general freedom of choice that people living in democracies have anyway. What they do with it is up to them - they can choose Pepsi over Coke, spraypaint their car for a sort of layered translucent turquoise fishscale effect, read whatever book they feel like reading, but if any of that inspires them to go out and commit crime, boy are they in deep sh*t, because Freedom of Choice does not mean Freedom To do Whatever The Hell I Like And No-One's Gonna Put Me In Prison. Because, and I want to be perfectly clear on this, if they think that this Resolution has repealed your entire criminal justice code in one fell swoop, they are quite mistaken.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

it takes away some of the freedoms that parents need.
No it does not. That is the whole reason why subsection 5b is in there! Those caring for minors can still make informed choices on their behalf. This Resolution exempts minors from Universal Freedom of Choice, and does not affect the existing abilities of parents to choose on their children's behalf. Hehe, I actually have people complaining to me via telegram that I have given parents too much of a say in their children's upbringing.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Hehe, I actually have people complaining to me via telegram that I have given parents too much of a say in their children's upbringing.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Hmmm,, it's almost as if they have not actually read the resolution....funny that. :roll:
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Gethamane, Hirota and Komokom, I thank you for defending the spirit and word of my Resolution so capably. Truly, we see it as was intended. :)

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Regardless of the result of this vote, I will tell my people what is good for them. What is good for them, is good for me. I run my quaint little nation and I intend to keep it that way. No matter what the cost!

Regardless of the result of this vote, I will tell my people what is good for them. What is good for them, is good for me. I run my quaint little nation and I intend to keep it that way. No matter what the cost!

Sorry, but if this vote is going through, regardless of what you tell your people, you HAVE to follow passed UN resolutions...You can squirm and moan and complain all you want, but it means diddly squat to me!
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Spoken like a true Dictator. I salute you!

There is one clause in this resolution that will prevent my vote for this resolution, it is as quoted:

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations"

I'm sorry but in my nation there is a fundamental set of right and wrongs based on the ten commandments. It doesn't matter right now whether or not you agree if they are the words of God, the ten commandments are basic rules to govern our relation with other human beings such thou shall not steal, murder, commit adultery, and so on. This resolution as it is currently written undermines this basic principle of my nation and I cannot vote for it.

Think for a moment about the logical ramifications of this resolution, if my society thinks canabalism is ok and is a part of their religion, a part of their worldview, then it is ok. I'm sorry but in my view canabalism is wrong. I know my example is extreme but fit any other situation into the example where morals are relative to the society and culture and you get anarchy. Unacceptable in my view and this resolution does not deserve my vote.

Well that's fair enough, I accept that some cultures cannot approve of this on principle. What annoys me is the astonishing pedantry that supposed secular parliamentary democracies are showing here.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Spoken like a true Dictator. I salute you!

Spoken like a true Noob....I would salute but your complaints have been said so many times by so many other nations that they are just boring now.... :roll:

In the real world you can ignore the UN, but you can't in NS if you are a member. You knew the rules (or you should) before you joined....Your little moans ain't going to change anything kiddo.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

If the resolution denies the sovereign rights of nations to pass laws protecting their citizens as the government (of whatever form) sees fit, than it is insidious and destructive.

If it is not, than it is ultimately pointless.

You're saying that I can still pass laws that will criminalize behavior that harms others. Who defines what causes harm? Me? Ok, fine. Then why do we have a freedom of choic resolution?

If the resolution does not have a true impact on the nation, then there's no point to it, and it seems a meaningless waste.

I must therefore vote against the resolution, and vehemently encourage everyone I know to do so as well. For it is either a waste of time or a dangerous infringement on our national sovereign rights.

In essence, the proposal seems pretty OK. My main problem is with Clause 5A, which although declares actions that result in physical or psychological harm to be unlawful, does not take into account other possible crimes that do not result in any tangible harm. For example, a driver crossing a red light on a deserted crossroad.

I would argue that an action is unlawful not only when it DOES cause physical or psychological harm, but also when there is a good risk that repeated instances of such behaviour would cause physical and psychological harm.

If the resolution does not have a true impact on the nation, then there's no point to it

For it is either a waste of time or a dangerous infringement on our national sovereign rights.
Firstly, it is not a waste of time as the UN mechanism wouldn't have any Resolution at all under debate right now without this one. The UN was largely lying idle for over a week before this came up, so I don't see how it is a waste of time. Unless it is wasting time that would have been wasted anyway.

Secondly, the effect it will have if passed is make a small incremental increase in your civil rights variables.

Thirdly, if you are a UN member, you signed away your "national sovereign rights" the day you joined. Every UN Resolution, no matter what it does, infringes them the moment it is passed and automatically implemented in your country. Mine is hardly unique in this respect. :roll:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

In essence, the proposal seems pretty OK. My main problem is with Clause 5A, which although declares actions that result in physical or psychological harm to be unlawful, does not take into account other possible crimes that do not result in any tangible harm. For example, a driver crossing a red light on a deserted crossroad.

I would argue that an action is unlawful not only when it DOES cause physical or psychological harm, but also when there is a good risk that repeated instances of such behaviour would cause physical and psychological harm.
I understand what you are saying, but there was simply no room to go into that sort of detail. The character limit is very strict. I had to be quite brutal in editing my Resolution as it was. I wish I could have put in everything I wanted, but it simply was not possible. I aimed for a complete and logical whole which contained the main points of what I wanted to legislate. Finer detail could only really be added if the character limit was higher, or in subsequent supplementary legislation, which people will be welcome to submit to the UN if it passes.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I would argue that an action is unlawful not only when it DOES cause physical or psychological harm, but also when there is a good risk that repeated instances of such behaviour would cause physical and psychological harm.

Good point, but I would think that something that is dangerous would also be immoral to do (i'd say it is immoral to do something that is dangerous to someone else)...thus (in this example) breaking any traffic laws is dangerous, thus immoral, thus prohibited.

That is a bit of a stretch however, and Tactical or someone else might have a more sturdy response....
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

The Republican Military Junta of Ustasha

National Motto: "The Junta now controls this city. Surrender, or die."

UN Category: Corporate Police State

Your unease is noted, and the reasons for it are understood. :wink:

My Resolution does not undermine the rule of law at all, provided the laws in question do not involve psychotic abuses of civil rights. Given your views, it will obviously not be to your liking, but since your objections stem from your ideology and not the Resolution itself, there is nothing I can really do about it.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

OK, at some point, somebody has got to explain HOW this resolution will actually accomplish this marvellous goal of yours to undermine laws which "involve psychotic abuses of civil rights". The resolution, as I read it, won't do anything other than affirm the UN's committment to "freedom of choice" as a concept. There are no specifics given at all. I realise that Pantocratoria is a dicatorship and that you expect me to oppose this, but I'd really like to know why dictatorships should oppose this resolution. I want to know what actual impact it will have on our nations, and the resolution itself isn't really clear on that.

The entire idea of having a society that has laws is based on the fact that if humans had "universal freedom of choice", they would do things harmful to others and/or society as a whole. This proposal goes againist the entire theory of organized government. They only way such a resolution could exist would be in anarchy.

I vote no. I hope other nations will do the same.

The entire idea of having a society that has laws is based on the fact that if humans had "universal freedom of choice", they would do things harmful to others and/or society as a whole. This proposal goes againist the entire theory of organized government. They only way such a resolution could exist would be in anarchy.
Is any nation's system of justice going to be affected? No.
Is any nation going to have its UN Category changed to Anarchy? No.

Please, before commenting on my Resolution, read all the way to the bottom.

I want to know what actual impact it will have on our nations, and the resolution itself isn't really clear on that.
Through improving human rights, a modest improvement in civil rights variables.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Where will a modest increase from the "frightening" level leave us?
"terrifying" civil rights? :wink:

There have been many thuoght-provoking postings by those who are in oppostion to the proposal. One argument that doesn't hold water however is the following:

"This proposal goes againist the entire theory of organized government. They only way such a resolution could exist would be in anarchy."

I'm specifically quoting Dinner4JC, but many others have made the same erroneous point.

This proposal has an active clause which states that with choice comes responsiblity. If you make irresponsible or misanthropic choices, you may find yourself in trouble. Who is ultimatelly responsible for judging these scenarios? The ruler, government or judiciary, depending on your nation. In other words, anarchy isn't an issue.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Reposting some "potential effects" stuff from my thread:

As far as I am concerned, the NS UN does not actually go in with its own police force and bureaucracy to make sure people's rights are not being violated. Thus your people (and all other UN citizens) will simply have an internationally recognised piece of paper filed in the UN archive, saying that they are entitled to choose their own philosophy in life (secular, spiritual, existentialist, whatever), worldview, political orientation and so on. This does not mean that where there was a dictatorship, they can suddenly elect their own representatives. It is only a declaration of sorts. Indeed, the title might have been better with Declaration stuck onto the end of it.

Think of it, if you will, as the bits of the RL US Bill of Rights and so on, which has quite idealistic parts saying that everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness. This does not mean that the government is duty-bound to provide happiness for them, nor does it cut through criminal laws and allow US citizens to do whatever illegal/immoral activity they feel like doing in the pursuit of happiness. It simply gives them a right, a freedom, without really placing any obligations on anyone.

My Resolution is an international UN-wide equivalent of that, dealing not so much with happiness, which one could say is indirectly implied here, as with choice. It is vague, yes, but the right to choose is an unavoidably vague subject. My Resolution simply safeguards that vague right, without attacking legal or corporate institutions at all.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Where will a modest increase from the "frightening" level leave us?
"terrifying" civil rights? :wink:
:lol: Hehe, you wouldn't even notice its passing.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

The entire idea of having a society that has laws is based on the fact that if humans had "universal freedom of choice", they would do things harmful to others and/or society as a whole. This proposal goes againist the entire theory of organized government. They only way such a resolution could exist would be in anarchy.
Is any nation's system of justice going to be affected? No.
Is any nation going to have its UN Category changed to Anarchy? No.

Please, before commenting on my Resolution, read all the way to the bottom.

I want to know what actual impact it will have on our nations, and the resolution itself isn't really clear on that.
Through improving human rights, a modest improvement in civil rights variables.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

So then all this proposal is a lot of good intentions with no means to actually change anything? Then it should still be voted down.

So then all this proposal is a lot of good intentions with no means to actually change anything? Then it should still be voted down.
It does have the means to change things, as I have explained. Perhaps you should hang around a bit and watch how things work before leaping in with unqualified assertions.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

So then all this proposal is a lot of good intentions with no means to actually change anything? Then it should still be voted down.
It does have the means to change things, as I have explained. Perhaps you should hang around a bit and watch how things work before leaping in with unqualified assertions.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I find your insult rather harsh. I am not the first to make such an accusation.

I find your insult rather harsh. I am not the first to make such an accusation.
The criticisms of others have been far more constructive. Pantocratoria has at the same time raised several valid points, while you have made some flippant remarks about impending Anarchy and it having no effect, both of which run contrary to game mechanics.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

This proposal seems to be less about freedom of choice and more about banning advertising, harming businesses and disrupting economies. What's the benefit, anarchy? Imploding weaker economies? Proving that the author can write in circles and setting a bad precedent?

Any advertisement can be construed as subliminal, and that is really the whole purpose of advertising in the first place - create a jingle or memory aid that will help consumers remember a product or service. Advertising is not some big conspiracy to brainwash consumers and lead populations to social damnation, it's a tool for business!

I voted no to foolish idealism, no to an adventure in linguistic acrobatics, and no to damaging the GLOBAL economy.

I find your insult rather harsh. I am not the first to make such an accusation.
The criticisms of others have been far more constructive. Pantocratoria has at the same time raised several valid points, while you have made some flippant remarks about impending Anarchy and it having no effect, both of which run contrary to game mechanics.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

The game is a simulation. That being the case, I look at all proposals in the light of the real world. While your proposal may make sense within this games mechanics, I was arguing on a more realistic basis.

My arguments are ment to be in no way insulting. I am simply arguing my point.

This proposal seems to be less about freedom of choice and more about banning advertising, harming businesses and disrupting economies. What's the benefit, anarchy? Imploding weaker economies? Proving that the author can write in circles and setting a bad precedent?

Any advertisement can be construed as subliminal, and that is really the whole purpose of advertising in the first place - create a jingle or memory aid that will help consumers remember a product or service. Advertising is not some big conspiracy to brainwash consumers and lead populations to social damnation, it's a tool for business!

I voted no to foolish idealism, no to an adventure in linguistic acrobatics, and no to damaging the GLOBAL economy.

I'd like to hear an argument from someone who knows what "subliminal" means. Unfortunately, I won't hear this argument from a person like that, because it wouldn't hold any water. Why? Heh, I'm more than happy to answer that.

Jingles and "memory aids" can be consciously recalled. Therefore, are not "below the threshold of conscious perception." In fact, while nearly all adds use psychological tricks, these tricks can be recalled by an observant person. Therefore, are not subliminal. A subliminal message would be, for instance, a message broadcast at somewhere between 20 and 20.5 KHz (Note: This might even work better at below the human hearing range, and of course will be different for other species). The vast majority of humans cannot recall information at that frequency because our brains filter it out as noise, but our ears can still hear it. Anything beyond 21 KHz is probably beyond even the capabilities of a newborn's ear. The same principle (though the specifics escape me) works for visual stimuli.

Now that's all well and good, but here's some practical advice: By a loose definition of "subliminal," a government could do away with all advertising. However, by a strict definition, if it can be consciously recalled, then it is not subliminal. Since subliminal isn't specifically defined, either of those definitions, or somewhere in between, are possible without violating the Resolution. Thankfully, you have a choice here. If you would like I would be happy to draft a proposal which would eliminate all advertising, without giving anyone a choice... would that suit the taste of those claiming this isn't specific enough?

what's with insulting Dinner4JC?
he makes a speaks his thoughts and you guys jump all over him as if he raped your sister. Inronically, you attack what he says and call him stupid, and say it's all in defence of everyone's freedom to say what they want and not be persecuted for it. What kind of hypocrites are you?

OK, at some point, somebody has got to explain HOW this resolution will actually accomplish this marvellous goal of yours to undermine laws which "involve psychotic abuses of civil rights". The resolution, as I read it, won't do anything other than affirm the UN's committment to "freedom of choice" as a concept. There are no specifics given at all. I realise that Pantocratoria is a dicatorship and that you expect me to oppose this, but I'd really like to know why dictatorships should oppose this resolution. I want to know what actual impact it will have on our nations, and the resolution itself isn't really clear on that.

Thank you. That's what I've been saying. How about a UN resolution called "Life Is Good" or "Potato Chips Kick Ass"? If the resolution is merely the affirmation of an idea, then it is useless.

I think the reason that 5,000 people have voted for this resolution is that anything with "Freedom" in the title will grab votes by the hundreds. If people took the time to read the thing, then they would realise that while it has good ideas, it really doesn't do anything. If you want to declare your support for more freedom of choice, do it in the forums, not the UN.

-Emperor Jim.

There are two ways of looking at this Resolution.

At the Gameplay game mechanics level, it will certainly have effects, which I have described several times. National stats, etc.

At the Role Play level, certain rights will be protected, but to what extent you allow your citizens to exercise them is largely up to you. In any case, those rights will be internationally recognised in UN legislation, so whether you think it is actually doing something or not is a moot point.

The fact that this Resolution will have tangible effects is undeniable. You do however have the freedom to deny it if you wish.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

T.C. here is my most prized frying-pan, gifted to me from Teakland, go forth and use it well.

- The Rep of Komokom.

[Swings frying pan with great force at the head of a National Sovereignty UN n00b] :D

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

** Grins at the satisfying "KLONG" of the frying pan **

Ok, I've made 2 or three posts in the last hour defending this... Vows be damned, it's time for a drink.

** Drinks Pepto Bismol from the bottle, and heads to the Strangers' Bar **

There have been two main schools of argument against this proposal. The first declares that the proposal will do too much, others complain it will do nothing at all.

To those who oppose the spirit of the proposal, I can only point out that if you believe your philosophy is the best - then why do you choose to impose it on your people rather than letting its merits guide the people towards you? Your desire for total control is evidence that you know your philosophy is not in everyone's best interests.

Those who complain that the proposal does not include specific measures in order to enforce the concepts laid out are missing a vital point. If you want to enforce these concepts, then this can be done through follow up legislation as Tactical Grace has suggested. This proposal is still important, though, as it lays the foundation for such legislation. Once there is a consensus that personal liberty needs to be protected, then UN members can go about finding a way to make it happen. But the consensus needs to come first.

You see, the beauty of the NS UN is that legislation doesn't need any groundwork whatsoever. If this is the groundwork for future legislation guaranteeing a reasonable amount of freedom of choice in regards to what a citizen reads, what a citizen buys, what a citizen does, and so on, then it is superfluous. That's my main problem with the resolution - it doesn't seem to do anything. I'd rather it come out and do something more specific rather than do nothing but speak in the broadest sense. I understand that Tactical Grace was limited by the word limit, but as it is, this proposal is really too broad for me to vote for, simply because I want to be able to say that proposals have had an IC impact on my nation in my roleplays, and I really can't say that about this proposal.

We cannot allow this resolution to be passed. I have voted it down, and I suggest that others do the same.

My reasons? This forum takes care of that quite well. Just read everyone else's reasons--they make the argument quite well.

Vote it down!

My reasons? This forum takes care of that quite well. Just read everyone else's reasons--they make the argument quite well.

Errrr.....to put it plain and simply; no they don't.

All they do is fail to read all the history behind this resolution (an standard of laziness set by the majority of nation states), and all you've done is gone a step further by simply not bothering to even try and argue this yourself...you truly are a paragon for sloth and tardiness. :roll:
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Hirota, you have painted all the arguments against this proposal with a broad brush. Do you likewise categorise mine as one which doesn't make sense? If so, may I ask why? I am not supporting the resolution because I have no idea what impact it should have on my nation from an RP standpoint as a result of how broad it is, and I like to incorporate UN resolutions into my RPs. I realise that lots of other arguments have been fairly nonsensical, but I find it curious why mine would be put in the same category.

I have no idea what impact it should have on my nation from an RP standpoint as a result of how broad it is, and I like to incorporate UN resolutions into my RPs.
It is your RP, and you may take it in any direction you want. This would provide a certain starting point, the UN making a philosophical argument in favour of freedom of choice in general, without setting too many restrictions on what the State can actually do. How will your people and the State respond? It is up to you to write the rest of the story. Detailed and specific Resolutions may for example place restrictions on logging industries, your military, etc, which you would have to accept as given. But here you have the opportunity to decide the influence this will have on the evolution of your nation's culture. What would the problem with that be? Is it, ironically enough, that this Resolution gives you too much choice?

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

If the resolution does not have a true impact on the nation, then there's no point to it

For it is either a waste of time or a dangerous infringement on our national sovereign rights.
Firstly, it is not a waste of time as the UN mechanism wouldn't have any Resolution at all under debate right now without this one. The UN was largely lying idle for over a week before this came up, so I don't see how it is a waste of time. Unless it is wasting time that would have been wasted anyway.

Secondly, the effect it will have if passed is make a small incremental increase in your civil rights variables.

Thirdly, if you are a UN member, you signed away your "national sovereign rights" the day you joined. Every UN Resolution, no matter what it does, infringes them the moment it is passed and automatically implemented in your country. Mine is hardly unique in this respect.
OH see, here I thought we were pretending to be nations and acting as that.

IN GAME, it's still a waste of time. I have to send my representatives and they have to talk. I'm still of the opinion, even were that not the case, that a useless proposal is one that should not be passed. And "useless" is what I mean by "Waste of time."

Joining the Un does not sign away all national sovereign rights. It does force you to comply. Yes, I realize that. What you seem to be incapable of realizing is that this is not a "noob" thing. It's people role playing. Just because I've joined an organization does not mean that I cannot think that it's actions impinge too far on sovereign rights. Which this proposal does.

I'm quite aware of what the game mechanic impact will be as well. What I'm saying is that as a role player, this method of doing so is unacceptable.

I disagree with the concept philosophically as well. Saying that government encouragement or other sources, even subliminal advertising actually takes away freedom of choice evokes psychological ideas that we don't fully understand. I don't believe these activities actually remove any fundamental choices.

I have felt quite a bit that your arguments are condescending and demeaning. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are a "noob" or that they're stupid. If you wish to win people to your cause, perhaps you should try to convince them that your arguments hold merit, rather than telling them that they don't understand anything that's going on.

Here is what this resolution sounds like to me:

You can decide how you like as long as it doesn't go against criminal laws.

We won't be able to make new laws or enforce old ones if it goes against personal freedom at all, except in cases of possible harm. So if I decided to ban harry potter books it would be null and void, becouse it will not harm you, and goes against personal freedom.

Children can decide as they like as long as it doesn't harm them physically or pychologically no matter what the parents think.

A person can not be judged by any decision he makes that is lawful under this new resolution concerning personal freedom.

It is not the governments responsibility to erect new services for furthering rights and freedoms.

This is what it sounds like it is saying to me, is this right?

If so I would have to vote against it, becouse even though I pride my country on rights and freedoms I want to be able to censor as I deem fit, it would also make the game less fun becouse there would be no point in furthering your nation by accepting new legislation becouse everyone can do basically as they wished anyway. It also gives parents no right to parent thier children at all really. My gut instinct says NO!

Hirota, you have painted all the arguments against this proposal with a broad brush. Do you likewise categorise mine as one which doesn't make sense? If so, may I ask why? I am not supporting the resolution because I have no idea what impact it should have on my nation from an RP standpoint as a result of how broad it is, and I like to incorporate UN resolutions into my RPs. I realise that lots of other arguments have been fairly nonsensical, but I find it curious why mine would be put in the same category.

I was not responding to points raised beyond that of Allapin Mayeer...so I was not deliberately generalising beyond the generalisation originally made my Allapin Mayeer (for example, some objections have said this proposal does too much, others have said it does not enough). I simply find it plain idiotic and lazy.

As for your point...
I was reading your post and was thinking about making a response if I could correctly phrase it. I'm not sure if I can answer that really - but I really don't agree with the idea that NS legislation can be without groundwork - that might be how it has been done in the past, but I really think resolutions should be built upon the progress made in the past, and this resolution (for me) acts as a defining building block.

It sounds to me thought instead of being concerned this will cause anarchy, you are unclear what the benfits are for your nation IC? Since I don't know what philosophy your nation ascribes to, I'm not sure I can really comment.

I think nations concerned this does not do enough should vote for this proposal, as it does lay the groundwork for future proposals.

Children can decide as they like as long as it doesn't harm them physically or pychologically no matter what the parents think.

No, because article 5a says "The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State, "

_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

That's the thing really. If you look at my IC government, it should probably oppose such a resolution. It doesn't have a great track record when it comes to letting Imperial citizens make their own decisions. But at the same time, it doesn't really go out of its way to be oppressive. Since this resolution doesn't really specify any actual changes, my government could probably swallow it. But if it is actually intended to do more than just make vague promises to my citizenry, then the Imperial Government would probably be radically opposed to it.

As it is, it is hard for me to feel strongly about it one way or another. In theory, as a nation with an authoritarian government, I should be opposed to this legislation. But in practice, it doesn't really do anything to lessen governmental control over the populace, so...

In any case, I can make up IC effects on my nation myself. It just strikes me that the resolution is so general that while one nation could decide that as a result of this resolution, their government can't put any restrictions on its citizens at all unless their actions cause harm to others, while another nation could decide that as a result of this resolution, its political prisoners get a choice of which calibre of bullet they'd most like to be shot with at their execution by firing squad. Yes, it is funny that I am most troubled by the choice of IC impacts this resolution could have on my nation, I concede that, but I'd prefer if the resolution took a more definite stand on certain types of fundamental choices. That way the dictators would know whether to pack their bags and fly to a Carribean island somewhere, or whether to order a wider variety of bullets for their political prisoners...

:wink:

There are two ways of looking at this Resolution.

At the Gameplay game mechanics level, it will certainly have effects, which I have described several times. National stats, etc.

At the Role Play level, certain rights will be protected, but to what extent you allow your citizens to exercise them is largely up to you. In any case, those rights will be internationally recognised in UN legislation, so whether you think it is actually doing something or not is a moot point.

The fact that this Resolution will have tangible effects is undeniable. You do however have the freedom to deny it if you wish.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Well if this passes, we won't. Freedom isn't something you can grant through legislator. There are some people who would prefer the freedom to have the government help them out. This bill would restrict their freedoms.

You see the problem is that you can't make a law that actually increases freedoms, laws are made to do the opposite. To deny that is to deny how government works. Freedom is no restrictions, adding yet another restriction would not make us any less restricted, but more restricted.

The universal freedom act is oxymoronic. You can't pass a law that forces freedom on people, doing so is in fact a restriction of their freedom

My reasons? This forum takes care of that quite well. Just read everyone else's reasons--they make the argument quite well.

Errrr.....to put it plain and simply; no they don't.

All they do is fail to read all the history behind this resolution (an standard of laziness set by the majority of nation states), and all you've done is gone a step further by simply not bothering to even try and argue this yourself...you truly are a paragon for sloth and tardiness. :roll:


Actually .... I disagree. There are valid points that have been made and left unanswered or sarcastically dealt with via a frying pan.

I've posted my own position (in this forum) after debating the proposal in my regional forum (originally I was in favor but changed my position based on solid arguments posted there).

10kMichael

To those who oppose the spirit of the proposal, I can only point out that if you believe your philosophy is the best - then why do you choose to impose it on your people rather than letting its merits guide the people towards you?

My philosophy is the best because it is imposed.

Unless there are solid incentives, people won't really do anything. Incentives can be positive, and they can be negative, but they absolutely must exist for anything to happen. Now, it is logically impossible to remove people's "choices", as even the choice between cooperation and death at the hands of a juicermek is a choice - but this measure goes one step farther than that.

This measure attempts to impose UN sanctions on those who apply incentives towards... anything at all. That's just retarded. So now there will be a big negative incentive for the government to provide incentives - so there will be less incentives, so people will do less.

That's stupid. Really really stupid. Maybe you were unsatisfied with the rough and tumble pace with which the modern era was proceeding and wanted to put the breaks on everything. Maybe you thought that there was just too much being produced in the world, too many orders being filled, too much science being researched, too many dreams realized... but I'm pretty sure that I didn't. And that's why I've been offering incentives to people to get things done. Some of these incentives are things like "food and water", other incentives are things like "a sixpac of VatSoldiersTM", you know... whatever it takes for the situation.

But there's always been choice. There's always going to be choice. But this resolution makes the government choices that make positive civilian choices look more attractive less attractive. This makes positive civilian choices less attractive because the government will make these choices less often. And the net result is that a lot more government institutions and civilians will choose to do nothing - which is almost invariably the worst possible choice for everyone in the long run.

Don't make me come over there.

Tactical Grace says that maybe they should have called this a “Declaration.”
We think at best it might be called an “Affirmation.”

Tactical Grace says it is modeled on existing general-principle-stating UN Declarations, or even the USA “Declaration of Independence” (not the “Bill of Rights”) as in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

That Declaration happens to be intensely specific, if you want to look, and even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ambiguous as it sometimes is, nowhere approaches this level of vagueness.

Even appreciating the thoughtfulness of this resolution, we believe it should indeed be voted down on the ground of general mushiness.

Respectfully,
The Apocalyptic Community of John of Nazareth

Even appreciating the thoughtfulness of this resolution, we believe it should indeed be voted down on the ground of general mushiness.

Exactly.

Actually .... I disagree. There are valid points that have been made and left unanswered or sarcastically dealt with via a frying pan.

I've posted my own position (in this forum) after debating the proposal in my regional forum (originally I was in favor but changed my position based on solid arguments posted there).

10kMichael

"Sarcastically dealt with via a frying pan"

...

Hmmm. Lets just say it was that or break down crying at the continued intended display of ignorance and opinionated blather by a loud minority.

(Again with the frying-pan, geez I don't know...)

- The Rep of Komokom. :wink:

That is why Komokom, I prefer the Hyper-Dimensional Hammer. HDH's are small and compact, small enought to fit in those little coin pockets in those old blue jeans, thus they are easy to carry. they can expand or contract within a blink of an eye, and they can hit with the force of 100 tons on pure wooden rage. In compact form, they weigh less than an ounce.

Besides, people use Frying pans to cook with. Kinda hard to do when there is a facial impression in the middle of it :)

"Besides, people use Frying pans to cook with. Kinda hard to do when there is a facial impression in the middle of it"

I dunno, the 'mashed-face omelette' is quite a delicacy round my way.

Desmond 'Coyote' Hawkins
Temporary Speaker for Culinary Oddity

Also makes for very interestingly shaped pancakes and crepes.