NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic Republic of Whited Fields is deeply concerned with the number of propositions that seeks to limit the national sovereignty of the NS UN member nations, and the arguments that follow. Therefore; we have drafted the following proposition to be later proposed after careful study of the Universally Accepted Ethics of our fellow member nations.

Universal Ethics Act

AFFIRMING that all nations have established codes and laws pursuant to their induvidual morals; and

RECOGNIZING that no nation's morals or religious beliefs are finite and without dispute; and

SEEKING to end the battle of religious morals between our nations;

We, the member nations of the NS UN do hereby ADOPT the following truths to be our universally accepted ethics:

1. The right to life is sacred, and therefore the death of any person over the fetal age of 22 weeks by way of a criminal act is legally punishable according to the laws of the state.

2. The right to property is sacred, and therefore the dispossesion of any person's property by way of a criminal act is legally punishable according to the laws of the state.

3. The right to liberty is sacred, and therefore the dispossession of any person's liberty by way of a criminal act is legally punishable according to the laws of the state.

4. The right to religious beliefs, or lack thereof, is sacred, and therefore the NS UN may not adopt any proposal that would seek to limit the free exercise thereof.

5. The use of falsehood or trickery that seeks to remove any of an individual's basic rights are not acceptable in civilized society.

We, the member nations of the NS UN do hereby RE-AFFRIM the sovereign right of any nation to expand upon these rights according to their own moral standards and PROCLAIM that the NS UN will not adopt proposals that would deny any member nation their sovereign right to adopt laws in accordance with their moral standards.

Point 1 - sounds fair enough.

Point 2 - again, that sounds fundamentally sound.

Point 3 - I would be interested to know who is responsible for the definition of liberty - the UN, the member state or the populace.

Point 4 - I would be concerned about permitting unrestrained freedom to practice regious beliefs - many of us have encountered cults who dabble in arson. I'd argue that the UN on the whole does not seek to discriminate any religion as such, and should instead be concentrating on improving the standards of living for all individuals. The only reason religion comes up at all is because of a highly vocal minority of Christian conservatives.
Plus this point is already endorsed in a previous resolution.

Point 5 - Who defines what constitutes an individuals basic rights? Is this the domain of the UN? Because inevitably the UN will pass resolutions that favour the individual rather than the state, and we have all seen how that goes down with various nations.

Just a few thoughts. :)
________________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2702/hirotabanner.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/30626/page=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Actually, this entire proposition is a springboard off the Universal Bill of Rights already passed by the UN.

I was surprised to find that the Universal Bill of Rights did not protect the basic fundamental right to life. The fundamental right to liberty is specifically worded to only include criminal acts that lessens a person's liberty. If your government is not a democratic state, or if it's governing document prohibits a non-democratic government, it does not apply...

Points 4 and 5 are both in the Universal Bill of Rights.
Religion is already protected by the state. I am simply seeking to protect it from the UN as well.

Point 5 simply states that we agree that lying or cheating, used to deprive an individual of the basic human rights, is not an acceptable act in civilized society. Yet it makes nothing illegal.

The last two sentences would make it a governing body's right to expand on these ethics according to their own moral code, and not the right of the UN.

The last two sentences would make it a governing body's right to expand on these ethics according to their own moral code, and not the right of the UN.

And there is why this proposal will get deleted. You cannot limit the UN.

source:http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3346885#3346885
If you don't want the UN to limit your sovereignty, resign.

As you will notice from the original post, this is a proposition, not a proposal. I have not submitted it to quorum.

It does seek to limit the UN by passing laws that strengthen the state, not by implicitely denying the UN.

As for sovereignty, I refer you to Rights and Duties of the UN passed Feb 24, 2004.

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.

We have a duty to global politics to pass resolutions that seek to define, aid, or eradicate global threats to human rights and life.
We have an expectation to retain certain rights, including the right to make laws based on our own personal ethics or morals within our own borders without intrusion by the UN.

Therefore, I am seeking to define UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED ETHICS that the UN can agree upon. This would in turn limit what proposals may be suggested, if they attempt to expand beyond these ethics. Expansion beyond universal ethics constitutes sovereignty infringement.

2. The right to property is sacred, and therefore the dispossesion of any person's property by way of a criminal act is legally punishable according to the laws of the state.

Boo! Property is coersive. It is backed up by government violence. See Proudhon's book What is Property?.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Ok, so are you saying that anything a person owns, whether through purchase, inheritance, gift, or winnings is not his/hers to keep?

Are you saying that property, including money is not a sacred right?

Boo! Property is coersive. It is backed up by government violence. See Proudhon's book What is Property?.

LEGO, last I check is possible property, are we still allowed LEGO ? :)

BTW : I am assuming your talking all "property" and not just the "real-estate" kind.

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=komokom)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "
" Don't you have a life ? " ( pause ) " Silly question I suppose ... "

property applies to acquired things.

All acquired things.
or any idea which can be copyrighted.

We cannot give our approval to article two, plus we have resercations about the choice of language (specifically, the use of the word 'sacred').

However, this is a worthy start.

Janet Blyleven
Temporary Speaker to the United Nations

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.

We have a duty to global politics to pass resolutions that seek to define, aid, or eradicate global threats to human rights and life.
We have an expectation to retain certain rights, including the right to make laws based on our own personal ethics or morals within our own borders without intrusion by the UN.

Reading it as a soveriegnty protecting proposal makes it illegal, you realise?

that is exactly what I was trying to tell him :roll:

But then if Whited Fields is anything like any of the other hundreds of fools out there, they won't realise that :|
________________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2702/hirotabanner.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/30626/page=display_nation/nation=hirota)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6355/england2.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/04605/page=display_region/region=england)

Again, you seem to miss the basis of this proposition.

Firstly; IT IS NOT A PROPOSAL.

I have not sent it to review, nor do I have intentions to do so, until I have thoroughly studied the subject. If you carefully read the game mechanics rule, you would also see that SOME resolutions impacting game mechanics have been approved, and are approved.

Now if you look at this proposal correctly, you would see it never actually bans anything. It simply states:
We, the member nations of the NS UN do hereby RE-AFFRIM the sovereign right of any nation to expand upon these rights according to their own moral standards and PROCLAIM that the NS UN will not adopt proposals that would deny any member nation their sovereign right to adopt laws in accordance with their moral standards.

I very easily read that as semantics that states we will not pass resolutions that infringe on sovereign rights on issues of a moral-based nature if they are an expansion of ethics outside of this scope. That would mean that in FURTHER proposals, should it be passed, arguers who are seeking to quash proposals that infringe on sovereign rights to set their moral codes would have a strong ally in a ratified proposal.

It does not make it anything "illegal". It simply is an agreement amongst member nations to stay out of the morals of other countries.

1. The right to life is sacred, and therefore the death of any person over the fetal age of 22 weeks by way of a criminal act is legally punishable according to the laws of the state.



Isn't this in violation of the abortion rights resolution ?

Now if you look at this proposal correctly, you would see it never actually bans anything. It simply states:
We, the member nations of the NS UN do hereby RE-AFFRIM the sovereign right of any nation to expand upon these rights according to their own moral standards and PROCLAIM that the NS UN will not adopt proposals that would deny any member nation their sovereign right to adopt laws in accordance with their moral standards.

I very easily read that as semantics that states we will not pass resolutions that infringe on sovereign rights on issues of a moral-based nature if they are an expansion of ethics outside of this scope. That would mean that in FURTHER proposals, should it be passed, arguers who are seeking to quash proposals that infringe on sovereign rights to set their moral codes would have a strong ally in a ratified proposal.

But it cannot actually be enforced, and you can't ignore resolutions that go against it, so what's the point?

This proposal does not interfere with the abortion laws.
The wording specifically says that death caused by a criminal act is punishable according to the laws of the state. If a death is caused, and the manner of causation is not criminal, then no there is no punishment.

In fact, this applies to the first 3 statements completely. If someone has their property taken away by means that is not criminal (ie: imminent domain, wage garnishings, liens, ect, ect) then it is not punishable.

And finally, no. This is not an "enforcable" proposition. Legally speaking, countries could still write, propose and endorse proposals that deal with moral issues. They could have them passed. But I have seen a good number of proposals that deal with murky territories that center around moral beliefs. By having something like this on the books, if a proposal comes around that infringes on these murky waters, then oppositionists have a stronger argument against them. We can go to this proposal and say "This proposal to "insert action here" goes against the previously passed proposal to stay out of the affairs of other countries on issues of moral basis.

Case in point. The abolition of the death penalty, and the restrictions that are placed on it in regards to extradition and international law is based on a moral decision. Morally, people are against the death penalty. Morally, some feel the necessity of such actions for the greater good of their society. Since states who use the death penalty do not feel it is a criminal act, then to tell them they cant decide to use it is infringing on their sovereign rights. By agreeing to a proposal of this nature, we would agree to stay out of these murky territories.

Moreover, should enough people vote on the agreement to these few points, I could take this proposal to the site admins and have it pass the "game mechanics" rule. If it does, then it can and would be enforceable. Of course, should a following proposal be submitted that would expand on these rights, or attempt to ban or impose moral judgement on some act, then it could be thrown out for going against this proposal, and game mechanics.

Let's apply a logic test....

Do UN resolutions inpact upon the laws and rights of the member nations?

This is pretty much affirmed by everyone... TRUE!

Do UN resolutions impact upon the ability of the UN as far as resolution passage?

This seems to be where moderators, delegates and a majority of the UN seems to fail...
When Resolution "X" is passed, does this then entail the UN cannot then pass any resolution by which "X" is removed or changed? All would also agree is yes.... However, since the "X" cannot be removed, the UN no longer has the power to resolve "X" any further, and it's "rights" as such are limited... so the answer is logically TRUE!

Let's apply this to logical order... true AND true = true
TRUE being the answer, can a proposal which limits the UN's capability to legislate be logically allowed, the answer is TRUE, it can.....

Logically, any argument saying UN limiting Resolutions are wrong, is logically an argument made upon FALSE logic.

Lets back up please.

I failed that course in math, understanding logic statements as applied to X.

So, are you saying that logically speaking, any UN resolution limits the UN in some manner since any passed resolution can not be repealed?

Let's apply a logic test....

Do UN resolutions inpact upon the laws and rights of the member nations?

This is pretty much affirmed by everyone... TRUE!

Do UN resolutions impact upon the ability of the UN as far as resolution passage?

This seems to be where moderators, delegates and a majority of the UN seems to fail...
When Resolution "X" is passed, does this then entail the UN cannot then pass any resolution by which "X" is removed or changed? All would also agree is yes.... However, since the "X" cannot be removed, the UN no longer has the power to resolve "X" any further, and it's "rights" as such are limited... so the answer is logically TRUE!

Let's apply this to logical order... true AND true = true
TRUE being the answer, can a proposal which limits the UN's capability to legislate be logically allowed, the answer is TRUE, it can.....

Logically, any argument saying UN limiting Resolutions are wrong, is logically an argument made upon FALSE logic.

Semantics. Any resolution which seeks to limit the power of the UN and nothing else is illegal. This is generally applied to optional compliance and sovereignty preserving resolutions, which do nothing but attempt to limit the UN's power to make future resolutions, therefore limiting the UN's power with no other consequences, therefore being the epitome of uselessness.

Also, once 'X' has been resolved the UN exercises it's powers to enforce the resolution having already made up it's mind, so your argument is based on the false principle that enforced resolutions are in some way against the will of the UN even though they were voted in by the same body.

Here are the considerations of The Grand Duchy of Northrobland:

Point 1: Is the right to life sacred? What about the life of a tree? Have you used paper in the recent past? What did you write on it?

Point 2: Dispossession... Is this a word? Is there a simpler word or group of words you could have used? How about unlawful taking? I don't like big words. They disposess me of knowing what they mean or how to use them.

Point 3: So what you are saying, to take on a reductio ad absurdam position, is that if I want to kidnap someone, and confine them, I cannot do that, simply because they have "human rights"? What sort of world are we living in if I can't kidnap?

Point 4: The Northrobland religion holds that, in governing a world, leaders must attempt to limit the free exercise of religion. Your proposal limits my free religious expression.

Point 5: I tricked my citizenry into eating glue as a substitute for starch in their diet. Is this a violation of Point 5?

Also, I would raise the point that my nation's morals and religious beliefs are finite and without dispute. It is written on paper in our Sacred Hall, right next to the part where a tree's life is declared sacred.

Point 1: Is the right to life sacred? What about the life of a tree? Have you used paper in the recent past? What did you write on it?

I agree, and no, human life is not special.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

To the government of Northrobland:

You have seemingly expanded on point 1, per you sovereign right. What if a proposal is attempted to limit your right to do so? Would you be happy if everyone passed a proposal that said logging industries must be allowed within your borders? I wouldnt be, but moreso, if it went against your state's Bill of Rights, then it has no place within the UN.

I see you have no trouble discerning the meaning of disposses. Therefore I will not argue a point of its usage or proper inclusion.

As to point 4 regarding religion, I must direct you and everyone else back to The Universal Bill of Rights passed Aug 8, 2003
The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:
Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

As you can see, the expression of religion is already protected on a state level. This proposition only seeks to exclude religious expression limitations from UN proposals.

Similarly, this same Universal Bill of Rights protects against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, which kidnapping (the forceful removal of a person's free will and liberties) would seem to apply as such.

Did your trickery remove any person's life, liberty or right to possesion of property? Does point 5 actually ban them? No, it does not. It simply states that we agree that the use of trickery or falsehoods (to remove a person's basic rights per the Universal Bill of Rights) is not acceptable in civilized society.

Lastly, your finite moral codes are never changing? Do you not find need to expand or remove certain points within your religion as found necessary to run your government? Would you want the UN to expand on them for you? Are your moral codes without arguement in other nations? Does every nation you know accept your moral codes without question? That was wholly the intended point in the statement that you would like to argue. Perhaps within your own borders, there is no contest to them, but outside those borders and by inclusion into the UN, they ARE contestable and arguable.

To all other concerned nations:

You seem to be arguing over implimentation of this proposition, or in its finer points. I was very specific in the wording of this proposition to say that the punishable offenses are applied on a state level IF THERE ARE LAWS THAT MAKE IT PUNISHABLE. Criminal acts are defined by the state.

Now, can we lay aside the arguements of implimentation and simply focus on the ethical statements?
Does your country, or can your country agree that life, liberty, and property are a right UPHELD by state laws and are NOT expandable by the UN?
Can we agree to stay out of the religious affairs of other nations?
Can we say that lying and cheating to remove a person's rights are not acceptable in civilized society?

If so, then simply vote accordingly.

A right even split so far.

Lets keep voting and responding, shall we?

Anymore comments?

A right even split so far.

Lets keep voting and responding, shall we?

No need, the mod has given it a thumbs down, thus this is decided.

I dont see anything from a mod that had turned this down.

And the fact it ISNT IN PROPOSALS is because I HAVENT TURNED IT IN. As I have stated several times, I want to study the issue first.

Due to a seeming lack in interest, I am thinking its time to place this issue onto a back burner for a while.

Unless more people would like to comment and vote...

2. The right to property is sacred, and therefore the dispossesion of any person's property by way of a criminal act is legally punishable according to the laws of the state.



I am very interested, what the definition is of dispossesing any pesons property by way of a criminal act.

I would say, that as an individual I have never agreed upon paying a (sometimes extremely high) percentage of my hard earned pay to the state I live in. They make it legal because they define it as INCOME TAX and they make a law saying that it is legal to take part of MY money and use it the way they please. I have never agreed to pay that tax and I am most defenatily against the state STEALING my money and using it for general purposes that I cannot control.

Unless you define "dispossesing any persons property by way of a criminal act", this item in the resolution is completely worthless and EMPTY. It will not prevent my money being stolen once a government decides it is legal to steal from me, as long as they call it TAX.
They hide behind the fact that the law was enforce by democratic chosen government. That suggests, that 51% of the people have a say about what ALL the people are supposed to do with their money. If 51% of the people agree they can steal my money, that doesn't make it legitimate.

I challange you all to define "dispossesing any persons property by way of a criminal act".

I am very very interested to see what comes up.

The issue of taxation has long been debated by many people from many countries. I would like to point to the arguments of logic made by Plato in "The Crito" as a basis for the following statements.

Each citizen enters into contract with their government, that once of a certain age, they may remain citizens of the nation or take their house elsewhere. If they do not agree with the laws of the State, then they should, by all means, leave the State. However, if those citizens do not leave the State, and remain in dwelling within the land, then they agree to follow the laws of the state. Therefore, the citizens of that land, not liking its laws, must choose to change the laws or to exclude themselves from the laws. In absence of exclusion within their own borders, a citizen would need to necessitate a change in location where the laws are different.

Shortly said, if you dont like taxes... MOVE.
But, I doubt in all seriousness that you will be able to move somewhere there is no taxes. But I ask you this question...
You claim that you do not like your money removed by your government to play for expenses that you have no control over. Do you use any of the services your government supplies? Do you drive on their roads? Do you or have you received an education from them? Have you ever needed to contact the police or fire department?
These are all services paid by the government to which you pay taxes. And while it would be unethical if 51% of the people agreed that it would be ok to tax only you, the laws do not exist in such a manner. That 51% is also paying their taxes towards the funding of whatever the money is collected for.
Additionally, you DO have control over the spending of that money if you live in a democratic state. For YOU and YOUR VOICE leads to the election of officials who make those decisions. If you do not like the decisions they have made, then CHOOSE to elect others.
I have witnessed grassroot campaigns bring to fruition and defeat many pieces of legislation. But if you are not excercising your ability to vote, OR TO MOVE, then you can not find fault in the laws you are subjected to.

Now, if you truly live in a place where neither option exists for you, then you may choose to whine about it, or attempt to lead others in revolt of the oppressive government to which you are subject.

The definition of "dispossession of property by means of an illegal act" is stealing. That IS the definition of stealing. Whether your government chooses to enact laws against the stealing (in all its forms), then so be it. If it does not, then que sera sera. The bottom line of THIS resolution is to find a common ground of morals within the UN and hopefully EXCLUDE the passage of resolutions which would seek to define moral issues outside the scope of our common ethical stances.

No matter if it was Plato or any other bigshot in history, all they did was try and justify something that is not justifyable.

One can only enter a legitimate contract BY CHOICE. I did not have the option to say NO to any (so called social) contract, nor did I have the possibility to change it. The influence I have on the contract thrue democratic elections is not much of an influence; I challange democracy, as it forgets that the majority is not always RIGHT; If 51% of the people say we should kill the other 49%, that is a majority decision. It's far from RIGHT.

Saying, that if I don't like the contract, I should move is rediculous: That is the same as saying: if someone steels from your home, move to a new home. I have every right to remain where I am and I have every right to debate rules and regulations made by others around me. By saying I should move, you are denying me that right.

What you fail to do in your reply is making a definition of stealing. THAT IS THE POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

All you do is saying: stealing is stealing, but that's a little to easy for me.

Stealing is: taking someone elses property without his/her permission.

Unless you come up with a better definition, I'd say the government steals from me. I have never given permission to have them take my money.

Ahh, but my argument still stands.

By your continued existence in the land where laws exist, allowing what you call stealing and other calls taxes, you are submitting yourself to the will of the government. THAT is the social contract that we have with our government.

Regardless of which, the UN does not seek to DEFINE stealing. The purpose of this proposition, should it ever be passed, is to agree that stealing is wrong, and still allow the principalities and sovereign nations to define it.

By settling a clear scope of UNIVERSAL ethics, we hope to stear clear of the murky territories where the UN passes resolutions that infringe on a sovereign nations right to determine its own course in ethical development.

Why is that such a hard concept to understand?

It's not hard to understand and I am realistic enough to understand, that in the world we live in we cannot find a place where there is not such a social contract.
You are trying to define right and wrong, so that all UN nations have a similar understanding of that, yet you are forgetting something and therefore it fails to accomplish what you intend to. Please read on:

One of your items is the fact that you want to state that stealing is wrong, yet the way in which you define it allows me to challange that what nations call taxing is just that.
I agree that there IS a social 'contract', however I challange its legitimacy. In my view a contract can only be legitimate if both parties have agreed to it. This is one contract I did not have a choice of agreeing or disagreeing to, which makes it not a contract but an enforced deal I have no influence to.
I do strongly oppose that I have to submit to anyones 'will', let alone a governments will. That is a strong denyal of my freedom as an individual. I say, the middle ages are far behind us. The era of submitting to governments will is behind us in a modern, decent society. It should be, anyway. A government should be doing something for me, not me doing somehting for the government. There is a big difference!
I did not have a choice but to submit to it, but I have never done this voluntairily. You know as well as I do, that it's not that easy to move to another country, specially not if you want to find one better suited to your beliefs.

Such a 'will' is defined by legislation, that is the result of a democratic proces (if you're lucky, that is). Yet the democratic proces does not have any mechanism that filters out whether the opion of the majority is recognising ALL the individuals rights. Like I said, if 51% sais the other 49% should be imprisoned or shot, that is a democratic decision noone would disagree to that it's NOT right. Yet, when it comes to my property, noone wants to debate this.

What I'm saying is:
I understand your resolution and I understand what you're trying to accomplish. Which is in itself fine.
But you have to be aware of the fact, that the resolution contradicts what reality accepts as a so called 'social contract' and therefore (in my view) is not accomplishing anything.
You say that it's illegal to (unlawfully) take my property, which you call stealing. Yet you fail to define stealing. I say, stealing is "taking from me what is mine without my permission". That is what general taxes do.

I do not oppose forms of taxing, that give me something in return; Road tax gives me infrastructure I use, for example. But what do I get out of sales tax?
What do I get out of income tax? Mainly a government that interferes with a lot of things it should not be concerning itself with in the first place!
The government hides behind democracy, but noone dares to challange that what they really do is nothing but selling a bad product to a crowd that is not really thinking about it anyway and if the story sounds good they'll buy it.

Saying in a resolution that stealing is wrong (without defining stealing) - sorry if I offend you, but that is not a challange.
I'd say, before you can state that stealing is wrong, you will HAVE to define it. You can not say something is wrong, if you do not define what you mean by it. To say it is wrong and then allow each nation to define it themselves is not a very strong way of working either. In my country we have a saying, that is placing the horse BEHIND the wagon.
Your proposal would (as far as this point is concerned) make sense if you can come up with a definition of stealing, that would - beyond any doubt - leave taxing to be legal.
I'd say that would be a challange. That was what I was trying to get you to do.

But then you miss the point of the PROPOSITION completely.

By outlining our universally accepted ethics, and leaving the definitions and legalities to the sovereign nations, we are strengthening the sovereignty of the UN member nations.

Case in point, and from a recently passed resolution...

Country A had decided, by way of the people and personal conviction, that they did not want to allow abortions within their borders. As all nations SHOULD have the right to do, they made an political decision on an ethical issue that reflected the will of the State and its people.

Now after Country A has decided this should be law, and enacted legislation to it, NS UN decides to pass an Abortion Proposal that REQUIRES all member nations to allow abortions within their borders.

What about the sovereign right to decide what government we want, and the social, religious and political direction of Country A? It was shot to hell by the passing of this resolution. If you had the misfortune of being within the UN for the last 3 months or so, you would have likely seen the large number of similarly ethical based resolutions come under criticism. The Democratic Republic of Whited Fields desire to have a voice in global government. There are many issues that do affect us globally regardless of where the action takes place. These are the issues that the UN should be concerning themselves with, and NOT the ethical development of other countries.

So, it is hoped that a resolution outlining our universal ethics will allow sovereignty to keep its meaning, and still let NS nations to participate in global politics.

Now can you see the bigger picture?

What picture? All I see is a blank sheet of paper.

The abortion issue is not relevant in comparison to your proposal; In that issue, individual nations may take a different point of view - the consequence of it being, that they cannot be a member of the UN anymore.

Unlike the social contract we debated, membership of the UN is voluntarily and if one disagrees with what UN resolutions say, one can resign. Now that is a great example of a legitimate CONTRACT; if you don't like it, you leave. Didn't you tell me to do that too?

What you are doing with your proposal, makes no sense at all. You are offering a contract without articles in it. You want to say stealing is wrong, yet you do not define stealing. You want to say abuse is wrong, but do not define abuse. You leave that to the members. So you're really saying, take care of it yourself. You're giving them a blank sheet of paper and say: draw something on it! What is the benefit for the people in those memberstates of a proposal like that?

If you want to accomplish something 'united' in the United Nations, you SHOULD define the ethics that are uniting these nations. You SHOULD leave absolutely no doubt about what the individuals rights are and are not. Thát is something people would really benefit from.
If nations can do whatever they please with filling in the details, you don't create something that unites your members. You're just leaving it to national souvernty, which members could have done WITHOUT joining the UN in the first place!

If that was your point, you may reconsider why you need the United Nations at all!

True enough.
If I didnt want to comply with the resolutions that are being made to law, I could simply leave.
However; I still see the good that the UN can do for our global purpose.
If we can somehow re-direct that towards the goals that we should be focusing on, then it would be the positive force that it should be.

Stand back and look at the proposition again.
Remind yourself of the arguments of sovereingty that have been the major reasonings behind leaving the UN. The UN is attempting to make itself a central government, an we each states of its confederation.
But we are not members of a central government. The UN is NOT INTENDED to be a central government, rather a council to help establish international laws on issues that affect us globally.

Therefore, I feel this document would be a reminder of that very point. The problem with defining "universal" ethics is that no such universal DEFINITION exists nor can it. But an outline of the same ethics, still leaving the sovereign rights to nations on how to define it and when to punish it is possible. And more importantly, would disallow the passage of proposals that would curtail those rights.

The UN has already defined individual rights.
And has laid a rather generic definition of a member nation's rights.
But as you can tell by the attempted and successful passage of some proposals, the member nation rights are taking a backseat to the individual rights and the abilities of the UN to make international law.

Isn't this in violation of the abortion rights resolution ?

No it isn't I don't believe, since it does not ban abortions entirely.

I stepped out of UN, because I see the inevitable happening there, which your proposal will not turn. A body like UN will inevitably lead to a centralisation of power, because of all the members approoving proposals that let it.
The UN is a reflection of how those nations think, do and work. And they vote accordingly.

I think it's a big shame that UN resolutions - once passed - cannot be voted away by a new resolution. That creates a web of detailed legislation, some of which is contradictary to other resolutions and do not respect the individuals freedom. Some of it is downright rediculous. The 40 hour workweek was what made me decide to go, a great example of things to be dealt with locally.

As I stated before: I understand why you are doing what you are doing. I wish you luck with it and I hope it works the way you want it to.
I have expressed my serious doubts. I still believe, it would be better to define exactly what you want to accomplish.

It is not the problem that UN is some sort of central government for its members; the trouble is, the members should be better aware of what that central governments task is and is not. Most members don't think enough about that.

In my view, UN should not do anything beyond simply stating the basic rights of the individuals living in the member states. Like you are trying to do. Yet, those rights should be sdefined in a way, that there is no doubt in any member states government what they are and if they want to have the benefits of a UN, they know exactly what to respect.

Personally, I feel the UN as it is now, is a lost cause; I think it's time nations see that, let it go and start over in something new - not sure the game will let us, though...

Anyway, the debate was very interesting!

I do agree that people are continually missing the picture of what the UN should and should not be.

Also... the issue of abortion IS NOT AFFECTED by the first line.
Notice it clearly states "punishable according to the LAWS OF THE STATE".

Laws of the State means that the STATE defines the illegal act, and therefore defines how it is punished.

Exactly:

And the purpose of the UN resolution concerning abortion was what? To have all member states take their own stand? NO! The purpose of the resolution was to ensure all individuals living in UN member states the same rights concerning this issue. If a nation does not agree, get out of the UN. Remember, this was a voluntairy contract.

You are proving my point; UN resolution that leave the states to define the details make absolutely no sense at all. There's nothing to be gained in terms of guaranteed rights for the individual. They will be submitted to local laws, which they were before their nation joined the UN anyway. Anything gained?

They do not need UN resolutions for that. There is no benefit from a UN if it works like that, it just costs a lot of tax money. Money that is not put to any good use, because you get nothing in return. Comes pretty close to stealing after all, doesn't it.

I rest my case.

Individuals have defined rights as defined in the Universal Bill of Rights already passed by the UN.

Nations are supposed to have a guarantee of rights, but in reality, the wording of the Rights and Duties of UN Nations left alot to be taken away by way of international law.

This proposition has a definite goal intended, summed entirely in the LAST paragraph of the proposition. It would strengthen national sovereignty in regards to ethical development of a country, and make resolutions intended to infringe on those rights HARDER if not ILLEGAL to pass.

By what mechanism is it made impossible or illegal to make resolutions that infringe on the rights, of which I still say you fail to properly define at least one. And: if you do not define those basic rights properly, HOW would you argument that a resolution infringes on it in the first place?

The only mechanism the UN proposals have is the vote; If one resolution infringes on another, yet the members vote for it so that it is passed, what mechanism is ruling this out? NONE! There is no such mechanism, there is not judicial check on any of it. Delegates vote for it or against it - that's all, and that's how the mess it's become could arise.
That - by the way - proves my point, that the weakness of democratic decisionmaking is, that the majority is not nescesarily right. And be aware, that if the majority is not very intelligent and perhaps even careless, your democracy is in major trouble.The UN is a great example of that - with all the nonsense resolutions passed recently - and not very valuable anymore anyway. There has been no mechanism stopping the most rediculous resolutions get passed and those are mostly the ones you refer to as "left alot to be taken away by way of international law". Has there ever been debates to find out if they contradict or infringe on previous passed resolutions? I seriously doubt it.

In Real Life, most democratic nations (like USA) have such a mechanism, as you always have a supreme court that has a say in lawmaking and in the interpretation of laws already effective. Here in NS, I haven't found such mechanism. Resolutions that are passed cannot be done away with. You would think UN members would be careful what to pass and what not, but not so...

The argument against resolution for the infringement of national sovereignty has been made.
It is one I have made myself on numerous occasions.
The response: If you want national sovereignty, leave the UN.

While it is a contract that I could easily void by resigning my nation, I am hoping to make a difference within the system. I can not make that difference while standing on the outside shouting at the masses. My voice means nothing unless I am willing to stand the test of fire by participating and enduring the debates with a personal stake in the issue.

Again, the UN should not decide to define these rights as they apply to national government contract. I, unlike many, have read the Universal Bill of rights, that protects the individual and the Rights and Duties resolution which binds us together and gives us certain guarantee of sovereignty.

I have cited these issues in debate, but sometimes my voice is not heard.

Scenario: Country A decides to make a resolution that would deny the practice of animal sacrifice because someone finds the practice horrendous and without need. This resolution comes to vote in the quorum (although that in itself would be difficult, let us suppose it happens.) The resolution, neatly written does not ban the practice outright but instead seeks to encourage us to follow passage elsewhere or to offer re-education of the practitioners to slowly bring to an end their actions. Therefore, I can not argue that this proposal infringes on national sovereignty nor can I argue this proposal is an infringement on religious rights.
My recourse, should this proposition pass, would allow me another sane and legal argument to said proposal. I could argue that it seeks to define ethical development, which by the proposition would not be allowed within the UN. Of course, if allowed and passed, it would actually make some resolutions illegal to the point they would not be allowed to remain in endorsement quorum.
There is alot of "ifs" to this scenario, and I do not deny that.
On the same manner, I am trying to leave a certain ambiguity to this proposition so that it is a passable one. I am aware that compromise will take me farther down the road than staunch opposition and finite definition.

Clear point made. Although we have similar goals we'd like to achieve, we have oposite ways of trying to achieve them.
Something can be said for your "trying to make a difference". That's the way I started out as a UN member and delegate for my region.
I have lost confidence and I am not convinced one can achieve anything in a UN, as huge and disorganised as this one.
I guess we differ in what we expect from the UN and its members. There is no self critisism in many members that write proposals, there is no mechanism or means for members to challange the rightness of proposals other than the democratic vote. It makes the majority right by definition, which I strongly feel is the major flaw of democracy. Any system based on democracy should have some kind of mechanism to correct itself, at least it should attempt that. How about a VETO right?
I think, both in NS and in real life, there is an enormous overrating of the influence organisations like UN have. I live in the European Union, which I also critisize for it's lack of decent legislation, it's lack of achieving real united legislation as member states can fill in the details as they please. There is no more than a suggested unity, in reality there is nothing that is practiced in equal manner. It does not unite Europe, it emphasises the differences. To do that, there is no need for a tax hungry organisation like that. In view of the goals of the organisation, one can only see the goals are not achieved no matter how well intended we tried.
I am alone in the desert: But I am strongly convinved that the best governement is working local, with actual feedback from the people affected by what it does. We agree on that, as you feel nations sovereignty is important. You have not yet convinced me why we need the UN. I understand you see benefits in being a UN member. The choice comes down to: Do the benefits outweigh the downsides?

The true benefits of the UN are unknown to us.
For we are merely single players, with countries that do not exist.

The NS UN is too hardlined. Everything is a black and white issue, and there is no middle ground.
A veto vote would be nice, and it is not because of the belief in the democratic system that keeps it from being here. It is the fact that we deal with servers and game systems that require a good deal of programming, and the administration is not sure how to implement vetoes or repeals into the program.

Perhaps it will come along later, but for now, we must steer the course of the UN through the troubled and murky waters on our own.

Due to the recent appearance of resolutions regarding religion, I have decided to allow this thread to re-emerge from the background and hopefully stimulate dialogue between nations on what we can agree upon as universal ethics.

It is still my sincere hope that once we have established a code of universal ethics, we can at last put away all resolutions which seek to limit, define, or codify precisely how those ethics are implimented within our own borders.

It is still my sincere hope that once we have established a code of universal ethics, we can at last put away all resolutions which seek to limit, define, or codify precisely how those ethics are implimented within our own borders.

By ... making one big one which does so ? ;)

Unfortunately, we have reached an age where no resolution means that our rights can be (and sometime are) denied. Unless you would like to lead a revolt against nations who would seek to do so.

This proposition does not define the meanings of the rights. It does outline them and makes it quite clear that they can not and should not be tampered with. Like a few joke proposals that have gone to the wayside, but show an ironic point, I fear that lack of legislation in this area securing specific rights will in turn cause us to lose our rights.