NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN has seemed to take control of everything, now they are forcing countries to support stem cell research. The UN is now FORCING countries to fund stem cell research, this should be left up to countries in their choices, but once again The UN is overriding nation's all the time, the UN is out of control, same thing with abortion rights, etc.... I don't necisarrly disagree with them, but each nation decide how far these things go. Especially funding. I hope somebody draws up a proposal to Draw a line for national soverignity and disimiss the Stem cell research funding, my country will fund, but in our way. Why does the UN get to decide this?
So its Wrigleyivy's choice to resign, unless a National/UN soverginty line is drawn. Thank you.

The UN does not decide what is enforced and what isn't. It is a democractic body where people vote for what they think should be law throughout the UN.

If something passes then more people wanted it than didn't. And when something doesn't pass (which does happen) it means more people didn't want it than did.

If the concept of national sovereignty is being eroded it is because the majority of the UN members who care about it (one way or the other) want it that way.

Tekania and I are having an interesting debate on this issue, I suggest you check it out (scroll down a bit)by clicking on this link (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377622&page=2) if you haven't already. I don't want the people of your nation to lose UN protection just because of a stem cell issue.

Someone really needs to organize a National Sovereignty bloc.

The UN has seemed to take control of everything, now they are forcing countries to support stem cell research. The UN is now FORCING countries to fund stem cell research, this should be left up to countries in their choices, but once again The UN is overriding nation's all the time, the UN is out of control, same thing with abortion rights, etc.... I don't necisarrly disagree with them, but each nation decide how far these things go. Especially funding. I hope somebody draws up a proposal to Draw a line for national soverignity and disimiss the Stem cell research funding, my country will fund, but in our way. Why does the UN get to decide this?
So its Wrigleyivy's choice to resign, unless a National/UN soverginty line is drawn. Thank you.

1) Feel free to slam the door on your way out.

2) Forcing nations to the views of the majority is the purpose of the UN. It says such in the FAQ.

3) If you had actually read the entire stem cell research proposal, you would realize it doesn't force you to research at all. It does force you to pay for it if you do. Please, feel free to slam the door as hard as you like.

4) You agreed to give up national sovereignity when you joined. Try reading the FAQ.

5) The UN decides this because someone thinks its a good idea and the majority agrees. It's a true democracy, which is why it annoys so many people. The NSUN manages to accomplish something the real US will never be capable of and illustrates exactly why democracy is a bad idea: The majority rules the minority.

A NS National Soverginity bloc? That'd be the NSNS Campaign? *grins* See where you're coming from, but frankly as far as I can see if you join the UN you accept that you're going to loose some National Soverignity.

I can see where the NS-plantiffs are coming from, and yes lines should be drawn- but every nation has a different value of their own Sov-ness, and an act to limit what could come before the UN would violate NS rules, surely?

The UN has seemed to take control of everything, now they are forcing countries to support stem cell research. The UN is now FORCING countries to fund stem cell research, this should be left up to countries in their choices, but once again The UN is overriding nation's all the time, the UN is out of control, same thing with abortion rights, etc.... I don't necisarrly disagree with them, but each nation decide how far these things go. Especially funding. I hope somebody draws up a proposal to Draw a line for national soverignity and disimiss the Stem cell research funding, my country will fund, but in our way. Why does the UN get to decide this?
So its Wrigleyivy's choice to resign, unless a National/UN soverginty line is drawn. Thank you.

Bye.

National Sovereignty: A myth propagated by UN members who don't read the FAQ.

In other words, the UN can override a nations laws. Deal with it.

The UN has seemed to take control of everything, now they are forcing countries to support stem cell research. The UN is now FORCING countries to fund stem cell research, this should be left up to countries in their choices, but once again The UN is overriding nation's all the time, the UN is out of control, same thing with abortion rights, etc.... I don't necisarrly disagree with them, but each nation decide how far these things go. Especially funding. I hope somebody draws up a proposal to Draw a line for national soverignity and disimiss the Stem cell research funding, my country will fund, but in our way. Why does the UN get to decide this?
So its Wrigleyivy's choice to resign, unless a National/UN soverginty line is drawn. Thank you.

You hung your national sovereignty jacket in the coat closet when you pressed the "Join" button; and it is made available to you upon pressing the "resign" button...

The UN gets to decide this because someone proposed the idea; enough delegates (including me) approved it so that it could make it to floor vote where all members and delegates got to vote yes or no on it (though while I approved it; I voted no based on regional decision), and therefore the body of voting UN members made the decision by majority vote that this issue was capable of overriding whatever decisions member nations themselves made in their own states...

Someone really needs to organize a National Sovereignty bloc.

Gatesville is a region that typically leans towards protecting national sovereignty. I've interacted with a few gatesville nations and found them to be very intelligent and sincere.

But you are right, it would be easy for a nation to create an invision forum were active UN members from many regions could coordinate their efforts and work as a bloc.

Two months ago many nations were predicting the end of the UN when the Goontopians first appeared and later when UN repeals were legalized. I think the only two results of that were for more proposals to reach the queue and more nations to take an interest in the UN, but that also could be easily accounted for based on the assumption that more kids are using school computers now. :)

Tekania and I are having an interesting debate on this issue, I suggest you check it out (scroll down a bit)by clicking on this link (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377622&page=2) if you haven't already. I don't want the people of your nation to lose UN protection just because of a stem cell issue.

Someone really needs to organize a National Sovereignty bloc.

So long as you don't make it a resolution - which was judged as "illegal" by the Moderators.

Leave the UN. It's what I did. They're so damn corrupt I'd be ashamed to be a part of them.

Leave the UN. It's what I did. They're so damn corrupt I'd be ashamed to be a part of them.

I always wonder who this "they" that these people keep talking about is... And how are "they" corrupt...




****
"I am a politician; and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollipops."
****

So long as you don't make it a resolution - which was judged as "illegal" by the Moderators.

Are they suggesting that?

I thought Adam Island was talking about a voting "bloc", not a proposed resolution.

bloc: a group of people, as voters or legislators, or a coalition of factions, political parties, or interest groups, that works or votes for or against specific bills, proposals, or ideas

Are they suggesting that?

I thought Adam Island was talking about a voting "bloc", not a proposed resolution.

bloc: a group of people, as voters or legislators, or a coalition of factions, political parties, or interest groups, that works or votes for or against specific bills, proposals, or ideas

I'm all for a voting bloc. Just not a resolution. I don't mind a party line or lines being drawn.

I'm all for a voting bloc. Just not a resolution. I don't mind a party line or lines being drawn.

The problem about bloc voting is finding a watered-down enough core platform that still is coehesive enough to form a unqiue and meaningful bloc around. I suggest looking at the "complex" issues that separate the RL Republican and Democratic parties. :/

What happened to national sovereignty?

It's just outside, fighting a losing battle.

Na... tion... al... Sov... er... eign... ty...?

You been drinking the Special Gnome Brew, boy? Cause, that stuff's designed for Gnomes, not UN Delegates... you're probably just hallucinating. It'll wear off eventually.

- "That's my brew!"
UN Gnome #1713f255

*Steals all teh gnome juice*

Seriously though, there is an unofficial part of the rules that encourages people to only address matters of international significance. Even if peoples interperatations of that so far have been painfully inappropriate.

The problem about bloc voting is finding a watered-down enough core platform that still is coehesive enough to form a unqiue and meaningful bloc around. I suggest looking at the "complex" issues that separate the RL Republican and Democratic parties. :/

Yea, that's true. And to be honest, I can't think of a resolution off the top of my head that I want to repeal. It seems most of the posters in these forums already have a decent concept of sovereignty. Its real purpose would be to remind people that just because you're allowed to make lots of rules doesn't mean you should. And to encourage people to read the FAQ and the stickies for themselves instead of taking others' word for it.

A Sovereignty Region sounds like a good idea - like-minded nations tired of the UN stomping on their rights, with the liberal tyranny of the majority enforcing gay marriage, abortion-on-demand, and stem-cell research funding.

A Sovereignty Region sounds like a good idea - like-minded nations tired of the UN stomping on their rights, with the liberal tyranny of the majority enforcing gay marriage, abortion-on-demand, and stem-cell research funding.

Consider this an illustration of why democracy is good on paper, but bad in practice. It's one of the many reasons I laugh at my own real-life nation for holding it so high in value.

Yea, that's true. And to be honest, I can't think of a resolution off the top of my head that I want to repeal. It seems most of the posters in these forums already have a decent concept of sovereignty. Its real purpose would be to remind people that just because you're allowed to make lots of rules doesn't mean you should. And to encourage people to read the FAQ and the stickies for themselves instead of taking others' word for it.

On the subject of repeals, there isn't a resolution I'd want to spearhead the campaign to remove, with one exception. As a technical motion, I'd love to see the original Required Basic Healthcare resolution removed. I've hestitated continuing my work there when I found out that a bloc that I appreciate actually wanted to repeal the the RBH Replacement instead.

I just don't like two resolutions sitting in the queue when one of them claims to have amended the previous one.

As for promoting sovereignty, I'm still wrestling with coming up with a sexy enough way to encourage new nations to study UN history and move from there.

Ignorance and eagerness combined in new players is probably to blame for some of the more "federal" tones that UN resolutions have taken. While I encourage eagerness and participation (even when it is coming from view-points to which my government is politically opposed to), we need to do a better job at conveying our (the UN's) history.

We also need to tie back into roleplaying more.

IMHO: NSWiki and the UNA are great starts.

Here is a larger question ... do you (to all) have UN regulars see a balance of the following archtypes:


Advocates
Archivists
Compromisers / Peacemakers
Motivators

Ok seya all, have fun passing laws that the real UN doesn't (Does SOUTH AMERICA) give abortioin rights NO, they barley just started allowing diviorce, I am sick of the UN opressing the minority, the majority isn't always right, just look at the 1860's and reconstruction, majority of the people in power were for white supremacy even though slavry was gone. So as the Diplomat of Wrigleyivy, It is my announcment to withdraw Wrigleyivy from the UN.
Goodbye :sniper: :) :) :)

Ok seya all, have fun passing laws that the real UN doesn't (Does SOUTH AMERICA) give abortioin rights NO, they barley just started allowing diviorce, I am sick of the UN opressing the minority, the majority isn't always right, just look at the 1860's and reconstruction, majority of the people in power were for white supremacy even though slavry was gone. So as the Diplomat of Wrigleyivy, It is my announcment to withdraw Wrigleyivy from the UN.
Goodbye :sniper: :) :) :)

I wasn't aware that granting people rights was a form of "oppression"...

Help... Help.... I can't oppress people anymore, I'm being oppressed!!!! Come see the violence inherant in the system!!!

I wasn't aware that granting people rights was a form of "oppression"...

Help... Help.... I can't oppress people anymore, I'm being oppressed!!!! Come see the violence inherant in the system!!!

I think that he means the UN is opressing the rights of those who want to opress the rights of other people :}

Ok seya all, have fun passing laws that the real UN doesn't (Does SOUTH AMERICA) give abortioin rights NO, they barley just started allowing diviorce, I am sick of the UN opressing the minority, the majority isn't always right, just look at the 1860's and reconstruction, majority of the people in power were for white supremacy even though slavry was gone. So as the Diplomat of Wrigleyivy, It is my announcment to withdraw Wrigleyivy from the UN.
Goodbye :sniper: :) :) :)

Okay, that was partially coherent.

You don't like the majority ruling? Like I said, feel free to slam the door as hard as you like. You wanna oppress, you should have thought about the fact we may not allow you to do it.

I think that he means the UN is opressing the rights of those who want to opress the rights of other people :}

More or less... But, you can also view it as a form of justice... Those who want to oppress the minority in their nation; are enough of a minority to be oppressed in the UN =)) If my nation were a theocracy, I'd call it devine retribution.... =D

Even though it was full of typos, he's right. National soverignty is simply gone the second you join the UN. The UN is passing so much legislation that it has no buisness passing that to be a member is to be a slave to the majority. The solution here is to drop out, and get as many other people out as possible.

The liberals seem pretty content with the joint. Then again, they seem pretty content with anything short of anarchy. And they might even be content with that eventually. ;)

*Steals all teh gnome juice*

Seriously though, there is an unofficial part of the rules that encourages people to only address matters of international significance. Even if peoples interperatations of that so far have been painfully inappropriate.

Awww. Oh well, so long as you're here, have a look around.... this is the dumpster where we throw your "national soverignty" once you click that there button... you did read the fine print, didn't you?

The liberals seem pretty content with the joint. Then again, they seem pretty content with anything short of anarchy. And they might even be content with that eventually. ;)

Of course........

What exactly is a "liberal" and what exactly is a "conservative"?

And what am I?
Considering I'm:

Pro Capital Punishment (is used in a proper, just and fair manner).(typical "conservative")

Pro citizen gun rights, and concealed weapons permits.(typical "conservative")

Pro Choice.(typical "liberal")

Pro religious freedom.(typical "?")

Anti social-welfare.(typical "conservative")

Anti Corporate-welfare.(typical "?")

....

Hmmm, I must not fit into this bullshit lie of a left<->right/liberal<->conservative political spectrum that small-minded defeatist morons keep trying to shove everyone in.

Of course........

What exactly is a "liberal" and what exactly is a "conservative"?

And what am I?
Considering I'm:

Pro Capital Punishment (is used in a proper, just and fair manner).(typical "conservative")

Pro citizen gun rights, and concealed weapons permits.(typical "conservative")

Pro Choice.(typical "liberal")

Pro religious freedom.(typical "?")

Anti social-welfare.(typical "conservative")

Anti Corporate-welfare.(typical "?")

....

Hmmm, I must not fit into this bullshit lie of a left<->right/liberal<->conservative political spectrum that small-minded defeatist morons keep trying to shove everyone in.


Here here! And Americans don't even use the labels the same way the rest of the world does... in fact, what is a 'conservative' or 'liberal' changes from year to year, nation to nation. A communist in America is a "liberal" but a communist in Russia is a "conservative." I just use the labels to smear people, lol.

I don't think anyone thinks exactly along party lines. I stand for some liberal agendas myself. Dispite my support of our president, he's further to the right on alot of issues, and I disagree with him often.

Well, I personally map in political spectrum through a 2 axis concept;
The "X" Axis represented by "Socialist" and "Capitalist"
and the "Y" Axis represented by "Libertarian" and "Statist"

Regardless of what your viewpoints are, you fit on the plot somwhere.

The UN has seemed to take control of everything, now they are forcing countries to support stem cell research. The UN is now FORCING countries to fund stem cell research, this should be left up to countries in their choices, but once again The UN is overriding nation's all the time, the UN is out of control, same thing with abortion rights, etc.... I don't necisarrly disagree with them, but each nation decide how far these things go. Especially funding. I hope somebody draws up a proposal to Draw a line for national soverignity and disimiss the Stem cell research funding, my country will fund, but in our way. Why does the UN get to decide this?
So its Wrigleyivy's choice to resign, unless a National/UN soverginty line is drawn. Thank you.

So why join the UN?

IHelp... Help.... I can't oppress people anymore, I'm being oppressed!!!! Come see the violence inherant in the system!!!
Oh lord!

Do you mind if I use that?

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

Oh lord!

Do you mind if I use that?

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

Go ahead, I borrowed and modified it from Monty Python...

Go ahead, I borrowed and modified it from Monty Python...
Noticed.

Does my bum look big in this?

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

Noticed.

Does my bum look big in this?

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

Nope. But the color doesn't match your eyes. Try the blue one instead.

Nope. But the color doesn't match your eyes. Try the blue one instead.

Don't be silly. Colour isn't goth...

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

So why join the UN?

That's a really good question.

Don't be silly. Colour isn't goth...

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

I was refering to the collar.

Face it... the UN is a voting block by itself. You'd just be subdeviding it, and to be effective you'd still need about half the UN joining you, which may create voting blocks inside your voting block and ad infinitum. :D
That's cool though, because after a while a very small group may be directing the actions of all of them... *calls dibs on being a member in that group* ;)