Government-Supported Anarchy
Douglopia
10-06-2004, 22:44
I recently recieved a memo from my secretary of state that listed some of the current UN proposals that were gaining strength. I noticed that the 2nd strongest proposal, one made by The Federation of Our Own Laziness, was completely and totally absurd. The proposal states:
Everyone deserves a voice. No one shall be denied the right to speak his or her mind. Too many have been jailed, tortured or killed based solely on their political and ideological views. With the passing of this proposal the nations of the UN shall resolve to:
1) FREE all political prisoners whose only crime was speaking their mind.
2) NEVER prosecute a person for speaking out against their government.
3) GIVE its citizens the right to revolt if they are not content with their government.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetuate it." - Martin Luther King Jr.
This is not only absurd but down right anarchaic! I call for all of our regional un delegates to examine carefully the reprisals that such a resolution could have on our fair nations. I also want to firmly state that if a resolution such as this is ever passed, our nation will swiftly and fully withdraw all support from the UN and refuse internation aid to any UN members that suppord said resolution.
The Presidential Office Of Douglopia
3) GIVE its citizens the right to revolt if they are not content with their government.
I think that's rather suicidal for a government to do. The right to protest shouldn't cause governments problems though (ooc: look how they ignored the millions protesting in the streets of London :wink:).
Might as well have democratically elected tyrants while we're dealing with goverment oxymorons.
1) FREE all political prisoners whose only crime was speaking their mind.
- Good luck finding "spoke their mind" on a charge sheet.
2) NEVER prosecute a person for speaking out against their government.
- Unless, of course, it's privileged information, is delivered to enemies, incites a riot, and/or is a damned fabrication.
3) GIVE its citizens the right to revolt if they are not content with their government.
- All citizens have the right to revolt, according to John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government," Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," and a lot of other very respectable forefathers of the libertarian philosophy Cabinia employs. Of course, the government reserves the right to shoot back.
Most Republic are built around that philosophy... That's why people are left the right to have weapons.. To revolt.... RIOT on the other hand is not legal.... RIOT is designed to attack personal property and cause injury to others... Revolt is designed to overthrow the established gov't and replace it with a new one. People do not have the right to riot..... they have the right to peaceably assemble....... Revolution is not something inherantly legalized, it's legalized in the entire concept of the relationship between the people and their gov't...
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg
(http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania)
http://thecomputerman.dyndns.biz/tekania
"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")
Whited Fields
11-06-2004, 02:43
I, the President of Whited Fields, whole-heartedly disagree with this proposal on many levels.
As I have stated before, the UN is not a breeding ground for democracy. We can not expect all of our member nations to bow to our vision of a 'perfect' government. Inherently, there is no 'perfect' government.
The role of the UN is to make decisions about issues that affect the global population. This mainly applies to decisions that can harm global society. It is not our right to conform socialists nations to a democratic states.
Unterwasserseestaat
11-06-2004, 07:15
The role of the UN is to make decisions about issues that affect the global population. This mainly applies to decisions that can harm global society. It is not our right to conform socialists nations to a democratic states.
Even if it isn't the right of the UN, decisions are binding and it's a political body. If I and a gang of my buddies want to codify Locke's philosophy, isn't it tough cheese for autocrats?
All citizens have the right to revolt, according to John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government," Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," and a lot of other very respectable forefathers of the libertarian philosophy Cabinia employs. Of course, the government reserves the right to shoot back.
Cabinia, you have one of the better understandings of basic rights I've seen. Rights work both ways. If you use your Freedom of Speech to say somehting bloody stupid, I may also use my Freedom of Speech to say that it is bloody stupid. No, I'm not oppressing you, as long as I do it as Mar Darenka, and not as a Representative of Daryn.
If you wish to cause harm to people or property because you disagree with the government, very well. However, the people and property owners would consider what you did a crime, and would want our police and military personell to stoop you form breaking things. Every action has a consequence, and people should not be protected form the consequences of their actions.
Minister Mar Darneka
Ambassador to the UN
The Most Serene Republic of Daryn