NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I've seen plenty of posters on here argue about proposals on the basis that they violate national sovereignity. That includes everyone from the "This isnt FAIR!!!!!111 I dont like this!!!!!11 Waht abotu nationel sovrignty? I'm leving the un" newbie to the old, grizzled veterans whose favourite number is 12 (you know what I'm referring to).

So, given the sacredness of national sovereignity I have a question. To all those who believe in the sanctity of national sovereignity:

How do you justify passing laws decreeing what is and isn't correct behaviour for people in your nations on the basis of the views of the majority of voters/elected representatives/ appointed experts/an evil megalomaniac yet oppose the UN passing laws decreeing what is and is not correct behaviour for people in its members nations on the basis of the views of the majority of its member states?

I'm not flamebaiting here, just baffled at what I see as an obvious contradiction. Usually if something seems an obvious contradiction to me then I'm missing something.

Oh, and any states who never pass laws decreeing what is correct behaviour, anarchist states for example, are exempt from this of course (though if this is the case why on earth did you join the UN?).

OK, I've seen plenty of posters on here argue about proposals on the basis that they violate national sovereignity. That includes everyone from the "This isnt FAIR!!!!!111 I dont like this!!!!!11 Waht abotu nationel sovrignty? I'm leving the un" newbie to the old, grizzled veterans whose favourite number is 12 (you know what I'm referring to).

So, given the sacredness of national sovereignity I have a question. To all those who believe in the sanctity of national sovereignity:

How do you justify passing laws decreeing what is and isn't correct behaviour for people in your nations on the basis of the views of the majority of voters/elected representatives/ appointed experts/an evil megalomaniac yet oppose the UN passing laws decreeing what is and is not correct behaviour for people in its members nations on the basis of the views of the majority of its member states?

I'm not flamebaiting here, just baffled at what I see as an obvious contradiction. Usually if something seems an obvious contradiction to me then I'm missing something.

Oh, and any states who never pass laws decreeing what is correct behaviour, anarchist states for example, are exempt from this of course (though if this is the case why on earth did you join the UN?).

What? You're asking for consistancy? You're asking people to realize their choices do not apply only to one area, but to all? You're discussing occasional blatent hypocracy and downright stupidity as if its a bad thing?
You're asking people how they can say one thing and do another?

Rock on! :)

Let me guess your nation description is "Tyranny by majority."


No, I am for national soverignty in that there are some issue which the nation should have control over. If the UN has final say on all issues then the national government is pointless. Let the UN and nations play different roles.

To address the consistency thing, no it isnt compleatly consistent. However, as this is NationStates, our laws are passed for one person, us, so there is no other, in our nation.

I am most angered is the number of UN resolutions that have national soverignty, resolution 4 being the most prominent. If a resolution is passed that violates game mechanics, it should be repealled without a vote.


To be more clear I am angered by the elimination of proposals, when there are resolutions that use the same logic. Another double standard.

In real life I would not pass many of my laws because of that point. For example I would not have have banned cars and meat.

Also, if the UN can pass anything couldnt it pass a proposal for national soveriegnty?

No, I am for national soverignty in that there are some issue which the nation should have control over.
Which issues? Why?

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

How do you justify passing laws decreeing what is and isn't correct behaviour for people in your nations on the basis of the views of the majority of voters/elected representatives/ appointed experts/an evil megalomaniac yet oppose the UN passing laws decreeing what is and is not correct behaviour for people in its members nations on the basis of the views of the majority of its member states?

Easily. It goes back to the quesiton of why governments exist. Governments exist, as Locke tells us, as Aristotle tells us, as Hobbes tells us, to protect the rights of the people from themselves. Now, what we see in the UN of this game are resolutions that are contradictory, that are poorly written and that favor the 'Soup du Jour' approach to governing. Somehow I do not believe in the real world, such resolutions would pass.

Similarly, we must remember that the UN is the United Nations, not the United Citizens. The UN is made up of nations and, therefore needs to take national sovereignty and internal politics in mind with its resolutions. The UN should regualte disputes between nations, address itself to solely international issues, and not interfere with domestic matters.

Finally, its a quesiton of how voting is conducted within the UN. NS rules do not take into consideration the population of its member nations (nor does the r/l UN for that matter) so it is inherently a tyranny of the smaller states. But, more insidiously is the vote of the delegates. Delegates receive, as best I recall, one vote for each person who endorses them. So here we can have delegates of small regions, with 10-20 endorsements, have a greater vote than those of us who have been earund for a long time and have a better understanding of the ramifications of some of the UN resolutions.

Just my 0.02

OOC throughout, I suppose:

I'm at least slightly confused as to why those who believe so strongly in national sovereignty would have nations that are part of the NS UN. It's obvious that the whole purpose of this UN is to dole out blanket resolutions that change life in all of the member nations. There is no purpose for the NS UN other than to disrupt national sovereignty.

I can certainly understand those players who are against international involvement and keep their nations out of the UN. Sure, they miss out on a portion of the game (proposals and whatnot), but they can also run their nation as they see fit.

I think it's fairly disappointing that there are those in the in-game UN who strike down proposals (good ones, at that) based on their interference with domestic (or intranational) issues. In this game, the UN, by its nature, interrupts the process by which an individual nation chooses what is best for it.

Personally I can see why those nations who believe the UN should (not must) not interfere in some issues, like business, would still be members but those who feel they shouldn't interfere at all… well why join?

I don't mind the UN encroaching on our right to rule when it comes to certain things. Other things I really hate the UN to get involved with, like the internet, but I express that through my support not by telling the members what The UN must not do.

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

Let me guess your nation description is "Tyranny by majority."


No, left-leaning college state and proud.


No, I am for national soverignty in that there are some issue which the nation should have control over. If the UN has final say on all issues then the national government is pointless. Let the UN and nations play different roles.

Wait, are we talking game world or real world here? If it's game world it wouldn't be, because you still get all those daily issues. If it's the real world, what's the problem if national government is pointless?


To address the consistency thing, no it isnt compleatly consistent. However, as this is NationStates, our laws are passed for one person, us, so there is no other, in our nation


Well there are all the fake people you pass daily issues about. Besides, what are you saying, if the world doesn't agree with you then the world is broken?


I am most angered is the number of UN resolutions that have national soverignty, resolution 4 being the most prominent.

Not sure what you mean here


If a resolution is passed that violates game mechanics, it should be repealled without a vote.

To be more clear I am angered by the elimination of proposals, when there are resolutions that use the same logic. Another double standard.

The reason for this is that the standard for proposals has changed since the game start. You can't just repeal old proposals because new standards have emerged since.

I am most angered is the number of UN resolutions that have national soverignty, resolution 4 being the most prominent. If a resolution is passed that violates game mechanics, it should be repealled without a vote.

Parsing error...

You're arguing that The UN Taxation Ban violates game mechanics?

To be more clear I am angered by the elimination of proposals, when there are resolutions that use the same logic. Another double standard.

Well, I suppose that might have something to with fact that while I can delete Proposals, I can't delete Resolutions. It's not a double standard, it's a coding limitation.

But, hey, I suppose just letting and old crap through so that the Passed Resolutions List has even more junk in it is far better than deleting bad Proposals...

Easily. It goes back to the quesiton of why governments exist. Governments exist, as Locke tells us, as Aristotle tells us, as Hobbes tells us, to protect the rights of the people from themselves.

But Plato, Rousseau, Mill, Nozick, Marx, Rawls and just to be fruity Confucius would argue differently, to name a few. It's one view, not the only view. Still, I kind of see where you're going here, but I need it clarified a little.

Now, what we see in the UN of this game are resolutions that are contradictory, that are poorly written and that favor the 'Soup du Jour' approach to governing. Somehow I do not believe in the real world, such resolutions would pass.

Granted, but this isn't a national sovereignity thing it's a "people who vote in the NS UN can be idiots" thing. The best way to get by it is by trying to get repeals for the crappy resolutions passed. That's what I'm doing.

Similarly, we must remember that the UN is the United Nations, not the United Citizens. The UN is made up of nations and, therefore needs to take national sovereignty and internal politics in mind with its resolutions. The UN should regualte disputes between nations, address itself to solely international issues, and not interfere with domestic matters.

Why? Like I said if national governments can disregard individual sovereignity in some cases why can't international governments disregard national sovereignity?

Finally, its a quesiton of how voting is conducted within the UN. NS rules do not take into consideration the population of its member nations (nor does the r/l UN for that matter) so it is inherently a tyranny of the smaller states. But, more insidiously is the vote of the delegates. Delegates receive, as best I recall, one vote for each person who endorses them. So here we can have delegates of small regions, with 10-20 endorsements, have a greater vote than those of us who have been earund for a long time and have a better understanding of the ramifications of some of the UN resolutions.

This isn't a national sovereignity issue it's a game mechanics issue. I agree with you, but the technical forum is the place to bring it up, not the UN forum (unlike RL you can't change the UN from within).

Just my 0.02[/QUOTE]

I'd say a bit more than 0.02. It was the kind of well-thought out response I was hoping for. The idea in the first paragraph is intriguing, but I'd like it spelt out more clearly. Probably because I'm dense.

I'd say a bit more than 0.02. It was the kind of well-thought out response I was hoping for. The idea in the first paragraph is intriguing, but I'd like it spelt out more clearly. Probably because I'm dense.

Not dense, it's a difficult concept. I'll try and make it a bit easier. First, let me draw from my Locke:

Locke, Second Treatise of Government

If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom, this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which, it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasions of others. For all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates which I can be the general name, property.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; to which in the state of nature there are many things wanting

Now, Locke was a firm believer of the quality of human beings, so much as men in the 18th century veiwed it. He believed, as Rousseau did, that in the natural state, human beings had perfect poltiical freedoms. However, as this quote from the 2nd Treatise of Government, explains, because most individuals either do not put much stock in that equality, nor do they take the time to limit themselves, to utilize a sense of self-control, our rights to life, liberty, and property are in danger...not from government, but from one another.

Aristotle follows this up

Aristotle, On Happiness

A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used with intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends.

Without the rule of law to keep down our baser instincts, we would devolve into a state of complete anarchy, anarchy of the worst kind. Because we do not control ourselves, we would tear one another apart, without the guiding hand of law, which can only exist under a form of government.

Why? Like I said if national governments can disregard individual sovereignity in some cases why can't international governments disregard national sovereignity?


Originally Posted by Caer Rialis
Finally, its a quesiton of how voting is conducted within the UN. NS rules do not take into consideration the population of its member nations (nor does the r/l UN for that matter) so it is inherently a tyranny of the smaller states. But, more insidiously is the vote of the delegates. Delegates receive, as best I recall, one vote for each person who endorses them. So here we can have delegates of small regions, with 10-20 endorsements, have a greater vote than those of us who have been earund for a long time and have a better understanding of the ramifications of some of the UN resolutions.

This isn't a national sovereignity issue it's a game mechanics issue. I agree with you, but the technical forum is the place to bring it up, not the UN forum (unlike RL you can't change the UN from within).

Then what is the sense of having nations if the UN can override our national sovereignty on resolutions, which, however well meaning, are wholly intrusive and beyond the scope of the UN? We ought to just become individuals, rather than pretend to rule nations.

See, this is one problem of the UN. People have their soapbox issues and prepare resolutions; delegates forward them along and the great herd, without analyzing the issues, votes YES. This is how it becomes as national sovereignty issue.

I'm new here, so don't get all uppity for me not knowing, but how much do UN resolutions actually effect one's country's profile? Sure in the FAQ is says that UN resolutions in Nationstates, as opposed to real world UN resolutions, are binding for all member states, but it looks like the UN is having no effect on my country's profile. So if the UN doesn't effect anything tangible in the gameplay of other countries, it's really all a matter of RPing. Why does everybody get all choked up over the liberal lean the UN then? Just do what the majority of the countries in the real world do and vote on UN resolutions and ignore the outcomes if they don't suit you.

I'm at least slightly confused as to why those who believe so strongly in national sovereignty would have nations that are part of the NS UN. It's obvious that the whole purpose of this UN is to dole out blanket resolutions that change life in all of the member nations. There is no purpose for the NS UN other than to disrupt national sovereignty.

No, it's not. The purpose of the UN to to resolve issues of international implications, not domestic matters. The Stem Cell Research Resolution, just as the Rights of Women and Minorities is a wholly domestic matter, beyond the true scope of the NS UN.

You see, the problem with this theory is that UN endorsements are used to establish the delegates of regions. These delegates may eject members, a strong power. Now, to defend your region from an invasion, you need memebrs with UN status. To really play the game, you must be in the UN, which steps all over your right to administer your country.

I think it's fairly disappointing that there are those in the in-game UN who strike down proposals (good ones, at that) based on their interference with domestic (or intranational) issues. In this game, the UN, by its nature, interrupts the process by which an individual nation chooses what is best for it.

Can you give me some good resolutions that have been struck down by those who support National Sovereignty?

Not dense, it's a difficult concept. I'll try and make it a bit easier. First, let me draw from my Locke:
<snipped sources and explanations graciously provided>


Ah, you misunderstood me. I don't have any real problem getting Locke's, Aristotle's or Hobbes's arguments (I did a BA in philosophy with political philosophy as an option so I've covered them all, though my memory isn't quite perfect) where I was a bit vague was on how exactly they relate to the question of national sovereignity. Like I said I think I may know where you're going with it, but I'm not sure.


Then what is the sense of having nations if the UN can override our national sovereignty on resolutions, which, however well meaning, are wholly intrusive and beyond the scope of the UN? We ought to just become individuals, rather than pretend to rule nations.


Well, like I said there's still plenty of things to rule on. There's well over 100 daily issues. The UN, I guess, would be a chance to partake in a kind of human-human government simulator on top of the human-computer one. It's quite interesting in that respect. I find it fascinating, for instance, that no political blocks have emerged. In a small way it supports my hypothesis that political parties are an artificial creation of electoral systems, not the political process.

Like I said, though, it's still a game issue. I'm more interested in the justification for national sovereignity as a real-world concept (or a game world concept in character).

See, this is one problem of the UN. People have their soapbox issues and prepare resolutions; delegates forward them along and the great herd, without analyzing the issues, votes YES. This is how it becomes as national sovereignty issue.

I know how you feel, but there's ways around it. Bring others to your cause and mount an effective repeal campaign. As I said, it's not a question of national sovereignity but weaknesses in the (game) system which can be overcome.

No, it's not. The purpose of the UN to to resolve issues of international implications, not domestic matters. The Stem Cell Research Resolution, just as the Rights of Women and Minorities is a wholly domestic matter, beyond the true scope of the NS UN.
Actually you are wrong. The purpose of The UN, according to the FAQ, is
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.
Unless you know more about this game than Max Barry.

Or maybe you know more about The UN then Enodia, the old UN mod, who said
clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists

Now you may have joined the UN to ' resolve issues of international implications' but not everyone did. Unless you can persuade the majority otherwise we will keep passing proposals on what you call 'domestic matters'. Remember, even that is debatable.

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

See, this is one problem of the UN. People have their soapbox issues and prepare resolutions; delegates forward them along and the great herd, without analyzing the issues, votes YES.

Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they are idiots, it doesn’t mean they don't do what's best for their country.

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

I'm new here, so don't get all uppity for me not knowing, but how much do UN resolutions actually effect one's country's profile? Sure in the FAQ is says that UN resolutions in Nationstates, as opposed to real world UN resolutions, are binding for all member states, but it looks like the UN is having no effect on my country's profile. So if the UN doesn't effect anything tangible in the gameplay of other countries, it's really all a matter of RPing. Why does everybody get all choked up over the liberal lean the UN then? Just do what the majority of the countries in the real world do and vote on UN resolutions and ignore the outcomes if they don't suit you.

Because, according to the FAQ you get no choice in the matter - your nation MUST obey all passed Resolutions. Your opinion has no bearing on the matter, the UN Gnomes will alter your laws to remain in compliance no matter what you do.

On your profile? You get a nice blue patch, your nations ratings are affected by those resolutions which pass while you are there, and you get a set number of people who will argue to your delight on this forum.

Ah, you misunderstood me. I don't have any real problem getting Locke's, Aristotle's or Hobbes's arguments (I did a BA in philosophy with political philosophy as an option so I've covered them all, though my memory isn't quite perfect) where I was a bit vague was on how exactly they relate to the question of national sovereignity. Like I said I think I may know where you're going with it, but I'm not sure.

Sorry about that. It relates to national sovereignty in that individual nations, developing witha particular set of geography, history and culture, should know the best way to protect their citizens' (or subjects') rights. What works in one nation may not within another. The U.S., for example, may be ready for some innovation or idea while Zimbabwe might not, when we consider historical and cultural development. This is why the NS UN concerns me. I see a real development of a tyranny of the majority.

Actually you are wrong. The purpose of The UN, according to the FAQ, is
[quote]
Quote:
The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

Unless you know more about this game than Max Barry.

My, I seem to have touched a nerve here. Let me respond. First, I am no fan of the 'Great Man' idea. Max Barry may have written the book and devised the rules, but why can't we, if we see that something it not working right, seek to change it? Personally, rather than a short FAQ, I'd like to see an actual UN charter debated and written. . .. especially if we are so democratically-minded.



Or maybe you know more about The UN then Enodia, the old UN mod, who said


Quote:
clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists

Well, my response is, just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you should do it. The wise man knows restraint.

Now you may have joined the UN to ' resolve issues of international implications' but not everyone did. Unless you can persuade the majority otherwise we will keep passing proposals on what you call 'domestic matters'. Remember, even that is debatable.

And, thus, you prove my point . . . . you wish to call internal matters of individual nations 'debatable'. Please, then, debate me. Pick a matter and point out how, in the wisdom of those who wish to make all the same, this is truly better for the world. Though meant to help, oft times such measures truly impede on real progress.

Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they are idiots, it doesn’t mean they don't do what's best for their country.

I never said that people were idiots for disagreeing with me. I just don't like watching people vote YES for a measure because it's the flavor of the month. THAT truly is not best for one's country.

My, I seem to have touched a nerve here. Let me respond. First, I am no fan of the 'Great Man' idea. Max Barry may have written the book and devised the rules, but why can't we, if we see that something it not working right, seek to change it? Personally, rather than a short FAQ, I'd like to see an actual UN charter debated and written. . .. especially if we are so democratically-minded.

Go ahead and propose one.



Well, my response is, just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you should do it. The wise man knows restraint.

Yes, but this is the UN... ;)




And, thus, you prove my point . . . . you wish to call internal matters of individual nations 'debatable'. Please, then, debate me. Pick a matter and point out how, in the wisdom of those who wish to make all the same, this is truly better for the world. Though meant to help, oft times such measures truly impede on real progress.

You did read the UN FAQ, right?



I never said that people were idiots for disagreeing with me. I just don't like watching people vote YES for a measure because it's the flavor of the month. THAT truly is not best for one's country.

Welcome to the UN!

Sorry about that. It relates to national sovereignty in that individual nations, developing witha particular set of geography, history and culture, should know the best way to protect their citizens' (or subjects') rights. What works in one nation may not within another. The U.S., for example, may be ready for some innovation or idea while Zimbabwe might not, when we consider historical and cultural development. This is why the NS UN concerns me. I see a real development of a tyranny of the majority.


Granted, but your arguments stem from practical rather than philosophical concerns. Thus they're not so much about the inviolability of national sovereignity as about careful management of governmental levels.

This I have no quibbles with, it's basic common sense that the higher the level of government the less able it is to adapt its policies to suit localised differences. It should also be noted, however, that the same reasoning applies just as much to devolution within nations. Thus national government is no more or less sacred than any other level of government.

Go ahead and propose one. <a UN Charter>


Would this be feasible or would it get thrown out on a game mechanics basis?

First, I'd like to say bravo to Caer Rialis, you've expressed my views perfectly and quite a bit more eloquently. Sadly though you are barking up the wrong tree. I would recommend we take this to the technical forums and argue our asses off for a small overhaul of the UN. As much as I'm sure Max Berry enjoys being our personal code monkey, asking for more than an overhauled charter and applicable rule changes will probably be shot down outright.

What confuses me is why some people find that, justified or not, theres nothing wrong with the current UN. Sovereignty arguments aside, we may as well just hang a nice "abandon hope all ye who enter here" sign on the door since its basically devolved into people submitting the same soap box issues repeatedly to inadvertently screw your country. Its not fun. Its killing the game. Sure I can leave the UN but should I have to just to stop my country from veering drastically off the course I make for it? Being completely honest who has looked at the UN props lately and been truly intrigued by them as a whole? Something needs to be done.

Would this be feasible or would it get thrown out on a game mechanics basis?

Most likely thrown.

You can't affect game mechanics, and Cogitation and Hack ruled you cannot state what the UN may or may not rule upon.

My, I seem to have touched a nerve here. Let me respond. First, I am no fan of the 'Great Man' idea. Max Barry may have written the book and devised the rules, but why can't we, if we see that something it not working right, seek to change it? Personally, rather than a short FAQ, I'd like to see an actual UN charter debated and written. . .. especially if we are so democratically-minded.
Take it up in technical then because you can't change the game (officially) without recoding or a lot of mods doing things 'by hand'.

Well, my response is, just because you have the power to do something, doesn't mean you should do it. The wise man knows restraint.
You can say should not, not must not. I believe I said that earlier.

And, thus, you prove my point . . . . you wish to call internal matters of individual nations 'debatable'. Please, then, debate me. Pick a matter and point out how, in the wisdom of those who wish to make all the same, this is truly better for the world. Though meant to help, oft times such measures truly impede on real progress.
Okay kitten. Some people say human rights issues are international because it is our duty to make things nice for the people in our countries. Some others say equality does not take into account different cultures. And it goes on…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World