NationStates Jolt Archive

this resolution is poorly written, confusing, contradictory, and does not promote personal freedoms enough, instead capping them at an arbitrary and self-contradictory limit. it "[approves] of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency," and allows decisions so long as "[The] decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them". the former is a direct contradiction of the freedom to choose, restricted by the totally subjective and often detrimentally and prudishly oppressive herd mentality and social control mechanism of "moral decency," and the latter restricts the individual's freedom to do drugs, engage in some unusual but safe sexual practices, or commit suicide. the Serene Land of Berëza strongly promotes the responsible adult individual's right to suicide, sadomasochism, and careful and responsible drug use, but this is an irrelevant point. restricting the freedom to choose life or death is a contradiction of the apparent purpose of this resolution.

if the NSUN functioned by consensus voting instead of direct voting, the Serene Land of Berëza would have a Major Objection to this proposal.

my lack of capitalization has nothing to do with my intelligence or knowledge of the rules of english grammar. it is a conscious, deliberate, and thought-out decision.

Moogi's citizens love subliminal advertising. Board certified polls show 98% of viewers approve of subliminal advertising, even when told they are being shown imagiessubliminally.

THere have already been too many anti-this threads. We all know why it's bad. I'm just going to say that subliminal advertising is awesome, and anyone who votes for this peice of crap hasn't read it and just likes t because they saw the word "Freedom" so they instantly voted for it.

It's hardly poorly written. It has been talked over and fine tuned for a long time. It has had a lot more work than 90% of the proposals you will see here.

Bereza ) I whole-heartedly disagree with your points, and do not feel that you've digested the proposal fully, and as such do not see how the proposal is resolved of your concerns, I suggest raising them with the writer.

Moogi ) Thats very nice, but some of us don't like it, and are very concerned by it, hence the proposal, see?

Valued Knowledge ) The only "piece of crap" is your post. I now suggest you put it back in your mouth where is came from, and resist the urge to dribble "crap" in the future. You'll find your credibility banging you on the butt, as will the door, on you way out.

Collaboration ) Agreed. This one of, if not the most thought out and clinically written proposals I've ever seen. Apart from the fact its a nice change, it also raises what is a serious international issue, and does so clearly and with well layed out argument and correct application of terms.

It also had one of the longest development times I've ever seen, and that thread by its creator is proof of this, its development was on-going art.

- The Rep of Komokom.

The proposal should be be rechecked and rewritten. If gives far to much freedom to the masses beyond personal national laws dictate. Items 1-5 try to hammer home point number 6, but it clearly loses everything in translation.

It's all well and good that the proposal has had some serious thought and discussion into it's creation. But it's highly to volitile in it's final form. If the proposal was specifically an attack against state run propaganda, subliminal messages or other such ilk, then the entire phrasing of the proposal should have just stated that. It left a rather large loophole into the freedoms granted to any one nations citizens, where it would effect national laws regarding whole sale freedoms compared to the freedom of choices made without the use of false material, propaganda, subliminal messaging or other inherent message stated.

The resolution was brilliantly planned, but it was poorly executed. My vote stands on No on the resolution, until such time as it is more clearly rewritten. Our nation is not wholly against the entirety of the proposal, just certain sections which are inherently vague on specific meanings towards an individuals rights, choices, and freedoms in which they are duely influenced by local information or media services.

The resolution was brilliantly planned, but it was poorly executed. My vote stands on No on the resolution, until such time as it is more clearly rewritten. Our nation is not wholly against the entirety of the proposal, just certain sections which are inherently vague on specific meanings towards an individuals rights, choices, and freedoms in which they are duely influenced by local information or media services.

I picked choice 3 just to be ironic. Isn't that funny?! Most people pick it too. God confirmists are stupid, what shallow lives they lead.

Moogi's advertising sector serves mainly to assist young adults in finding the correct local drug rehabilitation centers, seniors to enjoy their golden years in an advantagously positioned cooperative in their neighborhood, and to assure the ones paying taxes that their lives are in no way endangered. Because of our lack of prisons and a burgeoning population of sobriety-challenged 20-somethings, depriving our country of this potent cooperative decision-making tool is sure to cause huge problems in health, work, and drug related industries. Have you no compassion, sirs?

Terran Assemblage, I do not agree, the proposal was well prepared, and its execution was flawless, its hardly the fault of the creator the the seeming influx of complaints are simply the voices of the gibbering simps who it seems are on some search for 15 minutes of fame, guided only by their inflated ego's and gargantuan ignorance, your company excluded naturally.

The problem is not the proposal, but the unwilling-ness of the majority of na- sayers who seem intent on flaming and yelling their *opinions* loudly over our reasoned arguments, and their constant un-willingness to actually sit down and read through the proposal slowly, relating its clauses to each other and other legislation or ideas expressed within the proposal and with-out.

- The Rep of Komokom.

Do you find Moogi's excellent social services to be an absurdity, sir?

So the point is, this resolution allows to much freedom, All nations that agree with this resolution are calling for world wide Anarchy? If so i will have to vote no. Every Government needs to guide its citizens

All nations that agree with this resolution are calling for world wide Anarchy?
Sigh.

This is the problem with having the debate split over 6 threads. No-one reads them all, no-one knows what has already been covered.

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)

No, Kuppo, that's about as far off-base as you can get. The concern that this proposal will cause Anarchy is coming from the ignorant who are unable to reason, let alone listen to reason.

Consider that the Holy Empire of Gethamane is a Theocracy, and we tell our citizens what's best for them. Yet we're 100% behind this proposal (more, if you count the number of times I have had to make the same argument) because it represents a simple truth: People can make choices. However, this doesn't limit your choice to hold them accountable for their choices.

Watch who your calling ignorant. Are you saying I have not come to an informed decision after reviewing all the facts? If so, you have just inherently shot down the very proposal that your helping promote. Calling an informed individual ignorant, considering the basis of this proposial, I consider a slap in the face of my freedom to choose by my rational, unbiased, informed decision.

I highly suggest the next time you write a proposal that it's very specific in it's wording, content and meaning. Because right now there are over 3,700 vs. 5,000+ dissenting voices. And that is not even near 2/3rds of a voteing concensus or landslide event.

You go back, and you reread the entire complexity of the proposal. Personally I don't care whose watching whose back, because of any certain personalized friendship earned over a period of time, and defending their stance. I wouldn't expect anything less.

I'm not attacking the creator of the proposal. I'm attacking the proposal itself. The first portion of the proposal pretty much erratically states the freedom for all no matter what. It does not state anything inherently as the freedom under the laws of any one nation.

However since I read the damn thing, pardon my useage of four letter terminology, it states in OVERALL effect the freedom of choice without such things as ideological baggage (propaganda) which may have been foisted from the state government or a puppet media state who only preaches what the government says is 'the total truth, and nothing but the truth'. Which leaves no room for any other sort of truth.

I'm saying that the words were poorly chosen, improperly threaded, and written in a format that gives a wide far range of freedoms beyond what is necessary for the issue at hand. Which is the freedom to choose to come to an informed decision with more than one media service at hand.

Why else would you include clause six, pertaining to subliminal messaging in the first place, let alone clause one. If the message was freedom to choose for all, then there are certain freedoms which are restricted by certain sovereign state entitities. The freedom to vote is restricted to those who serve in a military capacity in the Terran Assemblage. That is not open to debate by non-voting civilians within our jurisdiction, and it will not be open to debate by any outside force, WHICH would be allowed under this new proposal mind you. It may not say as much, but it leaves a rather large loophole for our own national courts to debate, which would cost time, money, and dishearten the public trust in our government.

I will strongly cast a negative conitation of the current format of the proposal in it's current wording.

YOU can go back and rewrite it to more accurately portray freedom to choose to COME to an informed decision, without the discourse or interferance of the ruling body/entity/government by force, threat, propanda, inherent lies, and subliminal message ...and then I might vote YES!!!

But since the message was not worded in that way, I will vote NO!

For a start, the voting ends on Friday. Currently, it is Wednesday (in Australia at least. A lot of you are half a day behind).

As has been more eloquently stated by many other people, just because a person has the freedom to choose, this does not mean that what they choose has to be accepted by other people, including the government.

While this proposal does, in effect, give your people the right to vote, Terran Assemblage, this does not mean that the government of your nation has to choose to accept their vote.

Freedom of choice does not equal freedom from responsibility. If a person chooses to break a law, the police can choose to arrest that person.

I'm sure I've just said the same as many other people, but perhaps if we all say it enough, it might actually sink in.

And he's done it again with the its...

Komokom's comments are especially appropo.
May the resolution pass and do so overwhelmingly.
I have NEVER witnessed a more inclusive process for a UN resolution.

"While this proposal does, in effect, give your people the right to vote, Terran Assemblage, this does not mean that the government of your nation has to choose to accept their vote"

Excuse me?! It does not give the people the right to vote. OUR national laws only allows those serving in the military or have served in the military the right to vote. That is within our sovereign policy and our national law.

But you ALL have already stated that this proposal will NOT effect our national sovereignty in any matter.

In essence, you all lied. Not only does it effect POLITICAL CHANGE of our current government, and allows it to be overthrown for a different governement by allowing those who have not earned the right to vote.

You know what? You have just declared an incosistancy of the double standard which will be created by this proposal.

On the hand, you state that it will not effect the soveriegn governance of a nation. On the other hand, it gives power to those who under sovereign law is illegal. You are forcing political government change with a lie.

Some nations only allow women to vote, or only those whose base earnings equal in the billions. Your telling these other sovereign nations that their governments can no longer be socialist, gynocracy, plutocracy, militarocracies.

In essence you are forcing one democratic overriding governement for all. Wars have started because of this. We will refuse any notion of this UN resolution which sadistically forces it's own brand of government rule on our nation.

We will agree an unbiased choice of personal freedom, TO AN EXTENT, to our citizens. But it will not be the right to vote for all. This mandate is now stated to allow such.

Hyprocrasy.

this resolution is poorly written, confusing, contradictory, and does not promote personal freedoms enough, instead capping them at an arbitrary and self-contradictory limit. it "[approves] of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency," and allows decisions so long as "[The] decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them". the former is a direct contradiction of the freedom to choose, restricted by the totally subjective and often detrimentally and prudishly oppressive herd mentality and social control mechanism of "moral decency," and the latter restricts the individual's freedom to do drugs, engage in some unusual but safe sexual practices, or commit suicide. the Serene Land of Berëza strongly promotes the responsible adult individual's right to suicide, sadomasochism, and careful and responsible drug use, but this is an irrelevant point. restricting the freedom to choose life or death is a contradiction of the apparent purpose of this resolution.

if the NSUN functioned by consensus voting instead of direct voting, the Serene Land of Berëza would have a Major Objection to this proposal.

my lack of capitalization has nothing to do with my intelligence or knowledge of the rules of english grammar. it is a conscious, deliberate, and thought-out decision.

Agreed. We, The Holy Church of Psychotropics, have already argued the absurdity of this law on the main thread. We really don't want to be forced into creating a Ministry of Judging Subliminalism just to stay on good standing in the UN.

Subliminal = persuasive. This law will kill free speech.

Down with the Socialist Elitists who think they know more than the average consummer!
(astounding arrogance when you really think about it...)

Bishop Hassan, Minister of Intollerance for all Psychotropics

It's hardly poorly written. It has been talked over and fine tuned for a long time. It has had a lot more work than 90% of the proposals you will see here.

Agreed on your first statement. It is well written.
And it has been talked about and fine tuned for an extensive time.

That said, what was unforeseen is that the resolution has generated a lot of interest, and since the proposal deals with legislating an ideal, there have been few facts posted by either side about the impacts or need of the resolution.

That is why people are acting a bit broadsided. Simply put, this isn't a cut and dry issue. It is complex, and probably could bear a bit more attention that its one week of voting and month of draft deliberations have allowed. This is no fault of any one nation, but IMHO a problem due to mechanics of the UN.

I would have paid this proposal greater attention and offered constructive advise if I hadn't been preoccupied with the ballast water proposal.

10kMichael

All nations that agree with this resolution are calling for world wide Anarchy?
Sigh.

This is the problem with having the debate split over 6 threads. No-one reads them all, no-one knows what has already been covered.


In the North Pacific forums we have two different UN areas: one for proposals and one for current resolutions.

I'm not going to "endorse" a game mechanics change, but having two UN forums might be of some help:

Current resolutions only,
Draft proposals and Misc.

This would be a nightmare to organize and moderate, but the server lag makes it hard to pick and choose which threads to read.

10kMichael

Watch who your calling ignorant. Are you saying I have not come to an informed decision after reviewing all the facts? If so, you have just inherently shot down the very proposal that your helping promote. Calling an informed individual ignorant, considering the basis of this proposial, I consider a slap in the face of my freedom to choose by my rational, unbiased, informed decision.

That made no sense at all. You seem to indicate that I'm not allowed to voice my opinion because it interferes with your ability to make a choice.

I highly suggest the next time you write a proposal that it's very specific in it's wording, content and meaning. Because right now there are over 3,700 vs. 5,000+ dissenting voices. And that is not even near 2/3rds of a voteing concensus or landslide event.

To be as specific as you desire, we would have to violate the character limit for proposals. This proposal was very detailed, and I believe about a third of it was trimmed out to make it fit the character limit.

You go back, and you reread the entire complexity of the proposal. Personally I don't care whose watching whose back, because of any certain personalized friendship earned over a period of time, and defending their stance. I wouldn't expect anything less.

After the first sentence, I get confused as to the point. However, I have been over the entire complexity of the proposal numerous times.

I'm not attacking the creator of the proposal. I'm attacking the proposal itself. The first portion of the proposal pretty much erratically states the freedom for all no matter what. It does not state anything inherently as the freedom under the laws of any one nation.

I'll assume you're not talking about the preamble here. But to be safe, would you mind quoting the precise section you're talking about?

However since I read the damn thing, pardon my useage of four letter terminology, it states in OVERALL effect the freedom of choice without such things as ideological baggage (propaganda) which may have been foisted from the state government or a puppet media state who only preaches what the government says is 'the total truth, and nothing but the truth'. Which leaves no room for any other sort of truth.

Actually, that sounds more like a specific effect, to me.

I'm saying that the words were poorly chosen, improperly threaded, and written in a format that gives a wide far range of freedoms beyond what is necessary for the issue at hand. Which is the freedom to choose to come to an informed decision with more than one media service at hand.

I don't think you've quite got it. If there is only one media source, the government is in no way obligated to make more sources available. "The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services..." The issue at hand is, in fact, the right of a person to make choices.

Why else would you include clause six, pertaining to subliminal messaging in the first place, let alone clause one. If the message was freedom to choose for all, then there are certain freedoms which are restricted by certain sovereign state entitities. The freedom to vote is restricted to those who serve in a military capacity in the Terran Assemblage. That is not open to debate by non-voting civilians within our jurisdiction, and it will not be open to debate by any outside force, WHICH would be allowed under this new proposal mind you. It may not say as much, but it leaves a rather large loophole for our own national courts to debate, which would cost time, money, and dishearten the public trust in our government.

Because true subliminal advertising has the potential to remove choice from a person. If it cannot be considered, then choice is not possible. Since a person would be wholly unaware of subliminal influence (by definition), there can be no choice involved. The message is the freedom to choose, and it is directed at everyone. The definition of "everyone" includes you, giving you the choice as to who is allowed to vote in your nation.
Now, if a group of your non-voting citizens decides to debate that, what are you going to do about it? Say this proposal doesn't pass... are your citizens suddenly incapable of making the choice to debate, however futile? I fail the see the logic inherent in your argument.
I also fail to see the loophole. Debate is not necessary, because you have already made your choice: You chose to prohibit anyone who has not served in the military for four years from voting. Your voting citizens choose to uphold that by not bringing it up for debate. Nothing has changed. As for outside forces interfering with your government... Aside from passing resolutions, there's nothing we can do. A Resolution has already been passed prohibiting any nation's involvement in another nation.

I will strongly cast a negative conitation of the current format of the proposal in it's current wording.

YOU can go back and rewrite it to more accurately portray freedom to choose to COME to an informed decision, without the discourse or interferance of the ruling body/entity/government by force, threat, propanda, inherent lies, and subliminal message ...and then I might vote YES!!!

But since the message was not worded in that way, I will vote NO!

Where's the line going to be drawn on "psychological harm" ? Isn't that pretty vague?

"Where's Ned this week?"

"Oh, you didn't hear? He was pyschologically harmed by one of Fred's opinions. He getting workman's compensation too."


Our judical system in Quag-mire is already swamped with frivilous lawsuits. We really don't want to add psychological harrassment lawsuits to the case load.

VOTE NO on this Proposal

"I also fail to see the loophole. Debate is not necessary, because you have already made your choice: You chose to prohibit anyone who has not served in the military for four years from voting. Your voting citizens choose to uphold that by not bringing it up for debate. Nothing has changed. As for outside forces interfering with your government... Aside from passing resolutions, there's nothing we can do. A Resolution has already been passed prohibiting any nation's involvement in another nation."

It wouldn't be up for debate. It would be United Nations reforundum and law, which would strike down our law.

I already have the statement by one individual saying the mandate will allow all citizens the right to vote. Since it is only legal for those who serve within the military or have done such to vote, we will be forced to change our law by UN resolution of Freedom of Choice. That means our laws will be changed by the forced issue on another nations resolution, voted on by majority of UN delegates and members. In effect you would be forcing change within our political climate that does not match our current laws.

This current resolution would make the PAST resolution prohibiting any nation's involvement in another nation as OBSOLETE.

If that is the case, a proposal to strike down the first resolution can be instigated, striking down sovereign national laws and jurisdiction.

And I'll tell you what I told the other members of another game in their political forums. You keep on acting like a parrot and I'll throw a cracker at you and maybe a bottle of rum. I consider excessive use of parroting highly rude. I try to keep my parroting down to one paragraph per post all the way to absolute zero if I can help it. I know what I wrote, you don't have to throw it back in my face. If you wish to comment, do so. If you wish to paraphrase my own words, keep it short.

Your still not getting the distinction between my personal gamer choice, and what I have created as laws within my figmental nation. I can personally say no, BUT if this was a real reforundum, my personal choice wouldn't count since I would have no other recourse to obey the LETTER OF THE LAW of the UN mandate or resolution.

Hence my problem. I CAN STATE ANYTHING I WANT OF WHAT I'M GOING TO DO. But I'm trying to keep this to a style of roleplaying. The issue in question brings up a law which is to be inacted against and for all member nations. It will effect countless government bodies, some for the positive, some for the negative. Now for some real world nations, they wouldn't see a problem with this. However, not all nations are going to see it as positive.

Now I don't know how many here are from the United States of America, but personally I think a lot of freedoms are way to free, and at many portions have caused more hell on earth than any problem it ever thought it fixed.

And if what your saying is true, that the resolution in hand was longer and larger than it's current format, then I think some critical portions were cut out. And those critical portions might be whats missing. It may have even changed the ENTIRE meaning of what the proposal was trying to get across to us. But there's quite a few of us which have not read it to what the proposer had intended. And for that i'm sorry for both us, and the proposer, not for having the amount of space they needed to create a masterful piece of work. But as it stands, it's not a masterful piece of work. It's grandoise, full of good intentions, and based in the belief of the Constitution of the United States and equality and freedom.

Unfortunately the second amendment holds NO weight in the Terran Assemblage. THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE of any citizen does not grant them the freedom of choice to own a gun, unless they are part of the military or police force of our great nation.

Unfortunately that stupid resolution may give them that choice. And you think the words, "Well you can just 'choose' not to let them." You forget, i'm playing within game rules. If you allow them the freedom to choose to vote and own a hand gun, then your changing the national laws of my state.

And if you parrot one god bit more than one paragraph back at me of my own words, i'm going to go :p Thpppppt. Why don't you just state @Terran Assemblage and then state your opinion without all the extra quotes. One paragraph fine, two ok, seven or eight is a bit much.

First of all, pretend, just pretend that these nations are very very real that we have created here, and each has their very strong opinions when it comes to decisions effecting their countries. Then see why the world is as crazy as it is in real life nations and know why things are all hectic as they are.

UN resolutions must be abided by ALL member nations, and there for after passing reforundum must be followed. If not properly followed any nation may face sanctions against. Your damn lucky this game doesn't bring into question sanctions on trade. Then this game might even get more interesting than it is already now.

And if anyone can't see the contradicction in the first paraphrase above in that statement....well.... (chuckles)

If the resolution being voted upon will not effect any member nation in any way, then why have it in the god damn first place? I might not want to follow the UN resolution if it's passed. My nation doesn't get a choice. Do you see the dilemna now? No, you probably don't see the dilemna or the contradiction.

I am all FOR the resolution.

This may be a silly thing to ask, but what if, like the citizens of moogi suggest, subliminal advertising is a concious choice of some people... nevermind that the UN would be given far too much power over my citizens, whom are my equals.

The concern that this proposal will cause Anarchy is coming from the ignorant who are unable to reason, let alone listen to reason.

I am not concerened that this proposal will cause anarchy. I am concerened that it will do nothing at all. That's why I'm voting NO, and everyone with common sense should vote NO as well.

Whoever said that this proposal would permit all your citizens to vote was wrong. This proposal will do nothing of the kind. However, I have previously stated that all your citizens make choose to vote... and much good may it do them if you choose to not let them.
If you're suggesting that this will render Section I of "Rights and Duties of UN States" obsolete, you're mistaken. Article I is the only vulnerable article in this case, so I presume you're to mean that you will no longer be able to choose to exercise your legal powers, or choose what government type to have? Hopefully my phrasing of the question made the argument well enough.
However, at this point I'd like to say that if the UN passes a resolution giving all citizens the right to have their vote counted absolutely, then you have no room to argue because you forfeited national sovereignty in favor of a vote in the UN.
The Terran Assemblage has passed a law saying that no citizen may own a gun unless they're in the military or part of the police force, yes? I presume you probably have many other laws. We all know that it's no good to have laws if you don't have punishments... that would be silly. So, barring a truly bizarre government setup the Terran Assemblage has accomplished, I'll assume you have punishments. So you have these laws in place, and you have punishments for violating these laws... And yet, you have crime. This indicates that your citizens already have the choice whether or not to obey the law.
So why have this Resolution? Because there does exist the ability to remove the freedom of choice. Many of us consider that a human right's violation. There may even be UN nations which are currently employing such methods... This resolution will solve that. The resolution is obviously aimed at the exception, and not the rule. I seriously doubt the passing of this resolution will offer any serious change to the Terran Assemblage because the fact you have crime indicates that you are already respecting your citizens' Freedom of Choice.

After some review of "Terran Assemblage"'s future posts, I must change my original opinion of them being a knowledge'able opponent and debate'r to that of them being a ranting idiot. Oh well, thats just how the post crumbles I guess.

- The Rep of Komokom.

And, despite posts to the contrary of the fact, its still a good proposal, and should pass, but really, some one should just kill any-more nae-sayer threads, its just blatant egomania now to keep setting them up. And if its done purposely,then its the lowest form of protest. Loud ignorant yelling.

Terra Assemblage, your comments concerning 'parroting' are absurd.

As for the proposal itself, you have made a number of interesting points. However, I feel that Gethamane has countered most of them very effectively. The remaining grey areas are largely due to in-game restraints on space.

I have my own way of interpreting this problem, which you may or may not agree with (your choice). Consider the resolutions put to the UN as summaries, final declarations for the statute books which are backed up by appendices providing finer detail. The sad fact is that no proposal is going to be watertight because of character limits and (an out of character point) the lack of legal expertise of the game's participants.

For example, I do not have a background in law yet I feel that I may at some stage put forward a proposal. It won't be perfect. However, plentiful research and discussion should enable me to draft a proposal of a decent standard for the game. I believe Tactical Grace has done the same here.

The proposal's strength is 'mild' and it is general enough to allow you to maintain your nation's system of governance. I would suggest that it encourages dissent in totalitarian regimes, but let's be honest here - which UN nations are going to turn around and attack a state that clamps down on such dissent? If there are nations that will act, hey, you have some interesting roleplaying to do.

I hope this is of some help. If you don't like what I have to say, you can always choose to write me off as an idiot...

just vote no

Terra Assemblage, your comments concerning 'parroting' are absurd.[quote]

Agreed!

[quote=Terran Assemblage]You keep on acting like a parrot and I'll throw a cracker at you and maybe a bottle of rum. I consider excessive use of parroting highly rude.

Don't be so petty. You might not like quoting, but other people do. I personally find it easier to present my response using your response as an example. Plus there is nothing stopping people editing their posts...quoting them at least makes it a little easier to prevent that (and yes I have seen it happen in the past).

And I'll tell you what I told the other members of another game in their political forums.

So? Are we all supposed to instantly submit to your obviously "superior" forum prowess? :roll: You, Terran Assemblage (he says glaring at the recent Un member), have no right to tell other nations how they should and should not post.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

...its hardly the fault of the creator the the seeming influx of complaints are simply the voices of the gibbering simps who it seems are on some search for 15 minutes of fame, guided only by their inflated ego's and gargantuan ignorance, your company excluded naturally.

The problem is not the proposal, but the unwilling-ness of the majority of na- sayers who seem intent on flaming and yelling their *opinions* loudly over our reasoned arguments, and their constant un-willingness to actually sit down and read through the proposal slowly, relating its clauses to each other and other legislation or ideas expressed within the proposal and with-out.
I can't believe I'm reading this. You insult the opposition irrationally and then claim the problem is the opposition doesn't agree with you and therefore is, essentially, incapable or reason? That's about stupid. There's little else I can do about it but point out the inherant contradiction in your "argument."

I'm reading three threads about this subject, and while Tactical Grace has given a few reasoned (if unconvincing in my case) arguments, most of the "Pro" arguements for this resolution have turned into basically saying that those who are against it are stupid. That is not an intelligent debate, and none of it will ever convince anyone who is opposed to the resolution.

The always cheerful yet sternly worded nation of Berkylvania would like to welcome the nation of Terran Assemblage to the UN. We would also like to take this opportunity to point out that, by joining the UN, you have agreed to abide by the laws the majority of the UN have seen fit to approve. Frequently, this necessitates a change in sovergn laws within a specific nation. Such is the nature of the UN. If you are so offended by a proposed change, you always have the option to leave.

Actually, with all due respect, it has been pointed out multiple times that the resolution in no way mandates any change in voting laws or practices. Simply that, should a choice be offered to a nation's citizens, they should be allowed to make that choice with a free concience and no undue pressure. How, exactly, do you see this resolution forcing your nation to change it's current voting practices?

I'm afraid I don't understand your previous resolution objection this objection. How does this resolution render a previous resolution obsolete? That would, in effect, be a repeal of a previous resolution which is prohibited and would have resulted in this resolution's removal.



And I'll tell you what I told the other members of another game in their political forums. You keep on acting like a parrot and I'll throw a cracker at you and maybe a bottle of rum.

Witty, but irrelevant and needlessly inflammitory. I consider nonsensical critique of long standing members of this august body and their dilligent and well written efforts by snippy little upstart nations to be rude, but I don't feel a need to remark about it.

You go on to state that there is some sort of dichotomy between your "personal gamer choice" and what flies in your realm. Again, this is an odd thing to say and very much a "Yes...and?" point. Please explain how this is relevant.


Hence my problem. I CAN STATE ANYTHING I WANT OF WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.

Um, yes, well, er, what?


Now I don't know how many here are from the United States of America, but personally I think a lot of freedoms are way to free, and at many portions have caused more hell on earth than any problem it ever thought it fixed.

That's nice. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps you'd care to introduce a resolution on limiting freedoms?

You have stated that the resolution is based on the Constitution of the United States. This is prejudicial and completely unfounded, as if this United States is the only country in the world to revere freedom. Additionally, this resolution has been fiercly debated quite a bit here. There are several different threads (around 6, at the last count) covering it. I suggest that, before you make allegations, you should familiarize yourself with the terrain already covered. It lends more weight to your opinions if you appear to be speaking from an informed position.


Unfortunately the second amendment holds NO weight in the Terran Assemblage. THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE of any citizen does not grant them the freedom of choice to own a gun, unless they are part of the military or police force of our great nation.

Well then, your problem is solved. The resolution does not mandate that you have to institute this particular choice.


And if you parrot one god bit more than one paragraph back at me of my own words, i'm going to go :p Thpppppt. Why don't you just state @Terran Assemblage and then state your opinion without all the extra quotes. One paragraph fine, two ok, seven or eight is a bit much.

This is the way we do things in this assembly. If you do not like it, you are more than welcome to take your ball and go home.


Do you see the dilemna now? No, you probably don't see the dilemna or the contradiction.

No, I'm afraid I don't see your "dilemna" now. Indeed, I have no idea what a "dilemna" is. What I do see is a knee-jerk response to a well worlded and coherently put forth resolution by a new nation that has not made the effort to familiarize itself with the debate that has gone on before it and would rather resort to name calling and swearing.

Finally, I will "parrot" whatever I like to. That's MY choice. You can choose not to read it.

"I consider nonsensical critique of long standing members of this august body and their dilligent and well written efforts by snippy little upstart nations to be rude, but I don't feel a need to remark about it."

*desperately tries not to snort with laughter*

It's not very subtle, but I like it!

Terran Assemblage, I do not agree, the proposal was well prepared, and its execution was flawless, its hardly the fault of the creator the the seeming influx of complaints are simply the voices of the gibbering simps who it seems are on some search for 15 minutes of fame, guided only by their inflated ego's and gargantuan ignorance, your company excluded naturally.

The problem is not the proposal, but the unwilling-ness of the majority of na- sayers who seem intent on flaming and yelling their *opinions* loudly over our reasoned arguments, and their constant un-willingness to actually sit down and read through the proposal slowly, relating its clauses to each other and other legislation or ideas expressed within the proposal and with-out.

- The Rep of Komokom.

i am hardly a gibbering simp who seeks 15 minutes of fame. i've been around since last may, have been involved in many an RP, and have much better things to do, and much better ways of acquiring "fame", if that's what you call it, than standing on a box and shouting inanities to the masses. i am not shouting out a half-baked opinion simply because i want to. i'm forming a structured and logical argument for why this proposal is not a good idea. i state my reasons, and back them up with examples. i agree with the spirit of the proposal, but not with the particulars.

"United States is the only country in the world to revere freedom". berkylvania, uh...i wish i knew of a way to tell you that you're horribly wrong without using the words "horribly" or "wrong". take it as a statement, but don't get insulted by it, please.

most of you are missing the point of my argument anyway. the main point is that it's contradictory, not that it gives too much or too little freedom.

United States is the only country in the world to revere freedom". berkylvania, uh...i wish i knew of a way to tell you that you're horribly wrong without using the words "horribly" or "wrong".
Quite the ‘United States’ isn’t even a country. Although not all cultures value freedom.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

BEREZA: "United States is the only country in the world to revere freedom". berkylvania, uh...i wish i knew of a way to tell you that you're horribly wrong without using the words "horribly" or "wrong". take it as a statement, but don't get insulted by it, please.

You misunderstood Berkylvania completely. You actually agree with him...

Just a quick point to pick up on:

Subliminal = persuasive. This law will kill free speech.

No. The meanings of "subliminal" are very clear and specific:

1. Below the threshold of conscious perception. Used of stimuli.
2. Inadequate to produce conscious awareness but able to evoke a response: subliminal propaganda.

Even the most persuasive non-subliminal advert leaves the consumer aware that he or she has been persuaded through advertising and hence able to assume some measure of rational control over their sudden desire to drink New Caffeine-Free Diet Coke-Brand Water With Extra Toxins. Subliminal adverts bypass this process entirely and leave no possibility of rational decision-making, which is why they're included in this resolution.

On a personal note I never said I was going to be easy to get along with. And it doesn't matter how long you 'been around' in my judgement. And I wasn't the one calling other people uninformed, unintelligent, or an idiot. However I did state that excessive parroting was 'rude' in my book. =^o.o^=

@Komokom.

We did read through the proposal thoroughly and slowly. We went from article one to six, and have determined the proposed articles to be improperly threaded to the intent of the message being written.

I accept that the intention of the proposal was to allow a person to make a choice without coersian, use of threat, propoganda, and subliminal messages.

However article six is the only one which collectively states subliminal messages and their intent to bias the opinion of a person and his/her choice.

The current wording is to allow freedom of choice in many forms beyond the intent of what was written in the proposal. And that is why we are dissenting against it's passage. IF the proposal with the six articles in question, were rewritten to show the correct intent of the message, then I will gladly abide by the new proposal. But not in it's current format.

The intent of the proposal was a person to come to a decision without governmental restraint, and I'm guessing that these were to be simple choices. Not the wholesale demolition of government bodies by allowing total free reign of freedoms of all choices, where the law of a sovereign power may come into question.

"UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates. A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States: Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Section II: The Art of War: Article 4 § Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack. Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons. Article 6 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife. Article 7 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. Article 8 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5. Section III: The Role of the United Nations: Article 9 § Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State. Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law."

Article 6 of this past resolution comes into question if the new proposal of Freedom of Choice act is passed in it it's current format, and actively foments civil strife. The new proposal contradicts the allowed practice of any nation.

Under articles 1-3 will be immediately stricken, if the new proposal is passed in it's final wording.

Double posted. Sorry about that.

Terran Assemblage, I'm afraid that I don't understand how passing Freedom of Choice will in any way invalidate "Rights and Duties of UN States." Would you mind explaining your logic to me?

The intent of the proposal was a person to come to a decision without governmental restraint, and I'm guessing that these were to be simple choices. Not the wholesale demolition of government bodies by allowing total free reign of freedoms of all choices, where the law of a sovereign power may come into question.

I'm not convinced that you've accurately represented the intent of this proposal. The intent of this proposal is to enshrine in international law the right of all citizens of UN Member Nations to make choices. It limits the ability of any other entity to violate the human characteristic of curiosity. It, in fact, intends to allow citizens to make whatever choice they want (with certain limitations that I'm sure you're aware of). In no way does it bring about "wholesale destruction of government bodies" because it does not limit your ability to punish your citizens for those choices.

Terran Assemblage, I'm afraid that I don't understand how passing Freedom of Choice will in any way invalidate "Rights and Duties of UN States." Would you mind explaining your logic to me?

The intent of the proposal was a person to come to a decision without governmental restraint, and I'm guessing that these were to be simple choices. Not the wholesale demolition of government bodies by allowing total free reign of freedoms of all choices, where the law of a sovereign power may come into question.

I'm not convinced that you've accurately represented the intent of this proposal. The intent of this proposal is to enshrine in international law the right of all citizens of UN Member Nations to make choices. It limits the ability of any other entity to violate the human characteristic of curiosity. It, in fact, intends to allow citizens to make whatever choice they want (with certain limitations that I'm sure you're aware of). In no way does it bring about "wholesale destruction of government bodies" because it does not limit your ability to punish your citizens for those choices.


Well ... who cares what the intent is. The end result is a horribly written piece of garbage legislation that will lead to the abuse of free speech by anyone who wishes to do so..... all they have to claim is that a person or body has used "subliminal" messages.

We are absolutely disgusted with this proposal.

(the preceding was a letter signed by 12,000,000 psychotropican business leaders)

It's hardly poorly written. It has been talked over and fine tuned for a long time. It has had a lot more work than 90% of the proposals you will see here.
And it still has typos in it? :)

I disagree with those arguing clauses (1) thru (5) of this bill are in contradiction. The proposal is very clear that the intent is to prevent the overreaching of governing bodies against individual liberties, without infringing on the sovereignty of those bodies (apart from the UN) to legislate for the reasonable safety of the governed.

The problem with this bill is clause (6), the moratorium on subliminal advertising. The potential for abuse here against legitimate political speech is tremendous. After all, incumbent public servants will be the sole determinant of what is in fact subliminal. Thus any political advertisement from those seeking to win political office is at a disadvantage. Their message, at the sole discretion of those in power, may too easily be deemed to be subliminal.

It appears inevitable this bill will pass tomorrow, but I suggest that a new proposal be written immediately in its wake to lift the moratorium.

A better alternative would be to clearly define subliminal advertising and pass a resolution banning it or leaving it to individuals to decide. It must be worded such that it is not a repeal, rather a follow up (which the current proposal implies is necessary anyway). Careful of game mechanics here.

Just a quick point to pick up on:

Subliminal = persuasive. This law will kill free speech.

No. The meanings of "subliminal" are very clear and specific:

1. Below the threshold of conscious perception. Used of stimuli.
2. Inadequate to produce conscious awareness but able to evoke a response: subliminal propaganda.

Even the most persuasive non-subliminal advert leaves the consumer aware that he or she has been persuaded through advertising and hence able to assume some measure of rational control over their sudden desire to drink New Caffeine-Free Diet Coke-Brand Water With Extra Toxins. Subliminal adverts bypass this process entirely and leave no possibility of rational decision-making, which is why they're included in this resolution.

Fine, if this absurd law passes, we will call all of our subliminal advertising "Art", then it will remain legal

Moogi will make sure freedom of expression is preserved within its national borders. Even soulless corporate interests have the right to express themselves.

It is felt that this resolution infringes upon the rights of sovereign nations to govern within their borders as they see fitting in one or more areas depending upon the specific nations culture/society. It does contain some good points but in order to enforce these, one must also enforce those aspects that are unacceptable. Any resolution that is all encompassing with respect to 'rights' is bound to offend/alienate a certain number of nations. In our case the level of political freedoms made available to the general populace is limited based upon our ideology.

sorry Richardelphia to just jump in but I disagree...

You wrote "The proposal is very clear that the intent is to prevent the overreaching of governing bodies against individual liberties, without infringing on the sovereignty of those bodies (apart from the UN) to legislate for the reasonable safety of the governed. "

WRONG! this resolution gives the UN new power to reach into your government and make changes it sees fit weather you like it or not.

By forcing nationstates that are not Democratic in nature to offer choices to their populace will breed UN SUPPORTED dissent and polictial upheavals in those nations. The UN has no right to tell the leaders how to govern their own nation. by promoting freedoms not normally associated with every type of government (and forcing those governments to adopt those freedoms), you are removing that govrnments freedoms and choices. In a perfect world, every nationstate would be democratic, but while there are dictatorships, queen/kingdoms and other non-democratic nations in the UN or UNapplicats, we have to respect their right to govern their nation as they see fit.

For example
What if a proposal was submitted to ban deforestation or the destruction of natural resources for any reason. Violation of this proposal is expultion from the UN. A great Noble cause... protecting the planets natural resources. Promoting growth without strip mining the world.

Now all those rich deposits of Uranium are now off limits and if you decided to mine them... guess what... UN Sanctions are slapped on your Nation and you are booted out of the UN. BTW, did you get the Uranium deposits found in rainforst issue yet? If so, how'd you vote... how would you feel when you got that issue and had to weigh what the UN says you should do and what your people need.

I've heard people call this a feel good proposal being nothing more than an affirmation. if so, why waste the UN's time on it. Others say its a mild strength resolution... check again... it's significant.

all this resolution will do is make the UN into an elitist group alienating all forms of government that don't meet its constantly changing standards.

can anyone say League of Nations?

WRONG! this resolution gives the UN new power to reach into your government and make changes it sees fit weather you like it or not.

Here it is one more time: If your citizens have the POTENTIAL to commit a crime, this resolution will NOT affect you. This proposal will not remove any incentives that you have put in place for your citizens to follow your government... such as living, remaining out of prision, etc. etc.
When will this affect you? If you have acted to completely remove the ability to choose from your citizens, then you're in trouble. Now, in Gethamane, we keep a tight leash on our citizens through a variety of means... However, they have the option of dissent. We'll jail them in a heartbeat, if they do... but that doesn't mean that they CAN'T.
This proposal does not force a government to offer any choices to their citizens. In fact, there's a clause specifically regarding that.

as already seen in other threads there is the issue that by enforcing the freedom of choice legeslation on counties populace you are in turn removing the choice of restrictions placed upon them by the government, the government that is the only reason that they are given jobs, educated, and have health care and welfare. we give them these should not they in turn, within reason, give up some basic freedoms, if they choose to speak against us should they not be imprisoned for their ungratefullness, those who desire choice have it do we stop them deciding on what to eat or drink, subliminal messages may cause hem to desire without choice but with the variety of similar products each advertising in this way they have the choice of what they do comsume they just have the desire to consume more. and this desire then leads to the strengthening of our economies, by their spending money to consume people have to work to keep up with demands, earning money to spend on their desire to consume, be it material gains, or sustinance. this creates a more stble economy and a more stable society, as it increases employment, keeps people free of exessive free time in which to become bored and think of ways to disrupt our nations, and increases, through tax, our ability to support those who are incapable of supporting those who cannot support themselves. Hence it does not remove the choice of what to consume but merely encourages people to act upon their natural instinct, to consume.

WRONG! this resolution gives the UN new power to reach into your government and make changes it sees fit weather you like it or not.

Apart from Gethamane's excellent reply, I would like to add that this resolution does not give the UN new powers to make changes to your government....you did that when you applied to join the UN.

Congratulations on getting the resolution passed. I know it's beating a dead horse but there are some points that I feel need to be answered.


First Gethamane Let me break down your argument.

“Here it is one more time: If your citizens have the POTENTIAL to commit a crime, this resolution will NOT affect you. This proposal will not remove any incentives that you have put in place for your citizens to follow your government... such as living, remaining out of prision, etc. etc.”

True, but what if your government is a totalitarian dictatorship? This resolution FORCES you to provide your citizens with choices. Thereby changing the dynamics of the nation.

”When will this affect you? If you have acted to completely remove the ability to choose from your citizens, then you're in trouble.”

Oh, like if the nation is a Dictaorship, Kingdom/Queendom, fiefdom, Dominion, Empire, Theocracy, Sultanate, colony, Disputed Territory, Oppressed, Jingnostic, Autocratic, or Militaristic? (by the way, those are just the ones available when you create your nation.)or if you are a communitic state, father knows best state, totalitarian and so on and on.

Now, in Gethamane, we keep a tight leash on our citizens through a variety of means... However, they have the option of dissent. We'll jail them in a heartbeat, if they do... but that doesn't mean that they CAN'T.

So how many people die when they dissent. How costly are the riots? How full are your Jails? Realize that you are in violation of article 5a

By jailing them for making choices and choosing to dissent. Unless you only jail them for violent dissent you are violating 5a. How many worker strikes did you have so far? Sit in’? as long as they are non-violent, you can’t arrest them now.

”This proposal does not force a government to offer any choices to their citizens. In fact, there's a clause specifically regarding that.”

No the clause states that the government cannot be forced to create services where there was a monopoly before… i.e. Anti-trust laws.

But if your citizens want you to “loosen your leash” on them and if you refuse, the UN can now sanction you for violation of this resolution. After all you are depriving them the freedom of choice (not your choice but their choice)

And Hirota,
Yes the UN now has that power. The freedom of Choice is a democratic freedom. It alienates all the types of government I listed above. The UN is a governing body to keep relations beween Nations cordial, and respectful. I joined the UN because I believe that a community of Nations needs an arena where disputes can be worked out without bloodshed. An arena where needs of the planet can be identified and planet-wide problems resolved. Ballast water to prevent contamination of nationstates by viruses introduced by other nationstates is an example. The purpose of the UN is not to encourage dissent by offering freedoms to nations whose government does not want such freedoms introduced. If you joined the UN to relieve yourself of the responsibility of running your nationstate, that’s your problem.

Again sorry for beating a dead Horse and congrats for getting the resolutin passed.

"Oh look, it passed."
...
"Big surprise."
...
"Democracy proves its use again."
...
(Smiles wickedly)
...
* Begins to set thread on fire and warms hands.
...
:wink:
...
- The Rep of Komokom.

Democracy proves its use, by enforcing said democracy on other nations, and interrupting game mechanics.

Although we are a nation with an excellent civil rights record, we resent the passage of a resolution that enforces our beliefs on all (not to mention dictating our stance on said rights, regardless of belief). And, I pontificate, that it is put forth by some that as a newish poster, we deserve nothing more than a frying pan in the face for opposing said legislation (as well as for successfully encouraging our delegate to vote against it). Clearly, we are neither "sane", nor deserving of a right to voice dissent, because we display inadequate posts, and believe contrary to the sane majority. But, to no avail. We shall fall in line with the mandates of the majority, rather than depart from the UN (due to extreme dissent) as has been suggested by some, but not without a parting shot.

The perpesciuty to put forth tenets held dear for our ultimate concession and ultimate resolution is a commodity held dear by this relatively adolescent membership.

In concillatory, if not reluctant, acceptance,
Lady Nessa
Emissary for the Peoples of Yavanna

Passes marshmellow and stick to Komokom.


But Yavanna, what defines sane... after all, being lumped into an Insane catagory by people who believe that a democratic society is a "follow me" attitute or a "support this because it has the word Democratic in it" mentallity may not be a bad thing.

Besides, more will learn that true democracy is in the participation in the process, not getting the most votes.

Now if you excuse me, I need to reassure my totalitarian nations in my region that this does not mean war.

What percentage of the UN vote does it take to pass a resolution? It just seems that a margin of 9,314 to 8,213 is very close, a clearly divided opinion.

A simple majority of votes is needed to pass a resolution, as far as I know.

This proposal got 53% of votes. And that is by no means the closest. Legalise Euthanasia only got 51%. All you need is a majority out of those who vote.

“Here it is one more time: If your citizens have the POTENTIAL to commit a crime, this resolution will NOT affect you. This proposal will not remove any incentives that you have put in place for your citizens to follow your government... such as living, remaining out of prision, etc. etc.”

True, but what if your government is a totalitarian dictatorship? This resolution FORCES you to provide your citizens with choices. Thereby changing the dynamics of the nation.

”When will this affect you? If you have acted to completely remove the ability to choose from your citizens, then you're in trouble.”

Oh, like if the nation is a Dictaorship, Kingdom/Queendom, fiefdom, Dominion, Empire, Theocracy, Sultanate, colony, Disputed Territory, Oppressed, Jingnostic, Autocratic, or Militaristic? (by the way, those are just the ones available when you create your nation.)or if you are a communitic state, father knows best state, totalitarian and so on and on.

Now, in Gethamane, we keep a tight leash on our citizens through a variety of means... However, they have the option of dissent. We'll jail them in a heartbeat, if they do... but that doesn't mean that they CAN'T.

So how many people die when they dissent. How costly are the riots? How full are your Jails? Realize that you are in violation of article 5a

By jailing them for making choices and choosing to dissent. Unless you only jail them for violent dissent you are violating 5a. How many worker strikes did you have so far? Sit in’? as long as they are non-violent, you can’t arrest them now."

So if a nation has laws that state that riots are forbidden, and rioters shot, then I suppose that's against everyone's freedom of choice? I don't think anywhere in that resolution that was passed stated that the people have the right to march, worded specifically, in fact it did not express any particular action of choice which would be prohibitive. The resolution is an all encompasing freedom of choice in every area. The choice to kill themselves, the choice to kill someone else, the choice to steal, the choice to have unprotected sex, the choice to sell drugs, the choice to do everything they wanted.

At one point you say where it does effect any nations laws. No kidding. Since now it's a United Nations law that is conventiantly given every single person to any nation which is part of the UN the freedom of democratic choice...you have just turned every single United Nations member into a democracy.

The fact that you stated that any nation that denies their citizens the freedom of choice, that the jails would be full and that their would be riots is an erronious statement. You can not fully prove that any citizen of those countries which are not democracies, who deny the freedom of choice to their citizens, would go that far as to dissent against their governments in the first place.

"By jailing them for making choices and choosing to dissent. Unless you only jail them for violent dissent you are violating 5a. How many worker strikes did you have so far? Sit in’? as long as they are non-violent, you can’t arrest them now."

So if the citizens strike, and the law of any nation that says strikes are against the national law, this UN law supercedes the national law, and says they have the right to strike, since it's part of the all encompassing Freedom of Choice act. It doesn't SAY that in the resolution, but it is stated the freedom to make ANY choice.

And that's why everyone has a problem with the stupid resolution. Your resolution basically says anyone can make any choice they want, and the United Nations law will protect them, even though certain choices are limited by national sovereign laws.

The resolution is a walking contradiction. No it will effect your laws. Yes it will effect your laws.

Just admit it. Just admit that it changes every nation into a democracy and we'll breath a little easier of the admission.

Let it go.

And why would we just let it go? It's a touchy subject and a hot issue with some. We're not allowed to discuss it?