Freedom of choice
To all UN members:
One of the most important rights all individuals have is the freedom of choice. The UN has accepted a resolution to ensure all people in the memberstates have this right.
How does that justify, that UN members are dictatorships?
If UN resolutions apply to all UN members, how can these members have a form of government that denie their inhabitants to have this right?
What is the use of accepting resolutions, if those who do not live by them stay in the UN?
What are the criteria of being accepted as a UN member?
Rehochipe
16-05-2004, 21:56
Freedom of Choice says nothing about political freedoms - it really only relates to personal freedoms.
Of course, dictatorships generally are less likely to grant these freedoms, but there's nothing preventing them from doing so.
The Global Market
16-05-2004, 22:42
I'm inclined to agree.
A dictatorship that doesn't do anything except defend against foreign countries is just as good as the freest democracy, and even better because it protects against mob rule.
Dutch Berhampore
17-05-2004, 05:32
No, although it is quite possible that dictatorships could theoretically provide their citizens with a wide range of choices, both political and personal, I believe that they must in some sense limit their citizens rights to choose. Otherwise they cannot fulfil the ‘dictate’ part of their name and compel their citizens to live in a particular manner.
Of course, the right to choose, like all individual civil rights, needs to be balanced against cultural-societal rights and responsibilities – so perhaps that is the area that dictatorships might argue that they are not in breach of the right to choose?...
Sophista
17-05-2004, 08:06
Being a dictatorships does not preclude choice. For example, a dictator could demand that all citizens choose a new color of car to drive to work in. Sure, that's not the best kind of choice to have, but they still got to pick something, right?
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Black New World
17-05-2004, 11:09
As a dictatorship I would just like to point out that our citizens are given a great deal of choice.
Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Sophista
17-05-2004, 15:03
See? There you go. One counter-example, and the whole damn argument chain falls. Stupid rhetoric.
Free Outer Eugenia
17-05-2004, 15:11
No form of government is compatible with the principles of liberty. Smash the state.
Dutch Berhampore
18-05-2004, 00:53
Being a dictatorships does not preclude choice. For example, a dictator could demand that all citizens choose a new color of car to drive to work in. Sure, that's not the best kind of choice to have, but they still got to pick something, right?
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs
The point I was making was not that dictatorships preclude all choices but that by their very nature (the need to dictate something or other) they must preclude at least one choice. In response to the car example the choices that appear to me to be excluded from consideration include to not drive a car, to not care what colour the car is, to not go to work...
Eridanus
18-05-2004, 01:31
I don't see why you couldn't still have all the personal freedoms as you would under a democratic system.
Sophista
18-05-2004, 03:37
The point I was making was not that dictatorships preclude all choices but that by their very nature (the need to dictate something or other) they must preclude at least one choice. In response to the car example the choices that appear to me to be excluded from consideration include to not drive a car, to not care what colour the car is, to not go to work.
Every kind of government precludes at least one choice. A democracy is no different than a dictatorship if they both say that drugs are illegal, or impose speed limits, or mandate school attendance. Choice is something you give up under the social contract. The only difference is how much choice.
No form of government is compatible with the principles of liberty. Smash the state.
Yes.
No form of government is compatible with the principles of liberty. Smash the state.
Yes.
[quote]
Every kind of government precludes at least one choice. A democracy is no different than a dictatorship if they both say that drugs are illegal, or impose speed limits, or mandate school attendance. Choice is something you give up under the social contract. The only difference is how much choice.
Good point; In my statement, I never ment to imply that all democraties in the world are actually doing a better job. If a government says drugs are illegal, they are taking away free choice just as well, I agree. In essence though, a dictatorship is lead by someone that has not gotten his position by the choice of others in the first place and the fact that he/she dictates basically denies others their free choice. But, having said that about dicatorships doesn't nescesarily mean other forms of government are doing any better!
In any society you have to make social contracts; But social contracts do not nescesarily limit your choices. That only happens, if a government (no matter what form it is) starts to force those choices on a society, with laws and regulations like you mentioned.
I think therefore it is even debatable whether government should 'own and regulate' infrastructure. If there were more companies owning roads, I would have a choice of which I would use under which conditions. Social contracts only limit free choice, if the contracts are drawn by a government. If contracts are between demand and supplie, there is always achoice; even the choice of not choosing.
How about anarchism? I mean real anarchism, not the stuff of schoolboys' imagination. No state and no social contract, only the absolute freedom of the individual. The only way you could have your freedom of choice impaired, is by other individuals, and not the state as there isin't one.
Anarchism- against all authority
discuss and debate
Hakartopia
22-05-2004, 19:48
No form of government is compatible with the principles of liberty.
Are you saying I can't decide so for myself?! Fascist!
The Black New World
22-05-2004, 19:52
How about anarchism? I mean real anarchism, not the stuff of schoolboys' imagination. No state and no social contract, only the absolute freedom of the individual. The only way you could have your freedom of choice impaired, is by other individuals, and not the state as there isin't one.
Anarchism- against all authority
discuss and debate
I don't think it would work for the UN.
Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)
Collaboration
22-05-2004, 22:24
We suppose it depends on the dictator.
Some could allow a measure of choice in irrelevancies such as entertainment, sport, and fashion, just to appease the masses.
Superpower07
22-05-2004, 23:53
While Democracy can safeguard 90%+ of freedom of choice, there will never be a government that can 100%
How about anarchism? I mean real anarchism, not the stuff of schoolboys' imagination. No state and no social contract, only the absolute freedom of the individual. The only way you could have your freedom of choice impaired, is by other individuals, and not the state as there isin't one.
Anarchism- against all authority
discuss and debate
Total anarchism would be an option, but it the world as we know it, we should be realistic; A country isn't recognised internationally if there isn't some form of government or representation; I also feel it isn't 'wrong' if there is some sort of government, stating and endorsing the basic rights of its people. Government interference, however, should be brought to a minimum and should only be conserned with those basic rights.
As Reagan said: Government doesn't solve problems, government IS the problem... I'm looking for a way to minimize the problem.