NationStates Jolt Archive

As of late the Constitutional Monarchy of Kitsune Island has noticed more and more that the United Nations has been bringing up certain issues such as "abortion rights" and "gay marriages"/"civil unions" which have sparked wide debate throughout the forum.

These multi-page debates often degenerate into shouting with nothing being decided, with everyone firmly set in their positions with no room to budge. Kitsune Island acknowledges that all nations have a right to hold an opinion, and that such an attitude is condusive to democracy.

However, for such controversial issues, further strife has been caused because if an issue was passed or struck down, many nations in the sizeable minority have complained about being basically left out, forced to obey widespread laws that they do not believe in.

Because of these great problems, the Constitutional Monarchy of Kitsune Island and its King, Miles Attacca, believe that the United Nations' decision-making power should be limited to a certain point. It should not be able to decide über-controversial issues such as "abortion rights" and "gay marriages"/"civil unions" for everyone by the majority vote, because on such issues there is also a very active and large minority. The 75%-majority voting system fails to rectify this, and if there were a unanimous voting system, absolutely nothing would be done. To give a potential example, a vote between going out for pizza or hamburgers would be thoroughly devisive, with some people being indecisive and others striking a debate on pepperoni pizza versus sausage, or hamburgers with onions versus those without.

Kitsune Island believes that the United Nations should be allowed to decide issues such as international standardizations (ranging from computer languages to DVD region controls ((noted as already being passed)) to shipping and security requirements ((such as the already-passed ballast-water issue))) and basic civil rights, such as the right to a minimum wage, to adequate housing, to food and drink, et al. Such issues may be less controversial than the current ones up for debate (although knowing our esteemed diplomats, most likely this will not be a sure fix), but will have a noticable impact on industry and human life in general.

If there are any nations which wish to argue this point, they may post their opinions in this topic and vote in the above poll. If there are any nations which would like to submit this as a definite proposal for United Nations voting, they may also telegram the Constitutional Monarchy of Kitsune Island besides voicing support (or lack thereof) in this topic.

The NationStates UN is control. It is the will of the people. Being in the UN means losing some of your sovereignty. The UN is a direct democracy, all actions taken on the popular vote. Besides it would be much less fun without the shouting matches, we model the real world UN closer than we think.

Nations who don't like the level of control imposed by the United Nations are free to withdraw their membership (I am actively considering doing so, for the reasons given in the first post).

The NationStates UN is control. It is the will of the people. Being in the UN means losing some of your sovereignty. The UN is a direct democracy, all actions taken on the popular vote. Besides it would be much less fun without the shouting matches, we model the real world UN closer than we think.

Well said.
For me personally, NationanStates wouldn't be as much fun or as interesting without the UN.

The improvement our nation would most like to see in this regard would be for some sort of drafting process for resolutions once they have received enough endorsements. Recent resolutions have been so brief and blunt that they fail to acknowledge there is any middle ground, or technical concerns for the issues they address.

For instance, many of the pro-choice nations have expressed significant concern that the present resolution expresses support for abortion in every single instance, and appears to include no checks and balances.
This inability to work towards a middle ground antagonises nations that find themselves in a minority, and isolates those who are interested to see a topic debated but have significant concerns about aspects of that topic. There should be a mediation process for resolutions that allows them to be re-drafted without losing their overall intent.

Perhaps, for instance, resolutions could go through a one-week committee process where delegates could suggest amendments and the resolution mover could choose whether to accept those amendments or not. Then the amended resolution could go to its final vote.

The improvement our nation would most like to see in this regard would be for some sort of drafting process for resolutions once they have received enough endorsements. Recent resolutions have been so brief and blunt that they fail to acknowledge there is any middle ground, or technical concerns for the issues they address.

Perhaps, for instance, resolutions could go through a one-week committee process where delegates could suggest amendments and the resolution mover could choose whether to accept those amendments or not. Then the amended resolution could go to its final vote.

That's why it is recommended that nations post a draft of their proposal here on the UN Forum BEFORE submitting it. It allows for everyone to make suggestions on ways to improve the proposal and also helps catch any proposals that violate the rules, such as the one that Kitsune Island is suggesting.

Bob Flibble
UN Rep.
Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Yes, I know that process, and were our nation ever to have a burning issue we wished addressed through the UN we would certainly use it. Sadly, it is a process that only seems to work if the proposers initiate it rather than if other nations want to review a resolution before it goes to vote. Oh well. Cei la vie. Our nation would not let legislation pass without it first going through a process of receiving submissions, consultation and amendment, so I guess we are a bit perplexed why that should not also be the case for the UN.
Not that we dislike the UN! We just find its processes a bit hasty at times. Especially compared to traditional international political bodies.

As it stands, the United Nations is unchecked and has become a tyranny of the majority. Regardless of UN Articles giving lip service to the protection of member nations' soverignty, recently we have passed resolutions which force capitalism on us, to use the most recent example.

Here's the problem: The United Nations has no longer become an alliance of nations, it has become a macrogovernment. Resolutions, instead of defining global issues such as human rights, are no longer resolutions, they are policies. Policies which are forced on nations in the minority, by a tyrannical majority.

Policies such as abortion now. The 40-hour workweek which forced me to convert my scientific foundation into a military operation in order to get anything done.

I fear we are one or two more forced policy resolutions away from a massive resignation.

Ursanar: I may be somewhat jaded, but pretty much everything you wrote has been said before, just with slight differences. And people have been warning of mass resignations at least as far as I've been part of the UN (dating back to the Euthanasia resolution with another nation), so I very much doubt that any such action will occur.

The NS UN is just a forum for the PC-Lemmings to put forth and vote upon their utopian fantasies without regard to these proposals consequences.

the UN is complete bull shit

The Holy Republic of Tzorsland is not in the United Nations. I've given the matter very serious consideration, and for the life of me I can't think of a single reason why I would want to be in the UN. On the one hand my natin gets a vote (and my deligate gets another) but when the number of vote is in the thousands, that's not much of a draw to membership.

Instead the UN forces me and my citizens to accept laws I do not wish, (for indeed if they passed a law that I and my citizens wish, we have our own local government that can pass the law in our land), with no significant benefit in return. :(

Therein lies, I think, the problem. Since there is no real benefit for joining the UN, many nations that do not believe in the current majority of the UN on a variety of issues simply do not join and let the others play in their sandbox. :roll:

If the UN could have a recruiting slogan - Join the UN. Your economy would imrove (due to the great trade agreements we maintain) and your taxes can be lowered (due to the financial benefits that come from our expeert guidance) then I think more people who currently do not always agree with the laws that are being passed in the UN would join ... and the fun can really begin! :wink:

What Kitsune Island is proposing is very similar to something Kamsaki has submitted as a proposal in the past. The fact is that making a resolution requesting members to change the types of resolutions submitted does not in any way alter game mechanics; rather, it appeals to UN Members to behave in a certain way. This is less restrictive in its means than any of these "Moral Battleground" resolutions that are being thrown at us left, right and centre.

Like-minded member states of the UN might want to take a look at the proposal UN Appeals Procedure, which will call for a decrease in the number of these morality issues and suggest other methods of using the United Nations Resolution system without changing the mechanics of the organisation at all.

The Most Serene Nation of Misty Creek and those that reside in the Vicinity of Misty Creek beware! The UN is a most decidely oppresive forum and does not comform with our individual needs or beliefs. We are now forced to conside leaving this organization before more harm is done to our nation and region.

We encourage like-minded nations to join our region and live in a manner of our choosing without the interference and opppression currently offered by the UN.

(what should have been posted last night. Damn evil server!)

The United Nations always was controlling, the way it was made makes it controlling. Every person on the forum knows that but their isn't anything anyone can do about it.

Why else would the 'UN Resolutions Throughout History' page read
Since the rise of civilization (November 13, 2002), the members of the United Nations have been working tirelessly to improve the standard of the world. That, or trying to force other nations to be more like them. But that's just semantics.


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)

The NationStates UN is control. It is the will of the people. Being in the UN means losing some of your sovereignty. The UN is a direct democracy, all actions taken on the popular vote. Besides it would be much less fun without the shouting matches, we model the real world UN closer than we think.

I beg to differ, the UN is a representative democracy, a direct democracy would mean each person would have a vote(and therefore the population of the nation would effect the vote it has). Each member has one vote in representation of her people, regardless of how many they represent, and each Delegate has additional votes in representation of her region. In a direct democracy, each person in each nation would have a vote. And this is clearly not the case.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

United Nations should deliberate issues that affect to the whole world, not people in particular, like abortion or gay marriage. These are issues of people's lifes, and nowone can decide for them.
LET'S CONTROL THE UN!

Our Republic was worried about joining the United Nations at first. However, we knew our views, as varied as they are, are held by other nations out there, and by joining the UN, and voting, we would be helping our fellow nations express our views.

That being said, the UN is too controlling. It is slowly chipping away at the sovereignty of our respective nations. We do not wish to leave the UN, because we would then be isolated, and abandoning the community of nations would just be one more step in the UN controlling all nations. My suggestion is that we build a coalition of nations, even if we do not agree on every or any issue, who's focus it is to protect our individual sovereignty from the UN.

The NationStates UN is control. It is the will of the people. Being in the UN means losing some of your sovereignty. The UN is a direct democracy, all actions taken on the popular vote. Besides it would be much less fun without the shouting matches, we model the real world UN closer than we think.

I beg to differ, the UN is a representative democracy, a direct democracy would mean each person would have a vote(and therefore the population of the nation would effect the vote it has). Each member has one vote in representation of her people, regardless of how many they represent, and each Delegate has additional votes in representation of her region. In a direct democracy, each person in each nation would have a vote. And this is clearly not the case.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

The population of each nation is essentially a cosmetic fact, mostly an indicator of how long you have been playing. It is more like a direct democracy because each PLAYER has a vote, if the DELEGATE was the only one with the power to vote then it would be more like a represenative democracy which is really a republic.

As it stands, the United Nations is unchecked and has become a tyranny of the majority. Regardless of UN Articles giving lip service to the protection of member nations' soverignty, recently we have passed resolutions which force capitalism on us, to use the most recent example.

Here's the problem: The United Nations has no longer become an alliance of nations, it has become a macrogovernment. Resolutions, instead of defining global issues such as human rights, are no longer resolutions, they are policies. Policies which are forced on nations in the minority, by a tyrannical majority.

Policies such as abortion now. The 40-hour workweek which forced me to convert my scientific foundation into a military operation in order to get anything done.

I fear we are one or two more forced policy resolutions away from a massive resignation.

Just don't obey them... The brief time I was in the UN... I didn't obey anything I didn't want to... What are they going to do about it?

What one must do is question the fundamental purpose of the United Nations.

In the "real world," the UN was made as an international body to promote cooperation and shared goals, so the world may be less eager to throw itself into another World War. To quote the official UN web site (www.un.org), the UN was formed "on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security."

What of the United Nations of NationStates? What purpose does it serve? As far as I can tell, its only purpose is to allow an individual nation to cede its decision-making power in favour of the opinion of the standing majority within the UN. In exchange for this, you are given the ability to vote on UN resolutions, which essentially gives you the right to dictate to complete strangers what the best way to run a country may be. So, to boil it down to practically nothing, the United Nations exists to let the individual commit suicide, and to pass on its life to the ignorant masses... and I say ignorant because they don't know, nor do they care, how you would like your country to be run. Of late, there have been no resolutions passed that did not infringe on the right of the individual nation... as if the member nations couldn't see where this path was leading them. No, they were convinced that they could have their cake and eat it too. Now that it's finally come to light, people have been stating their desire to leave the UN. Why? Because they want their rights as an individual back, now that the votes they cast no longer secure their nation the result they wish.

What can be done to remedy this? How can the bereaved change the situation to make the UN work in a more fulfilling way? Why, just ask any of the moderators, and they'll spend a lot more time telling you what I'm about to: "nothing." Game mechanics, and all that, and while I do not hold any grudge against the moderators for this (I can see the potential problems that could and probably would arise if this were not the case), that does not change that things are horrendously unfair for the individual nation.

So I urge the nations who wish to run their countries their own way to leave the United Nations. Since I've first started playing, over a year ago, I knew that I loved myself and my intellectual property (Gesamtkuntswerk) too much to leave it in the hands of the anonymous ignorami. So stop your bellyaching, pick up your country, and leave the United Nations to fend for itself. If you don't want others to run your country the way they want to, why then would you want to do the same to a stranger? Hypocracy is not something one should desire, so throw it all aside and rebuild your nation into something that will be entirely yours, just as it was always meant to be.

Might I just say that people have been talking about leaving the UN for a very great deal of time. They tend to, but others join, leaving the membership numbers effectively steady. In my time within this game I have seen many divisive resolutions, both passed and failed. Many nations have stated their desires to leave the UN. They have done so.

In short, all this fuss and bother won't make much of a difference in the long term.