NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/20814/page=UN_proposal/start=110

On this page you will see a proposal that The Republic of Starlife and The Borderlands of Dewuana worked on as a cohesive unit. We form in this proposal a feeling that most will share once they read it.

We as people need to either get rid of 46 or change it in a way that it benefits all humans because right now as it stands it does absolute no good.

Good old #46. And quite the excellent argument posted here, I might add.


Would it be too much trouble to actually POST THE DAMN THING or TELL US WHAT YOUR PROBLEM WITH IT IS? Honestly, we're not mind readers here. You wrote it - post it. Until then, one word response:


No.

Got it.

Repeal of 46

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Starlife

Description: Resolution #46 States that the act of prostitution is legalized in all UN countries. However, this resolution is to repeal it for a few very good reasons.

1) With legalized prostitution there is an increased spread of AIDS. Unfortunately, with the passing of 46 we did not even consider putting in mandatory tests for our Johns and Janes. Therefore all these working girls go out night after night with people who might have AIDS or maybe even something new and much more horrific. But because of our bureaucracy we let it continue and actually ENCOURAGE the spread of new hybrid diseases that could turn an entire country into a vast wasteland within days.

2) Our studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between countries with a higher number of prostitutes and a higher amount of crime. Let's face it, when someone goes into prostitution they aren't exactly law-abiding citizens. They go out and buy illegal substances which helps the drug dealers buy bigger guns and it does absolutely nothing but spread chaos to the entire world. Making prostitution illegal will dramatically lower crime in the long term.

3) It stands to benefit no one. We currently have no tax on the books for prostitution therefore our countries stand no higher for passing it. We actually stand lower because now that it is a recognized job the people who are doing it get tax benefits while not having to pay normal work related taxes themselves.

As you can see, three very good reasons why it should be banned or at least modified to have higher standards. Please, fellow men and women, stand with me and repeal the burden that is prop 46. We will be in a better world with its very loose law off the shelves and in the history books for good.

Approvals: 2 (Jolly People, WZ Forums)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 139 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Dec 2 2004
Aside from the fact that this should have been proposed as a repeal (done through the passed resolutions list, not the make a proposal page), I don't agree with it for a number of IC reasons.

1) In Enn, brothel workers are required to use condoms and or/female condoms. If they are found to be infringing on this law, then the licence is revoked. We have yet to have a single HIV transfer between a prostitute and his/her 'client' since the passing of this law.

2) 'our studies'? Which studies are these?
Enn doesn't have crime. Crime did not increase following the passing of this resolution. Are we but an exception to your rule?

3) Actually, we have taxes on prostitution. Same as all the other jobs - 100%. That's if they get any money - usually, Enn runs on a barter system.

VERY cute game with the use of numbers rather then the title.

Too bad that won't work - when you hit the "repeal" button, it all shows up, and that button is the only way to repeal.


1) With legalized prostitution there is an increased spread of AIDS. Unfortunately, with the passing of 46 we did not even consider putting in mandatory tests for our Johns and Janes. Therefore all these working girls go out night after night with people who might have AIDS or maybe even something new and much more horrific. But because of our bureaucracy we let it continue and actually ENCOURAGE the spread of new hybrid diseases that could turn an entire country into a vast wasteland within days.


National Soverignty.
And if your government can't be bothered taking care of its citizens, what good is it?



2) Our studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between countries with a higher number of prostitutes and a higher amount of crime.


Ours show a direct correlation between legalized prostitution and a drop in organized crime, as this deprives them of an income source.

Strike two, Sparky.



Let's face it, when someone goes into prostitution they aren't exactly law-abiding citizens. They go out and buy illegal substances which helps the drug dealers buy bigger guns and it does absolutely nothing but spread chaos to the entire world. Making prostitution illegal will dramatically lower crime in the long term.

You did review what Prohibition did for organized crime in Chicago, USA? No? Well you have no leg to stand on. Strike three.



3) It stands to benefit no one. We currently have no tax on the books for prostitution therefore our countries stand no higher for passing it. We actually stand lower because now that it is a recognized job the people who are doing it get tax benefits while not having to pay normal work related taxes themselves.

We do. National Soverignty. And if you don't tax prostitutes, you are missing out on significant income. Most prostitutes make six figures or more a year.
Especially now that its legal.



As you can see, three very good reasons why it should be banned or at least modified to have higher standards. Please, fellow men and women, stand with me and repeal the burden that is prop 46. We will be in a better world with its very loose law off the shelves and in the history books for good.


Nope, three lousy reasons. All solved by National Soverignty.

Next batter!

This should be quick.

1) With legalized prostitution there is an increased spread of AIDS. Unfortunately, with the passing of 46 we did not even consider putting in mandatory tests for our Johns and Janes. Therefore all these working girls go out night after night with people who might have AIDS or maybe even something new and much more horrific. But because of our bureaucracy we let it continue and actually ENCOURAGE the spread of new hybrid diseases that could turn an entire country into a vast wasteland within days.

Two words: Health regulations. Also, it would take weeks or even months for a truly killer disease to actually wipe out a large nation. And if you want much more horrific, try the diseases my nation has.

2) Our studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between countries with a higher number of prostitutes and a higher amount of crime. Let's face it, when someone goes into prostitution they aren't exactly law-abiding citizens. They go out and buy illegal substances which helps the drug dealers buy bigger guns and it does absolutely nothing but spread chaos to the entire world. Making prostitution illegal will dramatically lower crime in the long term.

Higher number of illegal prostitutes. Also, most prostitutes are not drug addicts (not saying some don't use the illegals on occasion, but that is in no greater proportions than any other job). And I have yet to see a crime increase from this, so I have to say your statistics may be an anomaly.

3) It stands to benefit no one. We currently have no tax on the books for prostitution therefore our countries stand no higher for passing it. We actually stand lower because now that it is a recognized job the people who are doing it get tax benefits while not having to pay normal work related taxes themselves.

THEN TAX THEM! Duh! It is legal to tax a legal occupation.

As you can see, three very good reasons why it should be banned or at least modified to have higher standards. Please, fellow men and women, stand with me and repeal the burden that is prop 46. We will be in a better world with its very loose law off the shelves and in the history books for good.

I see no good reasons at all and a case of just one nation crippling itself when it could enact two measly laws and solve all of its problems. Making it illegal just puts it back on the street and outside of your ability to tax and control.

Good old #46. And quite the excellent argument posted here, I might add.


Would it be too much trouble to actually POST THE DAMN THING or TELL US WHAT YOUR PROBLEM WITH IT IS? Honestly, we're not mind readers here. You wrote it - post it. Until then, one word response:


No.

Better watch out Frisbeeteria... It is becomming standard practice that we must treat all the

Informationally Challanged Politically Active Temporaly Challenged

ignorant socio-nazi n00bs

with kid gloves even though we must enter a constant repetitionary stance in addressing their

Non-Standard Misinformed Textual Idealism.

ignorant diatribe

You guys are missing when I said "repeal MODIFY" the bill. This bill alone does nothing when it comes to getting tests for Johns or Janes...show me where. This law says nothing about taxing them...show me where.

Point proven.

You guys are missing when I said "repeal MODIFY" the bill. This bill alone does nothing when it comes to getting tests for Johns or Janes...show me where. This law says nothing about taxing them...show me where.

Point proven.

Take the pebble from my hand, grasshopper....

The law does not have to say anything about taxing them; once legalized, it falls under any other form of tax system as any other industry in your nation. Wow, imagine that... This resolution merely legalized the profession...

You guys are missing when I said "repeal MODIFY" the bill. This bill alone does nothing when it comes to getting tests for Johns or Janes...show me where. This law says nothing about taxing them...show me where.

Point proven.

I'll say this slowly.

NATIONAL
SOVERIGNTY
ISSUE

You guys are missing when I said "repeal MODIFY" the bill. This bill alone does nothing when it comes to getting tests for Johns or Janes...show me where. This law says nothing about taxing them...show me where.

Point proven.

Point that you have yet to realize the full scope of what it allows you to do is proven. Thank you for helping our arguements.

Show me a UN bill that says you can tax doctors, lawyers, the average worker, etc. I dare you to find one. Also, show me where this states you cannot hold prostitutes up to the same medical standards as doctors, or even higher, and cannot tax them.

Considering your government is not taxing anybody (going by your arguement about prostitution), I must wonder where it gets its money from.

You guys do know that this is a GAME. and as far as I can tell you don't have the right in this game to go in and say "well, yeah, okay, this passed so I'll tax the prostitutes" which is exactly why I'm saying repeal it or modify it so that it says you can. Wow, didn't think there were this many asstards here, guess I was wrong.

You guys do know that this is a GAME. and as far as I can tell you don't have the right in this game to go in and say "well, yeah, okay, this passed so I'll tax the prostitutes" which is exactly why I'm saying repeal it or modify it so that it says you can. Wow, didn't think there were this many asstards here, guess I was wrong.

OOC: Beats him with the *mixing IC and OOC* stick.

IC: Vastiva has the right to tax, or not to tax, whomever it likes. We like taxing prostitutes. We like tax-shelters for prostitutes, and retirement plans. And gifts, we like the gifts given to prostitutes, because we made them partially tax-deductable. It helps other industries.

You guys do know that this is a GAME. and as far as I can tell you don't have the right in this game to go in and say "well, yeah, okay, this passed so I'll tax the prostitutes" which is exactly why I'm saying repeal it or modify it so that it says you can.

:shakes head:

1) Show me, where in the resolution, it says you can't. I want an exact quote. If it doesn't, then logically you can.

2) We are playing the game. This is part of how we play it.

3) We do have the right. Nowhere do I see a resolution stating you cannot tax a legal business or employment. Nowhere. So, logically, that must mean I can. And I am.

4) Modifying resolutions is illegal once they have passed.

You guys do know that this is a GAME. and as far as I can tell you don't have the right in this game to go in and say "well, yeah, okay, this passed so I'll tax the prostitutes" which is exactly why I'm saying repeal it or modify it so that it says you can. Wow, didn't think there were this many asstards here, guess I was wrong.

Yes it is, and who says we don't have the right?

By pure inherantance, all nationstates are sovereign; with the exception being, as soon as we enter the United Nations, our sovereignty only extends as far as limits imposed by Resolution; where resolution is silent; sovereignty still stands. It's quite a simple concept.

The law does not have to allow us to tax prositutes. We can already do it by the inherant existance of our own sovereignty. The NSUN resolution don't allow us things, they disallow things... that is what law is for (the only exception being exceptions granted within the establishment of certain laws).

Once again, the resolution does not forbid taxing prostitutes and/or brothels, it forbids making prostitution an illegal industry... If you can impose health standards, safty standards, income tax, sales tax, etc. on any other industry you want; you can impose the same upon Prostitution, since it is a legal industry.....

You guys are missing when I said "repeal MODIFY" the bill. This bill alone does nothing when it comes to getting tests for Johns or Janes...show me where. This law says nothing about taxing them...show me where.

Point proven.

It doesn't say YOU CAN'T do it. It doesn't say YOU HAVE TO do it. It leaves it up to the nation. If you and your nation chose not to do that, why should it concern us?

I hardly need to add to this discussion, but hell, why not? I need to add Adam Island's two cents in whenever possible to justify my huge government salary to Parliament and President Rodriquez.

1) With legalized prostitution there is an increased spread of AIDS.

What's AIDS? Is it like Kool-Aid? Mmmmmm, I love Kool-Aid.


Unfortunately, with the passing of 46 we did not even consider putting in mandatory tests for our Johns and Janes. Therefore all these working girls go out night after night with people who might have AIDS or maybe even something new and much more horrific.

Ahh, I get it, AIDS is a Sexually Transmitted Disease, like Gonoherra or the Southern Monkey Pox that ravaged the western islands in my Republic until we finally found a cure. We do not require testing in Adam Island, but we do require condoms for paid sex. Its basic worker safety. Besides, if someone dies you can prosecute them for manslaughter.

And um, how exactly does legal prostitution have risks that illegal prostitution doesn't?

And BTW, in Adam Island, we have as many 'working guys' as 'working girls.'

But because of our bureaucracy we let it continue and actually ENCOURAGE the spread of new hybrid diseases that could turn an entire country into a vast wasteland within days.

Yea, well, that's the risk you run when you have a free society. If you want safety, form a dictatorship.

2) Our studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between countries with a higher number of prostitutes and a higher amount of crime.

Studies eh... Have they been reviewed in an international peer review journal, like Adam Island studies that show an inverse correlation between prostitution and violent sex crimes?

Let's face it, when someone goes into prostitution they aren't exactly law-abiding citizens.

I consider that slander against the law-abiding, patriotic, wonderful whores and giggilos of our fair Republic. If this were the old days, our President would challenge you to a duel.

They go out and buy illegal substances which helps the drug dealers buy bigger guns and it does absolutely nothing but spread chaos to the entire world. Making prostitution illegal will dramatically lower crime in the long term.

Illegal substances? Like what? Why would a drug dealer buy guns? It would be much more cost effective for them to buy television advertisments and develop new drugs.

3) It stands to benefit no one.

Except for prostitutes, clients, and freedom-lovers across the globe.

We currently have no tax on the books for prostitution therefore our countries stand no higher for passing it. We actually stand lower because now that it is a recognized job the people who are doing it get tax benefits while not having to pay normal work related taxes themselves.

In Adam Island we have no tax benefits. Everyone pays a flat 3% tax rate, whores and churches both.


And let's not forget that many followers of Iconic Island Buddhism practice religious prostitution in their temples. [ooc: thats not religious godmoding, I got that idea weeks ago from a book I read]

The main problem with this resulution is that it reduces national sovereignty, as the different nations are required to allow prostitution. Remember that any nation could allow prostitution before this resolution was passed, and would be able to do so if it was removed.

This is an important aspect to consider when it comes to resolutions, as some resolutions keep states from joining the UN.

Ulf,
Alpha male of Wolfshome

The main problem with this resulution is that it reduces national sovereignty, as the different nations are required to allow prostitution. Remember that any nation could allow prostitution before this resolution was passed, and would be able to do so if it was removed.

This is an important aspect to consider when it comes to resolutions, as some resolutions keep states from joining the UN.

Ulf,
Alpha male of Wolfshome

You're in the UN. You have the national sovereignity rights of an ant being pimp slapped by four tarantulas. And you agreed to it. The arguement doesn't hold.

The main problem with this resulution is that it reduces national sovereignty, as the different nations are required to allow prostitution. Remember that any nation could allow prostitution before this resolution was passed, and would be able to do so if it was removed.

This is an important aspect to consider when it comes to resolutions, as some resolutions keep states from joining the UN.

Right, National Sovereignty is a very important consideration when it comes to passing any legislation. I got in a lot of heat on one post by stating that the rules say you can RP disobedience of UN Resolutions.

But when it comes to basic personal, civil and economic freedoms, the balance goes away from Nat. Sov. Sex and private exchange of money are two areas that the government should not touch.

The "National Sovereignty" in relation to UN membership, always comes down to the idea that "I want to force all the UN to follow my politio-cultural ideals, except in cases where proposals tell me I must accept another person trying to impose their politio-cultural ideals which are different than my own; and therefore, it then becomes National Sovereignty issue..."

Never really works... We all gave all of our individual national sovereignty, except the sovereign decision to resign, as soon as we appealed into membership of this body.

The "National Sovereignty" in relation to UN membership, always comes down to the idea that "I want to force all the UN to follow my politio-cultural ideals, except in cases where proposals tell me I must accept another person trying to impose their politio-cultural ideals which are different than my own; and therefore, it then becomes National Sovereignty issue..."

Never really works... We all gave all of our individual national sovereignty, except the sovereign decision to resign, as soon as we appealed into membership of this body.

Not really, Tekania. Respecting national sovereignty is important because the UN is a voluntary body. If we micromanage states to the extent that no one wants to be a member anymore, we will help no one. Instead we can choose to deal with particular issues and help hundreds of billions of citizens with basic needs.

Where exactly to draw the line is debated. You're one of the few that says we should ignore national sovereignty completely.

Joining the UN or any other alliance or group doesn't mean we can't complain when it intrudes or controls our daily affairs. "Love it or leave it" is not an excuse to turn the UN into a dictatorship by majority. Either we can voluntarily agree to respect others' national sovereigtny or we can chase away all the nations we might have otherwise helped.

Not really, Tekania. Respecting national sovereignty is important because the UN is a voluntary body. If we micromanage states to the extent that no one wants to be a member anymore, we will help no one. Instead we can choose to deal with particular issues and help hundreds of billions of citizens with basic needs.

Where exactly to draw the line is debated. You're one of the few that says we should ignore national sovereignty completely.

Joining the UN or any other alliance or group doesn't mean we can't complain when it intrudes or controls our daily affairs. "Love it or leave it" is not an excuse to turn the UN into a dictatorship by majority. Either we can voluntarily agree to respect others' national sovereigtny or we can chase away all the nations we might have otherwise helped.

I don't advocate micromanagement, but it will happen in certain realms. My point is that "national sovereignty" is neither a reason for disobedience, nor a reason for repeal; nor even, really, a reason period... National Sovereignty is an excuse... never a reason. If this UN operated on the principle to never violate national sovereignty, the organization would be pointless. In truth, UN member sovereignty only exists in two places.... 1) In the ability of final determination of membership and 2) Where UN resolutions are silent.... beyond that, we possess no sovereignty, and the UN is capable of enacting resolutions which change our laws to come into compliance...

As long as we are members in this body, we are not absolute sovereigns... And to assert that we should be, is ignoring how this body works in the first place... Anything and everything this body does, has the capability of over-riding one or more member nations' sovereignty... It would be impossible to pass ANYTHING accross the UN floor, if our single goal was the protection of the non-existant and falacious concept of UN members "national sovereignty"... Anyone who feels that their sovereignty is violated, and is unwilling to deal with the UN violating your sovereignty; the Resign button is located on the United Nations page... and you have the sovereign ability to press it when you so desire... As such, since few nations do.... I must assume you realize that you do not actually possess sovereignty as a member; and that your ranting is mere excuse and blame-throwing...

I don't advocate micromanagement, but it will happen in certain realms. My point is that "national sovereignty" is neither a reason for disobedience, nor a reason for repeal; nor even, really, a reason period... National Sovereignty is an excuse... never a reason. If this UN operated on the principle to never violate national sovereignty, the organization would be pointless. In truth, UN member sovereignty only exists in two places.... 1) In the ability of final determination of membership and 2) Where UN resolutions are silent.... beyond that, we possess no sovereignty, and the UN is capable of enacting resolutions which change our laws to come into compliance...

As long as we are members in this body, we are not absolute sovereigns... And to assert that we should be, is ignoring how this body works in the first place... Anything and everything this body does, has the capability of over-riding one or more member nations' sovereignty... It would be impossible to pass ANYTHING accross the UN floor, if our single goal was the protection of the non-existant and falacious concept of UN members "national sovereignty"... Anyone who feels that their sovereignty is violated, and is unwilling to deal with the UN violating your sovereignty; the Resign button is located on the United Nations page... and you have the sovereign ability to press it when you so desire... As such, since few nations do.... I must assume you realize that you do not actually possess sovereignty as a member; and that your ranting is mere excuse and blame-throwing...


But there's a balance that needs to be kept. Its not pass everything or pass nothing. And someone complaining that they feel the UN is micromanaging, it might be a good idea to listen to their concerns once in a while rather than telling them to leave.

You don't "give up" your sovereignty when you join the UN. And just because you only use NatSov as an excuse doesn't mean that everyone else on the forums do.

Passing every good idea you think of isn't good role-playing. It doesn't make any sense for you to have the goal of using the UN to improve the lives of the citizens in other nations and then you try and get those same nations to leave the UN and abandon all protection.

The National Soveriegnty argument is perfectly legitimate reason for repeal or for voting against passage of a proposal. If large numbers of nations are going to leave the UN rather than abide by a proposal that provides only a small benefit, I'll vote against it even if I like the idea of the proposal. I don't see a problem with people wanting to have the benefits of the UN without handing over total control.

But there's a balance that needs to be kept. Its not pass everything or pass nothing. And someone complaining that they feel the UN is micromanaging, it might be a good idea to listen to their concerns once in a while rather than telling them to leave.

You don't "give up" your sovereignty when you join the UN. And just because you only use NatSov as an excuse doesn't mean that everyone else on the forums do.

Passing every good idea you think of isn't good role-playing. It doesn't make any sense for you to have the goal of using the UN to improve the lives of the citizens in other nations and then you try and get those same nations to leave the UN and abandon all protection.

The National Soveriegnty argument is perfectly legitimate reason for repeal or for voting against passage of a proposal. If large numbers of nations are going to leave the UN rather than abide by a proposal that provides only a small benefit, I'll vote against it even if I like the idea of the proposal. I don't see a problem with people wanting to have the benefits of the UN without handing over total control.

Sorry, I disagree... National Sovereignty is an excuse... There are plenty of proposals I vote against... But none of it has to do with the non-existant concept of UN member sovereignty... National Sovereignty is a cop-out excuse for members who are not compitent enough to develope legitimate, logical claims against proposed legislation... PURE AND SIMPLE... It is not a reason, nor should it be...

There is no middle ground.... either UN members are each sovereigns, and the UN is powerless; or the UN is sovereign, and the members are subservient... There is no middle ground... We "are" sovereigns where the UN is silent; but when it speaks, we no longer are... That is how it works... As members, we are subservient to the will of the body of the United Nations, and as long as we remain members, we remain subservient... Our sovereignty only exists where the UN has not spoken... This is voluntary subservience to the will of this body... But voluntary only in the aspect that we may remain or leave at our own decision... As soon as you joined, you accepted the sovereign power of the UN to enter your nation, when the body makes decisions, and over-rule your own will in issues.

There are plenty of reasons on issues as to why a nation might be more capable than an international body to rule on a certain issue.... however "National Sovereignty" is never a reason... never will be...

"National Sovereigty" is a labled excuse, developed by small minds, who disagree with an action by this body; to which they are unable to formulate a valid and functional reason for disagreement with... That's all it has ever presented itself as; and all it shall ever be... If you have a gripe; you present the gripe in an actual, reasonable, and formulated manner... not appeal to the non-existant concept of members "sovereignty".

And you most certainly surrendered your will to the power and authority of the UN upon entering this body... i.e. your sovereignty... This is not an opinion, this is a FACT... whether you accept it or not becomes your problem... But even if you do not... it is still a truth... Your entire nation is subservient to the dictates and decisions of this body as long as you remain a member... This case is closed as far as I'm concerned.... if you want to live in a lie.... be my guest, the only one who will suffer, is you...

Sorry, I disagree... National Sovereignty is an excuse... There are plenty of proposals I vote against... But none of it has to do with the non-existant concept of UN member sovereignty... National Sovereignty is a cop-out excuse for members who are not compitent enough to develope legitimate, logical claims against proposed legislation... PURE AND SIMPLE... It is not a reason, nor should it be...

There is no middle ground.... either UN members are each sovereigns, and the UN is powerless; or the UN is sovereign, and the members are subservient... There is no middle ground... We "are" sovereigns where the UN is silent; but when it speaks, we no longer are... That is how it works... As members, we are subservient to the will of the body of the United Nations, and as long as we remain members, we remain subservient... Our sovereignty only exists where the UN has not spoken... This is voluntary subservience to the will of this body... But voluntary only in the aspect that we may remain or leave at our own decision... As soon as you joined, you accepted the sovereign power of the UN to enter your nation, when the body makes decisions, and over-rule your own will in issues.

There are plenty of reasons on issues as to why a nation might be more capable than an international body to rule on a certain issue.... however "National Sovereignty" is never a reason... never will be...

"National Sovereigty" is a labled excuse, developed by small minds, who disagree with an action by this body; to which they are unable to formulate a valid and functional reason for disagreement with... That's all it has ever presented itself as; and all it shall ever be... If you have a gripe; you present the gripe in an actual, reasonable, and formulated manner... not appeal to the non-existant concept of members "sovereignty".

And you most certainly surrendered your will to the power and authority of the UN upon entering this body... i.e. your sovereignty... This is not an opinion, this is a FACT... whether you accept it or not becomes your problem... But even if you do not... it is still a truth... Your entire nation is subservient to the dictates and decisions of this body as long as you remain a member... This case is closed as far as I'm concerned.... if you want to live in a lie.... be my guest, the only one who will suffer, is you...


Um, it seems like you're pretty much agreeing with me. When the UN passes a resolution, it is restricting the National Sovereignty of the member nations. When the UN passes a resolution that someone feels is making a decision that should be left to the individual nations, they complain about it violating their Sovereignty, a concept you explained yourself. There are two ways to respond to this:

1) Scream at them, tell them there's no such thing as national sovereignty and tell them to leave the UN.

2) Look at the issue and see if it seems legitimate or not.

I've already provided a few reasons on why respecting basic sovereignty is beneficial to the UN and all its member nations. I actually want nations to join and remain members of the UN.

When people complain about National Sovereignty, they're not saying that the resolution is illegal or breaking any rules. They are saying that it is making rules in an area that they think is better left to the individual nations. If you disagree, say "No, I think that this resolution is important and beneficial enough that the UN should pass it." Don't say "You're a small-minded moron, there's no such thing as National Sovereignty, resign from the UN right now, there's the button."

National Sovereignty is a seperate issue from game mechanics and rules. Someone talking about National Sovereignty is saying that they don't want the resolution to pass, because they understand the rules of the UN and its voluntary nature, and in their opinion, losing members because of the rule does not outweigh the potential benefits of the resolution.

THAT'S what National Sovereignty is about, not someone saying that they don't have to obey and stay a member.

The government of Telidia is unable to lend its support in favour of this ‘repeal’ for reasons I will now clarify.

1) With legalized prostitution there is an increased spread of AIDS. Unfortunately, with the passing of 46 we did not even consider putting in mandatory tests for our Johns and Janes. Therefore all these working girls go out night after night with people who might have AIDS or maybe even something new and much more horrific. But because of our bureaucracy we let it continue and actually ENCOURAGE the spread of new hybrid diseases that could turn an entire country into a vast wasteland within days.

I would encourage the honourable member from Starlife to provide some evidence that legalising prostitution actually increase the risk of contracting the HIV virus or for that matter any other form of sexually transmitted disease. Remember even if prostitution was not legal it would still occur and thus I feel the risks to ‘customers’ remain proportionally the same. The most important matter though is how quickly infections are diagnosed and treatment provided to the infected person. In my humble opinion the rate of diagnosis and thus the success of treatment will be lower where there is both a social stigma attached to prostitution and made worse if that stigma is enforced by legislation.

Furthermore I would respectfully request the honourable member refrain from making wild accusations regarding so called ‘hybrid diseases’ with the ability to wipe out complete nations in days. What you are proposing is a virus or bacteria that has a rate of multiplication beyond imagination and thus far, at least to my knowledge, nothing like this exists. In my humble opinion this type of sensationalism should be left to the tabloid press and out of repeals or proposals in this body.

(Side note: You cannot catch AIDS you contract the HIV virus. AIDS is what you have once you have contracted the HIV virus and you are suffering from an AIDS related disease. This happens when the virus has damaged your immune system to the point you cannot fight off other diseases.)

2) Our studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between countries with a higher number of prostitutes and a higher amount of crime. Let's face it, when someone goes into prostitution they aren't exactly law-abiding citizens. They go out and buy illegal substances which helps the drug dealers buy bigger guns and it does absolutely nothing but spread chaos to the entire world. Making prostitution illegal will dramatically lower crime in the long term.

Where is this evidence please? If you are going to make a claim such as this, please allow the rest of member body privy to this type of evidence. Also the argument that prostitution is directly linked to crime and narcotic abuse is somewhat flawed. You have not considered that some member states actually have rather progressive policies in recreational drug use and legal in many states. Your argument is therefore based on an assumption in what happens in member states.

3) It stands to benefit no one. We currently have no tax on the books for prostitution therefore our countries stand no higher for passing it. We actually stand lower because now that it is a recognized job the people who are doing it get tax benefits while not having to pay normal work related taxes themselves.

Then I suggest whatever body in your nation controls taxes immediately close this loophole.

My sincere apologies to my fellow members for this long post and thank you for your time.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

You guys do know that this is a GAME. and as far as I can tell you don't have the right in this game to go in and say "well, yeah, okay, this passed so I'll tax the prostitutes" which is exactly why I'm saying repeal it or modify it so that it says you can. Wow, didn't think there were this many asstards here, guess I was wrong.

OOC: You might want to look at the light gray text beneath the names of all the people who have responded to this. It represents how long they've been here for. As you can see, I'm rather new myself, but almost everyone who has come in here and patiently tried to explain to you why this is illegal and unecessary has been around for quite some time. Instead of arguing game mechanics with a legion of more experienced players, you might just want to take a closer look at the rules and see if you made a mistake. If you have, then quietly let the proposal die and move on. I think you'll find that far from being 'asstards' almost all of the players here (especially the older ones) are very forgiving of mistakes, provided that the people involved simply demonstrate that they have familiarized themselves with the relevant rules and are willing to learn.

Um, it seems like you're pretty much agreeing with me. When the UN passes a resolution, it is restricting the National Sovereignty of the member nations. When the UN passes a resolution that someone feels is making a decision that should be left to the individual nations, they complain about it violating their Sovereignty, a concept you explained yourself. There are two ways to respond to this:

1) Scream at them, tell them there's no such thing as national sovereignty and tell them to leave the UN.

2) Look at the issue and see if it seems legitimate or not.

I've already provided a few reasons on why respecting basic sovereignty is beneficial to the UN and all its member nations. I actually want nations to join and remain members of the UN.

When people complain about National Sovereignty, they're not saying that the resolution is illegal or breaking any rules. They are saying that it is making rules in an area that they think is better left to the individual nations. If you disagree, say "No, I think that this resolution is important and beneficial enough that the UN should pass it." Don't say "You're a small-minded moron, there's no such thing as National Sovereignty, resign from the UN right now, there's the button."

National Sovereignty is a seperate issue from game mechanics and rules. Someone talking about National Sovereignty is saying that they don't want the resolution to pass, because they understand the rules of the UN and its voluntary nature, and in their opinion, losing members because of the rule does not outweigh the potential benefits of the resolution.

THAT'S what National Sovereignty is about, not someone saying that they don't have to obey and stay a member.

I could care less about appeals to "National Sovereignty" it does not really exist, as UN members... That's the simple truth...

If they want to support a repeal on a particular resolution, the formulation should be larger in scope than "Resolution X violates my sovereignty"... Any resolution you can pick will violate SOMEONE's sovereignty in this body... Which makes all "sovereignty" claims inherantly non-issues... The people should either obey it and formulate a valid and functional set of real reasons for why it should be left to states, or resign.... May sound harsh; but that's how it works... As long as they are going to whine about sovereignty violations; their going to be getting bitchslapped around the UN forums for annoying everyone with "no... I'm sovereign, the UN can't tell ME what to do" rants...

I could care less about appeals to "National Sovereignty" it does not really exist, as UN members... That's the simple truth...

Ah, but you said it yourself...

...as soon as we enter the United Nations, our sovereignty only extends as far as limits imposed by Resolution; where resolution is silent; sovereignty still stands.


If they want to support a repeal on a particular resolution, the formulation should be larger in scope than "Resolution X violates my sovereignty"... Any resolution you can pick will violate SOMEONE's sovereignty in this body... Which makes all "sovereignty" claims inherantly non-issues... The people should either obey it and formulate a valid and functional set of real reasons for why it should be left to states, or resign.... May sound harsh; but that's how it works... As long as they are going to whine about sovereignty violations; their going to be getting bitchslapped around the UN forums for annoying everyone with "no... I'm sovereign, the UN can't tell ME what to do" rants...

I would suggest that you start making a distinction between the two different statements.

A: I'm a sovereign nation, the UN can't tell me what to do!

B: This UN resolution (X) is violating my national sovereignty!

The first statement is nonsense, because it denies the fact that the UN has the power to violate a nation's sovereignty. The second is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the UN has the power to violate national sovereignty, and implies a dislike of that violation. I don't think we should just insult the intelligence of people simply because they dislike a violation of national sovereignty.