NationStates Jolt Archive

President Maffret...

Due to this new resolution, the Republic of Lacomb will be resigning from the U.N.. The first impression of the U.N. from Lacomb's point of view was one of intellect. The passing of this proposal shows to us that a majority of the U.N. are ignorant to reality. No proposal like this should ever passed. It is one of simple "I dont think im being treated fairly because i dont have a good job that pays well, because i never went to college or finished high school, why cant i make money too"? The response is simple of course you are paid what you are worth. For those who live in a country where education is limited...I invite you to attend one of our universitys, we are the top in education, and because i love the people of Lacomb,education is free, of course for citizens. I waited a week for a proposal i could vote on and this is what i get...i am dissapointed in the U.N.

Tobias McLean stands up.

"The current proposal says that where people do the same job, they should not be discriminated against in terms of wages because of their gender. It is not saying everyone should be paid the same, it is saying that you can't pay a woman less money that a man for doing the same job."

"Sometimes I wonder. I really do..."

"Oh, and by the way, in the most recent UN statistics, Ienothesia came top for the Smartest Citizens, which would suggest they have the best educational facilities."

Representative Palleel slowly stands as Mr. McLean finishes:

"The Colony of Powerhungry Chipmunks applauds the nation of Lacomb in their decision, and is glad they made their intentions clear.

"If we in the UN are so 'into talking about issues', why then are we afraid and hostile when someone points out their difference opinion on issues? Certainly we aren't expecting that they have to have the same point of view as us, are we?

"I am dumbfounded at the supreme lack of consistency from some UN nations. Nations, which out one side of their mouths dogmatically preach that those who don't like the UN resolutions should leave, but then turn about and attack those that do decide leave.

"Why are we so opposed to negative feedback? Why are we so angry at opposition? If it is unfounded then we need pay it no heed. If it is a truthful and accurate then surely we should pay much attention to what we are doing which is wrong, or so perceived. Why are we so afraid to be wrong?

"I am also surprised at the tactlessness and lack of understanding which Mr. McLean has displayed with his reference to Ienothesia. I don't think any reasonable un-redfaced person in the world interpreted the phrase 'we are the top' as meaning that they are the 'best in the world'. And even if it is hyperbole, why are you so opposed to indulge it? Is it not a valid rhetorical tool? This statement only makes me doubt the soundness of the institutions Weegies's representatives came from themselves"

Representative Robert Anderson stands...

"The U.N. is a democracy, and within this democracy I doubt any member who has joined this honorable institution, was not prepared for a vote to pass in the opposite direction from their personal position. We are guided by the majority. If we are a member of the majority or not, could change with every vote we make. What makes this process work, is the fact that we can make our voices heard, we can oppose what issues we choose, and we can continue to stand for the values that we uphold."

"As a delegate to the U.N., I am dissapointed by your decision to give up on the process, and to feel as though it failed you. I implore you to give reconsideration to this matter."

"Representative Palleel makes some very valid points. It is dissenting voices that make this system work. Without listening to the voices of others, whether opposing or not, we run the risk of turning ourselves into a dictatorship and destroying the process that we should so strongly support. "

"President Maffret, the honorable Kingdom of Traxtonia wishes upon the Republic of Lacomb, nothing but prosperity in the future."

"The current proposal says that where people do the same job, they should not be discriminated against in terms of wages because of their gender. It is not saying everyone should be paid the same, it is saying that you can't pay a woman less money that a man for doing the same job."

He's right.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

"If we in the UN are so 'into talking about issues', why then are we afraid and hostile when someone points out their difference opinion on issues? Certainly we aren't expecting that they have to have the same point of view as us, are we?

Your point is taken, but I disagree with its immediate application. The delegate from the Weegies' response was not particularly fearful or hostile. He correctly pointed out a serious misunderstanding and sought to correct it. If he was incredulous at the Lancomb delegate's misinterpretation, I for one cannot blame him.

"Indeed. I was extremely incredulous that such a miscommunication could have been made, and I expressed my opinions accordingly. The Ienothesia statement was, I admit, a little petty, but the rest of my statement stands."

"We respect Mr. McLean's stance and his steadfastness in it. We furthemore apologize at the implication that Mr. McLean was in any way sub-standard in intelligence or education. I hope no harm was inflicted by this remark, which, itself, was also petty.

We believe Mr. McLean's position to be founded in the right. And though we might disagree on some minor points, I hope we can look past this and continue our work in the UN towards the betterment of the world."

Presidential Statement

"While we are sad when any, and all, nations leave the United Nations, The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights can only sit back and wonder what will happen once every nation, instead of taking a stand against the proposals and resolutions, leave the UN in 'protest' to what they call unfair and national sovereignty-issued resolutions.

In a time of trial, members must standfast and campaign for and against resolutions rather than just resigning in protest, which does nothing but allow the current system to wreck havoc on the rest of the NS world.

Best wishes!"

President Maffret....

I apologize in that we as a nation do not condemn, so to say, the choices that "The Majority" have made inside the U.N. The proposal in itself has merit. Our Nation [Lacomb] does not discriminate against anyone for anything really, we are a very open nation. However, the good intentions of this proposal has led a feud of lawmakers here in Lacomb challenging and nit picking the content of the proposal. If you read carefully said proposal you will find that any good lawer can [and will] manipulate the understanding of this idea. Now since it was voted in without really looking at what was read or written in a justice/legal point of view we have been plagued if you will. With lawers eating us up. Many Lawers and law makers here in Lacomb have understood this proposal clearly [as have i, really] to read that "a)Equal Wages For All Sexes", as is written in the proposal. I am sorry but we as a free nation under God cannot and again i say will not abide by such obvious discrimination (whether intended or not). I have resigned and untill i am outted this decision will remain the same. I am sorry. Please do not let this effect your feelings toward my Nation. Be safe!

Prince Markonius Stands
The kingdom of shadowseve applauds the nation of lacomb for expressing their beleifs here in the un. While we do not agree with your beleifs, nor your decision, we will support it.

President Maffret.....

Thank you for your understanding and truthfulness. The world would do well with others as open as your nation.

President Maffret......


I am sure that being a member of the U.N. your Reps should know what it is that the U.N. does, right? Well just in case you forgot let me show you what the U.N. is resposible for.....

Resposibilities include: A) Peace and Security
B) Economic and social development
C) Human Rights
D) Humanitarian Affairs
E) International Laws: Trade Laws
Treaties
Laws of the Sea
Special Laws:
Concerning nations without the abilities to govern themselves.


Nowhere does it state that the U.N. has the right or the resposability to just amend laws because the "Majority" thinks its a good idea. The U.N. is not here to write laws for every nation. Every Nation is itself an individual, and as an individual it has rights in itself. I would like to be apart of the U.N. and help influence the world as a whole, but i am not a dictator as would be asked if i was a member of the current U.N. This U.N has somewhere gone astray from what its original idea was. The Motto of the U.N. is "United Nations: Its your World", but with all the resolutions being amended to law is it really my world is it it the U.N.'s? I would like to be the leader of my nation [after all the people voted for me] i dont want the U.N. to lead my nation, rather i would the U.N. to be apart of my nation. All i have read is if i dont like it then i should not have joined...sounds very childlike to me. I left because i know that in its current state i alone cannot change the U.N. but sometime in the future i hope more will come to understand where the U.N. begins and where it ENDS!

Thank you all!

Representative Robert Anderson stands...

"The U.N. is a democracy, and within this democracy I doubt any member
who has joined this honorable institution, was not prepared for a vote to pass
in the opposite direction from their personal position. We are guided by the
majority. If we are a member of the majority or not, could change with every
vote we make. What makes this process work, is the fact that we can make
our voices heard, we can oppose what issues we choose, and we can
continue to stand for the values that we uphold."

"As a delegate to the U.N., I am dissapointed by your decision to give up on
the process, and to feel as though it failed you. I implore you to give
reconsideration to this matter."

"Representative Palleel makes some very valid points. It is dissenting voices
that make this system work. Without listening to the voices of others,
whether opposing or not, we run the risk of turning ourselves into a
dictatorship and destroying the process that we should so strongly support. "

"President Maffret, the honorable Kingdom of Traxtonia wishes upon the
Republic of Lacomb, nothing but prosperity in the future."

I must sympathize with Lacomb.

Is the "UN" a meeting place to discuss in, or a government to oppress with..?

As I've stated elsewhere, if any UN enforcement group enters my nation
intent on enforcing a rule which my populous finds silly, said enforcement
group will be slaughtered by my sharp-shell wielding people and fed to the
infamous man-eating-clams off our south shore.

..or we will die in the attempt.

This is my people's ancient culture.

Respect my culture on my land, or there will be BIG-HEAD-WHOMPING..!

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Is the "UN" a meeting place to discuss in, or a government to oppress with..?


From the Desk of Robert Anderson...

In response to Mr. I'ake'oke'o's question:

Your question is an unfair wording to the issue at hand. The U.N. does not oppress, it simply enacts and enforces. It is both a meeting place to discuss and a government that governs. To imply that it is an oppressive institution is to make a defensive stance against an institution whose purpose is to guarantee the peace and proserity of the world.

Any nation that felt "wronged" by the U.N.'s voting could interpret the result as an oppressive action. This only highlights the lack of understanding and acceptance of members of a democratic organization.


Robert Anderson
Representative, Kingdom of Traxtonia
A Place In The Sun Regional Delegate

From the Desk of Robert Anderson...

In response to Mr. I'ake'oke'o's question:

Your question is an unfair wording to the issue at hand. The U.N. does not
oppress, it simply enacts and enforces. It is both a meeting place to discuss
and a government that governs. To imply that it is an oppressive institution
is to make a defensive stance against an institution whose purpose is to
guarantee the peace and proserity of the world.

Any nation that felt "wronged" by the U.N.'s voting could interpret the result
as an oppressive action. This only highlights the lack of understanding and
acceptance of members of a democratic organization.


Robert Anderson
Representative, Kingdom of Traxtonia
A Place In The Sun Regional Delegate

Any body that has enforcement power, and applies it to a non-consenting
populous, is an oppressor.

My people have no problem with giving this power to their own leaders.
Oppression is not inherently "BAD", any more than a sharp clam-shell is
inherently "BAD". It's in the use that it CAN become "bad".

My people will not accept the enforcement of ANY law, not of their own
device, on their territory. PERIOD.

It is our culture.

We therefore can not accept being a part of the UN, and are therefore
forced to not be a part of the "Great Meeting Place of the World".

This makes us sad,.. as we very much enjoy discussion and learning from
other cultures.

What we've learned from this experience is that the UN is more interested in
it's own promulgation and manipulation of the other families of the world, than
it is in it's vague mission of "peace and prosperity" and understanding
between us.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Representative Palleel tips his hat to Mr. I'ake'oke'o and appluads as he finishes his statement.

With all due respect to Mr. I'ake'oke'o, I must politely disagree. It's all in the definition of "my people" and "my own territory."

A short while ago, in my own nation of Tzorsland, I faced a similiar problem. While Tzorsland is one nation, and hopefully will forever be one nation, within it were different cities, towns, villages; a whole complex heirachy that deserved a similiar structure. And so, in our case, we made that heirarchy into law.

But just as the people of one town elect members to the general Tzorsland parliment, the people of Tzorsland, and the whole region of Niftyonia, send deligates to the UN. Just as the parliment consist of more than people from one town, the UN consists of more than people from one naiton, and yet the town is represened in both bodies.

I do not consider the UN the "Great Meeting Place of the World." If you want to meet the world, well go to the world, don't waste your time with a bunch of stuffy deligates who are working on global resolutions. Our goal is to make the world itself a great meeting place for all. And that requires us to, as a body, tackle the important global issues of the day. Deciding what is and is not a true global issue, is the important work this body does. I will not say it is perfect at it, but bad action is often better than good inaction.

-The Medling Monk of Tzorsland!

I too am sorry that Mr. I'ake'oke'o did not read the rules before joining the game. Perhaps if more representatives actually read the rules and thought about them before joining, we would have fewer such unpleasant incidents.

With all due respect to Mr. I'ake'oke'o, I must politely
disagree. It's all in the definition of "my people" and "my own territory."

A short while ago, in my own nation of Tzorsland, I faced a similiar problem.
While Tzorsland is one nation, and hopefully will forever be one nation, within
it were different cities, towns, villages; a whole complex heirachy that
deserved a similiar structure. And so, in our case, we made that heirarchy
into law.

But just as the people of one town elect members to the general Tzorsland
parliment, the people of Tzorsland, and the whole region of Niftyonia, send
deligates to the UN. Just as the parliment consist of more than people from
one town, the UN consists of more than people from one naiton, and yet the
town is represened in both bodies.

I do not consider the UN the "Great Meeting Place of the World." If you want
to meet the world, well go to the world, don't waste your time with a bunch
of stuffy deligates who are working on global resolutions. Our goal is to make
the world itself a great meeting place for all. And that requires us to, as a
body, tackle the important global issues of the day. Deciding what is and is
not a true global issue, is the important work this body does. I will not say it
is perfect at it, but bad action is often better than good inaction.

-The Medling Monk of Tzorsland!

I respect your view of what the UN should be. :)

You see it as an actual governing body, with enforcement capabilities.

I call such an animal a "NATION".

If the UN were serious in it's intent, it would disband it's members nationality
and sovereignty entirely, and call itself what it purports to consider itself...

A "NATION" of provinces..!!

Then your unified law set would truly mean something.

"Global Issues" is a code word for "Issues that MY NATION would like to see
implemented worldwide".

We say, tell us why this or that "issue" is important, and we will take that
into consideration within our own territory and within territory that we travel
(air, sea, underground, space).

But DO NOT come to our territory and tell us how we should act..!

If "Human Rights" and "Equal Rights" and "Be-Nice Rights" are worthy of
consideration,.. then so is "Native Sovereignty Rights".

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I too am sorry that Mr. I'ake'oke'o did not read the rules
before joining the game. Perhaps if more representatives actually read the
rules and thought about them before joining, we would have fewer such
unpleasant incidents.

How many would join if they knew the actual strictures of UN membership..?

As I see it, the people of any nation that accepts such silliness as UN
dictatorship as a fair price for "admittance to the club", deserve to be pittied
as they are children of unfit parents.

It is the parents that I would shame.

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

If "Human Rights" and "Equal Rights" and "Be-Nice Rights" are worthy of consideration,.. then so is "Native Sovereignty Rights".

Human rights, by nature, trump any claim to national sovereignty. The United Nations has every right to stop you from mutilating the genitals of females in your nation, sovereignty be damned. If a human being is, to invoke the oft-quoted language, endowed with certain inaliable rights, we're allowed to protect those rights even if it means trampling on a law in your country that says it's okay.

But, it's important to note that human rights are inherently vague. Is free health care a human right that justifies UN interference? Well, maybe. Depends on who you ask. That's what this forum is for. Unfortunately, that discourse can't happen until people like you accept that the United Nations has always had the power to do what it does, and move on.

The way to change it isn't to remove that power, it's to ensure that the power is used only when applicable and in a responsible manner.

As I see it, the people of any nation that accepts such silliness as UN
dictatorship as a fair price for "admittance to the club", deserve to be pittied
as they are children of unfit parents.

The UN is no more a dictatorship than whichever real-life government you have the displeasure of living under. If you don't want a resolution to pass, you vote against it and encourage others to do the same, with good reasoning. Maybe get other similar-minded nations to join and vote against it. And if you lose, and it still passes, then that's that. You lose. So far as the game's concerned, you can't appeal or get a resolution repealed or amended, so you either live with it or... leave. Which is entirely your option, of course.

If it weren't compulsory to follow a passed resolution, it would be completely pointless. "Here; a book of guidelines. Follow them if you want, I don't care either way." May as well pass ALL resolutions, not even voting on them, and just let you decide which ones you follow.

Now, if the UN enacted resolutions even if 100% of members voted against them, and didn't allow anyone to leave or protest, that would be a bit closer to being a dictatorship. Or if the vote option was taken away completely, and the outcome of resolutions decided upon entirely by a 'moderator elite' :p. I'm not sure what exactly you could do with the game as it's built to make it more like a dictatorship...

The UN is no more a dictatorship than whichever real-life government you have the displeasure of living under. If you don't want a resolution to pass, you vote against it and encourage others to do the same, with good reasoning. Maybe get other similar-minded nations to join and vote against it. And if you lose, and it still passes, then that's that. You lose. So far as the game's concerned, you can't appeal or get a resolution repealed or amended, so you either live with it or... leave. Which is entirely your option, of course.

If it weren't compulsory to follow a passed resolution, it would be completely pointless. "Here; a book of guidelines. Follow them if you want, I don't care either way." May as well pass ALL resolutions, not even voting on them, and just let you decide which ones you follow.

Now, if the UN enacted resolutions even if 100% of members voted against them, and didn't allow anyone to leave or protest, that would be a bit closer to being a dictatorship. Or if the vote option was taken away completely, and the outcome of resolutions decided upon entirely by a 'moderator elite' :p. I'm not sure what exactly you could do with the game as it's built to make it more like a dictatorship...

We accept the rules of the group that we call our nation (or family).

Those who don't are called criminals.

To be a part of this UN, we would have to submit to rules that we do not agree with.

As opposed to being criminals, we not-overly-respectfully decline membership in that thing which is in reality a NATION and usurps nationality and sovereignty while simultaneously DENYING that it does so.

Thus we call the UN the hypocrit that it is before the world.

Other than that, I totally and absolutely agree with everything you said..!

Your choice to be a real nation, or a puppet province of the nation otherwise known as the UN is yours to make.

May you be happy with your choice. :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Human rights, by nature, trump any claim to national sovereignty. The United Nations has every right to stop you from mutilating the genitals of females in your nation, sovereignty be damned. If a human being is, to invoke the oft-quoted language, endowed with certain inaliable rights, we're allowed to protect those rights even if it means trampling on a law in your country that says it's okay.

But, it's important to note that human rights are inherently vague. Is free health care a human right that justifies UN interference? Well, maybe. Depends on who you ask. That's what this forum is for. Unfortunately, that discourse can't happen until people like you accept that the United Nations has always had the power to do what it does, and move on.

The way to change it isn't to remove that power, it's to ensure that the power is used only when applicable and in a responsible manner.

You have the right, as a person, to save people from harm, if you can.

You have the right as a nation to save people from harm, if you can, whether they be in your nation or not, if you accept the consequences of violating another nation's sovereignty.

You have the right as a nation to pass a law which states that all females are to be relieved of their extremities (arms and legs) as they perform no useful function within your nation's culture.

You have the right as a nation to pass a law that mandates that any nation that removes female extremities shall be invaded and destroyed utterly.

YOU have these rights.

The UN is neither a person nor a nation.

The UN cannot do these things.

People and Nations need to understand that they are individuals and should act as individuals. Individuals acting in concert through agreement is a good thing. Individuals acting in concert through coercion is a bad thing.

Membership in the UN would make me act in contravention to my own rules, and therefore makes me act through coercion.

Thus, membership in the UN is unacceptable for me as an individual.

This is my culture. Do you respect my culture to have it's own ways, or is my culture somehow less worthy than yours?

Aloha..! :)


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"