NationStates Jolt Archive


Vote No: Universal Choice of Freedom

24-03-2004, 04:06
As representative of the Terran Assemblage, I must call into question the validity of the current vote. It effectively takes the person choice of freedom to the extremist edge of insanity. The current issue, if passed, would strip power from the state of nations, and turn it into a chaotic hotbed of dissent from it's citizens.

Our fellow member nations have their own set of government, and their own policies. What this new issue is make every nation a puppet state controlled by the will of a mob mentality.

I must clarify these points in general to the issue at hand....

"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;"

They do have these choices. Where to live, where to work, where to eat, who they wish to see, who they wish to live with, etc. and so on. Many nations laud the 'choice' a citizen may make. This issue is far by many of the lower ones, vague in its wording of what freedoms are GRANTED to any member nation. Our voting citizens are those who have served a minimum of four years in compulsary military service. The above portion of the issue at hand, would deny the ability for our current government to regulate our nation effectively. It strips our militarocracy of it's power and delutes it to people who have not fought or established their right as citizens through sacrifice and humility.

"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;"

This again is vague. We are 'encouraged' to imagine? We can imagine till our hearts content. The Terran Assembly and it's member nations believe in a free press and news services. Our citizens are allowed to read, watch and learn from many distinct educational systems and media systems. We do not know how this could not be part of any nation already.

"3) Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers, and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this;"

Curiousity has killed more than one cat. We wonder all the time and seek answers to many questions. But not when those answers and curiousity may lead to security risks or endangerment to the governing body and it's rules and codes of conduct, or laws. We deny this portion of the issue because it is vague and self rightious to those nations who believe in total anarchy and chaos. You may allow this in your own state or nation, but do not think to enforce this bias against the rest.

"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;"

A person shall be judged by the law. If a citizen comits a crime against the national laws of a state or nation, then it is under the individual nations influence and character to render judgement. It should not be passed as UN resolution to tear down the laws of other nations, for it would strip us of our own national identities, and our courts would become meaningless, and chaos would rule. We will not allow this.

"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"

Number 5? Number 5 is a more worded expression of number 1. It parrots back the issue of freedom of choice. The limitations were highly biased to those with only medical problems. The choice of conscience does not nececarily mean the conscience choice of the state's or nations abroad. One persons choice could in essence have a highly negative, or serious harmful effect for the state.

This issue would strip our member nations of our soveriegn power. Our laws would fall by the wayside as more and more dissenting voices would be allowed to disagree with the ruling body of our chosen governments.

You preach freedom of the individual, but what of the freedom of the state. We inact our own laws, in which it is the duty of our citizens to comply with. Our people are already free within our own nations, under our laws, under our protection. We refuse outside interferance for our own internal matters.

And that is what you will be allowing. The subjugation of your own national laws by an outside influence, to do as others please to their own perversion of freedoms or will.

We will not abide by this resolution, and vote no. It strips governmental power from the state and hands it to a mob, whose careless handling of our nation before our current governmental structure had nearly destroyed us. Under our care, the people are allowed nearly every freedom to live, love, work, play, and travel as they see fit. BUT not at the expense of our own laws.

The resolution is vague in it's meaning of personal choices of freedom, and until it more correctly identifies a persons choices of freedom, and highly specific worded issue, I ask this resolution to be dropped immediately.
24-03-2004, 04:13
Yep, I agree. Let's nuke the UN.

Can we do that?
24-03-2004, 04:13
Yep, I agree. Let's nuke the UN.

Can we do that?
24-03-2004, 04:42
The Terran Assemblage may be a state run by the military, but that does not mean we are a warring nation. We wholly abide by the UN resolutions concerning nuclear ordanance.

We do however beseach the members of the UN to change their vote to No, on the resolution tabled before you all. Pass this resolution and you may very well pass the demise of your own governments. The issue is so vague on its wording, it could effectively tie up any national high court for decades on what would constitute a persons choices concerning freedom and allowable decisions. Strike this resolution down, while you are still able, while your own nation has it's own choice. If passed, the choice will no longer by yours, but by those who are not effectively able to run the government.
24-03-2004, 04:50
The Dictaorship of Poltergeist supports Terran Assemblage. The main reason is that it infrigned upon the rights of nation to decide on what type of goverment it wants to run. Its basically eleminating goverment like Dictaorship, Communist and scoalist nation. The second reason is that if this bill passes, then the Dicatorship of Poltergeist will have to change its goverment. I think we are doing quiet well. Our Economy is strong, our civil right is very strong. Yes political freedom is below average but look at the aftermath. Low crime rate, a very productive country that is good in trade and is well off.
Moogi
24-03-2004, 05:20
Moogi agrees. Don't do it, peoples. Freedom of choice sounds good, but it's really the hive-mind of the UN worming its way into your governmental bodies.
Walckia
24-03-2004, 05:24
The Empire of Walckia feels that if this vote passes this resolution will invade on a nations soverigenty. Walckia is also a militiristic state, but it is not a warring nation. We as a nation enjoy our soverignty and wishes other nations vote AGAINST the resolution in favor of their own nations soverigetny.
24-03-2004, 05:31
Reading the resolution I can see the writers intent. The ability to make a freedom of choice, WITHOUT the presence of propoganda material from the state or the effect of subliminial messages in media, effecting the decision of a citizen.

If the resolution had been specifically worded to read as such, and if this was the true intent of the message written by the author of the resolution, we would have had no recourse but to vote yes.

BUT...this was not the case. The wording was highly lopsided to an overall freedom in all choices, which would have caused a massive misunderstanding to take root within the publics mind. In turn this would have caused such havoc as to overburden our court systems in legal wranglings that is ill equipped to face at this juncture.

If the author would strike down the current format of the resolution and reword it, I'm sure a more comprehensible resolution may be created to read as such. Until that time the issue holds very little weight in the Terran Assemlage nation and our region as it stands.
Hirota
24-03-2004, 10:00
You preach freedom of the individual, but what of the freedom of the state.

Well, there is your fundamental problem with the resolution. It is my opinion (and should be the opinion of any democracy) that the state's freedom is constrained by the boundaries set by the masses. If the masses vote for greater civil liberties, then they should be given them.

We inact our own laws, in which it is the duty of our citizens to comply with.

Again, the wrong way round. It is our opinion that the state has an obligation to comply with the wishes of the citizens, and that neither can claim ascendancy over the other.

Our people are already free within our own nations, under our laws, under our protection. We refuse outside interferance for our own internal matters.
Well.....if you didn't want your "internal" matters dabbled with, why did you join the UN? :roll: You knew the risks when you applied, so you don't get any sympathy from me....
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
24-03-2004, 10:10
Hirota feels no compassion for UN members that dispute the authority of the UN against their own soveriegnity.

The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest was founded to enact responsible democracy. Citizens of our republic have obligations to each other, among them a firm commitment to the public morality codified by the government. If a resident feels their conscience prevents them from taking up the duties of citizenship, they should take full advantage of our two-way open borders and emigrate to a nation that offers citizenship for breathing.
Hirota
24-03-2004, 10:18
Hirota feels no compassion for UN members that dispute the authority of the UN against their own soveriegnity.

No I don't Funny that. I was always under the impression that Nation States volunteered to join the UN, and knew what they were letting themselves in for... :roll:

Of course, if you can persuade me that you were "forced" to join then I'll sympathise. Otherwise you'll just sound like another whinny newbie nation to me.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
24-03-2004, 10:26
Nobody's forced to join the Armed Republic or accept citizenship or even remain here.

The resolution has only been proposed, not adopted as binding law, and by questioning it we're fulfilling the rights and obligations of UN membership as much as those supporting it.