NationStates Jolt Archive

It has become fashionable once again to discard or belittle arguments of national sovereignty as somehow unworthy of notice. "Yet another UN member who hasn't read the FAQ" seems to be a common slap in the face of new posters. Let's examine this in a bit more detail.

Does the UN have the power to override National Sovereignty?
Yes. Unquestionably. The FAQ makes that abundantly clear.
Originally posted by UN FAQ
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. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass.Does the UN have the right to override National Sovereignty?
Yes and no. Matters of international importance and consequence are rightfully the province of the UN. Who makes the determination of what is or isn't a matter of international importance? The UN Ambassadors of the UN member nations choose that among themselves.

There is no grand scheme by which the UN can rightfully do anything at all, unless the membership grants the organization that right. It is the duty of UN member nations to send a representative who is capable of presenting his or her own national interests, while at the same time considering the validity and effect of those interests on other members of the international community. These members must consider and decide whether the proposal or resolution in question should qualify as the rightful property of the UN. If so, they should present their case. If not, they should vehemently oppose it. National interest MUST be given weight in any ambassador's decision.

Does the UN have the duty to override National Sovereignty?
In cases of international importance that transcend national boundaries, perhaps. Some would include most Human Rights proposals into this category. Others might consider Environmental or Free Trade as paramount. There is no single criterion that any given nation is required to follow in determining their duty to the UN, and Ambassadors should not be chastised for failure to share common values. With more than 37,000 UN member nations, it is absurd to think that every one will agree on any given issue, much less the phrasing and language of its presentation. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the UN have the obligation to override National Sovereignty?
Absolutely not. The UN can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the member nations. The UN also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

On what legal basis can the UN override National Sovereignty?
Rights and Duties of UN States ( http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48) provides the legal precedent for sovereignty in Articles 1-3, while at the same time recognizing the legitimate claims of the UN in Articles 2, 3 and 11. In many ways, this is a restatement of the core [OOC] rules of the game, while providing a critical justification for doing so.

In passing this resolution, the UN has explicitly recognized the concept of National Sovereignty. Thus, under international law, national sovereignty arguments are legal and permissible as legitimate in any argument. As previously stated, those arguments do not in and of themselves provide justification for the passage of a resolution or a repeal, as the UN always retains the power to decide for itself what it worthy of consideration.


Conclusion
On this basis, I maintain that it is [i]legally incorrect to dismiss all such arguments as groundless. The usage of the language, as in all UN discussions, is vital. One must consider the context as well of the content when using or deriding words like right, power, duty, and obligation. Perhaps a bit of guidance towards the correct word or phrase would serve the UN community better than abrupt dismissal of the claim.

Thanks Frisbeeteria :-)

You've obviously put a lot of effort into researching this, hopefully it will clear up some arguments/disputes over Resolutions!

The No Punishment Without Law Proposal can be found here, at the top of the page:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/57109/page=UN_proposal/start=50

Usually the objections based on national sovereignty are made on the basis that though the UN has the power to override national sovereignty, the obligation to do so has been overstepped.

Matters upon which members would morally object should be one of these exceptions. Those of us who wish to form governments with morals should not be subjected to Tyranny by Majority in cases of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment and other moral issues.

Enforced Tolerance is Tyranny by Majority. Far be it for anyone to disagree with the Liberal agenda of the UN!

Usually the objections based on national sovereignty are made on the basis that though the UN has the power to override national sovereignty, the obligation to do so has been overstepped.

Matters upon which members would morally object should be one of these exceptions. Those of us who wish to form governments with morals should not be subjected to Tyranny by Majority in cases of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment and other moral issues.

Enforced Tolerance is Tyranny by Majority. Far be it for anyone to disagree with the Liberal agenda of the UN!
Blood fom a stone, it's like getting blood from a stone...

Enforced Tolerance is Tyranny by Majority. Far be it for anyone to disagree with the Liberal agenda of the UN!

Democracy is tyranny by the majority.

Yes, I believe you will find a lot of resistance on this point. There are those of us who did not wish to sign up for a world government, but rather a place for issues of International importance to discussed and resolved. We didn't want to simply hand over the running of our nations to the UN.

I joined the UN as I saw the repeal process as one way of bringing about reform, to turn back the tide of encroachment on sovereignty. So far, no organized effort has taken place, but I hope for one in the near future.

Usually the objections based on national sovereignty are made on the basis that though the UN has the power to override national sovereignty, the obligation to do so has been overstepped.

Matters upon which members would morally object should be one of these exceptions. Those of us who wish to form governments with morals should not be subjected to Tyranny by Majority in cases of Abortion, Gay Marriage, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment and other moral issues.

Enforced Tolerance is Tyranny by Majority. Far be it for anyone to disagree with the Liberal agenda of the UN!

Well, one concept of furtherment of agenda is "enforced tollerance" (and a scope of furtherment of democracy)... Within the scope of any Republic, the government exists by the consent of the governed... This includes the minority as well as the majority... NSUN Majority vote can override national majority rule, on behalf of national minorities, because, at heart, a discriminiation of a minority in a national government, is an indicative of a failure of that government to its own responsibilities, and an rightful stance of its sovereign invalidation on that issue, to protect the minority... Now, obviously, there are areas where national sovereignty stands; for example, NSUN trying to mandate irreligion amongst the population is an oppressive violation of sovereignty; On the flip side, mandating religious or social liberty is not, even if it is against the will of your populace.... This is against the screams of "oppression" amongst those who are, by NSUN legislation, prevented from "oppressing" a minority, by majority rule...

OOC: On the flip side, it is unlikely that you will understand such universal concepts, Maubachia. Since by your signature, it is obvious you lack any perspective of political motivations of individuals; since you assume anyone who is not a Republican is a liberal socialist pig... And you would be advised to remove your head from your anus, and start developing perspective in your life and politics...

Thank you Freesbit- a lot of posters (on both sides of the issues) seemingly have forgotten exactly what national soveriegnty means.

It has become fashionable once again to discard or belittle arguments of national sovereignty as somehow unworthy of notice. "Yet another UN member who hasn't read the FAQ" seems to be a common slap in the face of new posters. Let's examine this in a bit more detail.

Does the UN have the power to override National Sovereignty?
Yes. Unquestionably. The FAQ makes that abundantly clear.
Does the UN have the right to override National Sovereignty?
Yes and no. Matters of international importance and consequence are rightfully the province of the UN. Who makes the determination of what is or isn't a matter of international importance? The UN Ambassadors of the UN member nations choose that among themselves.

There is no grand scheme by which the UN can rightfully do anything at all, unless the membership grants the organization that right. It is the duty of UN member nations to send a representative who is capable of presenting his or her own national interests, while at the same time considering the validity and effect of those interests on other members of the international community. These members must consider and decide whether the proposal or resolution in question should qualify as the rightful property of the UN. If so, they should present their case. If not, they should vehemently oppose it. National interest MUST be given weight in any ambassador's decision.

Does the UN have the duty to override National Sovereignty?
In cases of international importance that transcend national boundaries, perhaps. Some would include most Human Rights proposals into this category. Others might consider Environmental or Free Trade as paramount. There is no single criterion that any given nation is required to follow in determining their duty to the UN, and Ambassadors should not be chastised for failure to share common values. With more than 37,000 UN member nations, it is absurd to think that every one will agree on any given issue, much less the phrasing and language of its presentation. The value of such duty is a variable which can only be set by the member nation.

Does the UN have the obligation to override National Sovereignty?
Absolutely not. The UN can always decide that an issue is not worthy of its consideration, or rightfully belongs to the member nations. The UN also has the ability to change its mind at a later date, as member nations come and go. Consequently, all previous resolutions may now be repealed, assuming some member can create a compelling case to do so.

On what legal basis can the UN override National Sovereignty?
Rights and Duties of UN States ( http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48) provides the legal precedent for sovereignty in Articles 1-3, while at the same time recognizing the legitimate claims of the UN in Articles 2, 3 and 11. In many ways, this is a restatement of the core [OOC] rules of the game, while providing a critical justification for doing so.

In passing this resolution, the UN has explicitly recognized the concept of National Sovereignty. Thus, under international law, national sovereignty arguments are legal and permissible as legitimate in any argument. As previously stated, those arguments do not in and of themselves provide justification for the passage of a resolution or a repeal, as the UN always retains the power to decide for itself what it worthy of consideration.


Conclusion
On this basis, I maintain that it is [i]legally incorrect to dismiss all such arguments as groundless. The usage of the language, as in all UN discussions, is vital. One must consider the context as well of the content when using or deriding words like right, power, duty, and obligation. Perhaps a bit of guidance towards the correct word or phrase would serve the UN community better than abrupt dismissal of the claim.

Heh. Not only is it legally incorrect, most of the time the argument I see used is just an appeal to authority, and therefore invalid. Some people quote the FAQ where Max Barry says that the UN is the chance to mold the world to your vision, and say that because that's what is written in the FAQ, that's what we should do. However, we as a body still have the choice of what to propose, what to approve, and what to vote for. We are the ones with the power to use the NSUN for good or for ill. We decide how to shape the UN, because Max left it to us to do just that.

Wow, Tekania. I'm impressed at how quickly you stooped to this level.

"Diversity in all things except opinion." This is what tires most conservatives, when liberals can't even conceive of someone disagreeing with their "enlightened" opinions, that abortion is a great thing that should be encouraged, marriage is just a piece of paper, life is not precious, especially if inconvenient, etc. Look at how you have convicted me of "thought crimes."

Minority rights in the UN. That's what we're looking for. Though we may not be a majority, our opinions are summarily ignored in these hot-button issues, and we are forced to accept the will of the majority. Those are the rules, and so be it, but we don't have to like it. We'll keep working to turn back the assault on moral values.

First, my government is often extremely annoyed with the representatives who frequently yell at others "you didn't read the FAQ". True or not, membership in the UN is voluntary. Furthermore, arguments often used against many classifications of resolutions revolve around the "handicapping" nature of UN regulations. The conclusion is that the fewer nations in the UN, the greater the disparity UN resolutions will create between member states and non-member states. That said, it is in our own self interest to keep nations interested and participating in the UN. Yelling at a newbie is not the way to do that.

Second, my government has passionately supported and drafted many proposals and resolutions alike. However, it is my government's position that the language of all resolutions is extremely important. The key isn't in accounting for every possibly loophole or defining every last word, but rather to make a strong suggestion that when combined with UN debate will hopefully clearly illustrate the intent and / or will of the international community. That said, my nation believes that UN resolutions should respect the sovereign domestic laws of member nations, and that UN resolutions are in fact designed to politely move nations towards a common goal, not overwrite domestic laws such that they all read exactly the same.

Wow, Tekania. I'm impressed at how quickly you stooped to this level.

"Diversity in all things except opinion." This is what tires most conservatives, when liberals can't even conceive of someone disagreeing with their "enlightened" opinions, that abortion is a great thing that should be encouraged, marriage is just a piece of paper, life is not precious, especially if inconvenient, etc. Look at how you have convicted me of "thought crimes."

Minority rights in the UN. That's what we're looking for. Though we may not be a majority, our opinions are summarily ignored in these hot-button issues, and we are forced to accept the will of the majority. Those are the rules, and so be it, but we don't have to like it. We'll keep working to turn back the assault on moral values.

You have your rights, you can do anything you wish, except oppress minorities in the name of nebulatalism...

I believe the real key is how the argument of national soverigenty is being used.

As you clearly pointed out in the first post, the use of national sovereignty in an argument does not automatically make an argument valid or invalid, but is largely a situational matter. However, the use of 'national sovereignty' as an argument, is invalid.

For example, consider a resolution stating that federal elections must be held every two years.

An invalid argument would be to say "This resolution shouldn't be passed because I have national sovereignty and my country should be able to do whatever it wants." If that arguement by itself was legitimete, then really no resolutions could ever be passed by the UN.

What is a valid position, however, would be "This resolution violates the national sovereignty of my nation and enforces practices upon my country which it neither wants nor needs. It assumes that every nation has, and values, democracy, and it is immoral for the UN to enforce a system of government upon all nations."

The key difference, really, is that in the second instance we're provided with a reason why national sovereignty should be upheld. It allows other UN nations to evaluate the statement made by the country, and to respond to it. As you've already pointed out, there can be a myriad of reasons why the UN might be overstepping it's bounds, and they can be social, economic, environmental, etc. However, they all provide room for exploration and discussion. If a nation's reasoning is simply that national sovereignty should be upheld in each and every instance, and that the UN never has the right to impose it's will, then realistically they best serve their interests by not being a member of the NSUN. The fact that a nation is a member should serve as proof that they believe there are reasons why sovereignty should or should not be preserved in specific instances, and hence should be able to provide that justification.

Or at least, that's how I see it.

As a perfect example of an invalid "national sovereignty" argument, we have modern proof...


Ok, so I proposed that we repeal the resolution that legalizes euthanasia because it's a violation of national sovriegnty.

This is from the post... The resolution... as you can see:



Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Mirkwood123

Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Because this resolution clearly infringes upon the national sovreignty of UN member states- this is not an international or basic human rights issue, and should be left to individual nations.


is no better....

Why?

Simple: Lack of argument.

It makes statements, which bear no explanation, and encourage a question:

Statement_1:"Because this resolution clearly infringes upon the national sovreignty of UN member states"

Problem: Does it invalidate their sovereignty? Yes. Is it an "infringement"? No. Infringement implies that it is an unauthorized breech, outside of its scope of power: We all know this to be a patently untrue statement, national sovereignty, as a whole, only extends to the limits that the UN members itself impose upon itself by vote.

Statement_2:"This is not an international or basic human rights issue."

Problem: But it is a "human rights issue" as individual people, are being denied their right, without this resolution, of the ability to die in a dignified and peaceful manner by states which may determine to rather keep uncurable, dying patients alive and suffering to their "natural" end. Is it international? I'd say yes, The problem of patients with incurable disease is an international one; one which every nation invariable has to deal with.

Statement_3:" should be left to individual nations." (Culminations of "national sovereignty" argument)

Problem: No real why... No reason as to [i]why such an issue is better in the hands of the invidual nation...

Minority rights in the UN. That's what we're looking for. Though we may not be a majority, our opinions are summarily ignored in these hot-button issues, and we are forced to accept the will of the majority.

Again - democracy is tyranny by majority.

Examples (in RL) can be seen all over the US and UK - where if enough people don't want something to happen, it doesn't happen, regardless of the views of the people who want it.

True democracy is tyranny by majority - which is pretty much the case of the NS UN. Democracy, by defiinition, is also "rule by the mob."

The US is a representative republic, in which minorities (of opinion) have more of a say in government. In the Senate, they can even filibuster to prevent passage of law, or approval of judicial appointees (though that second part may soon change).

There's no such option in the NS UN.

"Diversity in all things except opinion." This is what tires most conservatives, when liberals can't even conceive of someone disagreeing with their "enlightened" opinions, that abortion is a great thing that should be encouraged, marriage is just a piece of paper, life is not precious, especially if inconvenient, etc. Look at how you have convicted me of "thought crimes."
Have your diversity in opinion but don't use your opinion to oppress people.

To use one example:

In no resolution does it say that you can't think being gay is wrong, you just can't use your opinion to oppress people. You can't stop Mr & Mr Jones from marrying but you are free not to marry another man.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Blood fom a stone, it's like getting blood from a stone...
I should clarify that this comment was made in exasperation at Maubachia's post, not in support.

What makes your beliefs moral but not mine? And why cite Capital Punishment as an example of tyranny by majority? Because its abolishment was voted down by the NSUN? You do realise that, yes? Personally, I find the death penalty despicable and contemptible. However, because it is a hightly contentious issue where both sides claim moral high ground, I'm content to leave it off the UN agenda. Not so much national sovereignty as diplomacy, I suppose.

National sovereignty is a defendable concept in NS: we are nations, that is what we participate with. In the real world, I find the concept distasteful and usually hypocritical. National sovereignty frequently coincides with impinging on others' sovereignty, national or otherwise.

Gah, I'm descending into blither. I really must stop drinking at lunch times.

True democracy is tyranny by majority - which is pretty much the case of the NS UN. Democracy, by defiinition, is also "rule by the mob."

The US is a representative republic, in which minorities (of opinion) have more of a say in government. In the Senate, they can even filibuster to prevent passage of law, or approval of judicial appointees (though that second part may soon change).

There's no such option in the NS UN.

What was that saying I did?

Oh yeah!

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

Sorry bub, this Libertine Republic does not buy your diatribe of meaningless statements and rants.

You claim, appearantly, to be a Republic, therefore, most of the things in this UN, as in the case of Tekania, are in line with furthering the ideals of your own governmental form, as libertine, and free... Republics by nature, do not believe in moralism; they operate in the realm of ethics, not morality.

What was that saying I did?

Oh yeah!

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

Sorry bub, this Libertine Republic does not buy your diatribe of meaningless statements and rants.

You claim, appearantly, to be a Republic, therefore, most of the things in this UN, as in the case of Tekania, are in line with furthering the ideals of your own governmental form, as libertine, and free... Republics by nature, do not believe in moralism; they operate in the realm of ethics, not morality.

I'm curious as to what you think the difference is between ethics and morality, and why ethics would be more appropriate to use in relation to governmental action. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just would like to know.

I'm curious as to what you think the difference is between ethics and morality, and why ethics would be more appropriate to use in relation to governmental action. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just would like to know.

I was never any good at meta-ethics (or spelling it)

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

I'm curious as to what you think the difference is between ethics and morality, and why ethics would be more appropriate to use in relation to governmental action. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just would like to know.

Ethics and Morality, as the Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy, which governs the principles and operations of a Republic, as created by Plato define the two in different realms.

Morality is based on the dogmatic.

Ethics are based upon logic and reason.

Dogmatic Law:
Murder is illegal, because God said, "Thou Shalt not Murder."

Ethics Law:
Murder is illegal, because in a free and libertine society, where everyone is considered equal, one persons rights only extend to the limits of another, which governs all law, including murder. By murdering another, you take away his rights for the benefit of your own; and therefore are in such violation.
---
The first ones to pull the "National Sovereignty" argument are generally the "Right-Wing", or actually, more specifically, are the Hyper-"Right-Wing". And I do not mean pulling it to the extend of arguing reasons as to why it would be better left to individual states to determine (ethical argument for transfer of power back to the state), but the dogmaticist, who believes "National Sovereignty" is an absolute in statements like "[such and such] resolution infringes my national sovereignty", and "The United Nations does not have the power to violate my national sovereignty." Basically the belief that "National Sovereignty" is a universal maxim, that must be observed, and no one, not even an organization which they voluntarily enter, and to which does possess such powers, can tell them what to do in ANY matter.

It begs the question of why they are here, of course, given that the UN provides them nothing but a higher authority that can dictate their own internal policies.

In addition to all this, the same ones who employ "Dogmatic National Sovereignty" beliefs in debates related to the Abortion Rights Resolution and the Gay Rights Resolution, turn around and push international mandation of Capital Punishment in another thread... What makes that odd is the application of such, is clearly invalidated, IOW, if they believe they are capable, and have the root authority to push their religio-morality upon the international community, they must equally believe that the international community can push legal ethics upon them, with equal authority. (Which is absolutely true, to the extent that the UN is capable of overriding national sovereignty in areas the international community, whether it be by the logical ethicists, or the religio-moralists, deems local governments incompitent in the handling of a certain area, that must be rectified.) IOW, they are defeated by their own speech. Because their national sovereignty line, only extends as far as the dictates of their particular dogmatic beliefs, and no further; as opposed to being based upon a weighting of issues related to the line, and a reasoned extrapolation of where this line must be drawn on case by case basis.

Ethics and Morality, as the Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy, which governs the principles and operations of a Republic, as created by Plato define the two in different realms.

Morality is based on the dogmatic.

Ethics are based upon logic and reason.

Dogmatic Law:
Murder is illegal, because God said, "Thou Shalt not Murder."

Ethics Law:
Murder is illegal, because in a free and libertine society, where everyone is considered equal, one persons rights only extend to the limits of another, which governs all law, including murder. By murdering another, you take away his rights for the benefit of your own; and therefore are in such violation.

Ah. The classical definition.

The first ones to pull the "National Sovereignty" argument are generally the "Right-Wing", or actually, more specifically, are the Hyper-"Right-Wing". And I do not mean pulling it to the extend of arguing reasons as to why it would be better left to individual states to determine (ethical argument for transfer of power back to the state), but the dogmaticist, who believes "National Sovereignty" is an absolute in statements like "[such and such] resolution infringes my national sovereignty", and "The United Nations does not have the power to violate my national sovereignty." Basically the belief that "National Sovereignty" is a universal maxim, that must be observed, and no one, not even an organization which they voluntarily enter, and to which does possess such powers, can tell them what to do in ANY matter.

I do hope that you don't generalize me into that group. From what I've seen, there are a few valid arguments that have been made in regard to national sovereignty, but most are crap, and IMO can't even be legitimately called arguments, even in the loosest sense of the term.

It begs the question of why they are here, of course, given that the UN provides them nothing but a higher authority that can dictate their own internal policies.

In addition to all this, the same ones who employ "Dogmatic National Sovereignty" beliefs in debates related to the Abortion Rights Resolution and the Gay Rights Resolution, turn around and push international mandation of Capital Punishment in another thread... What makes that odd is the application of such, is clearly invalidated, IOW, if they believe they are capable, and have the root authority to push their religio-morality upon the international community, they must equally believe that the international community can push legal ethics upon them, with equal authority. (Which is absolutely true, to the extent that the UN is capable of overriding national sovereignty in areas the international community, whether it be by the logical ethicists, or the religio-moralists, deems local governments incompitent in the handling of a certain area, that must be rectified.) IOW, they are defeated by their own speech. Because their national sovereignty line, only extends as far as the dictates of their particular dogmatic beliefs, and no further; as opposed to being based upon a weighting of issues related to the line, and a reasoned extrapolation of where this line must be drawn on case by case basis.

Ah. I'm not so pleased with the hypocrites and inconsistent arguments either. It reflects badly on my own position. Unfortunately, the people who should be helping me improve respect for national sovereignty by the UN are actually alienating possible allies with poor arguments. I'm pretty much screwed, I think.

No, I do not group you in. You make clear consise arguments on a per-issue basis for grounds and scope of principles of sovereignty and power.

And you are right... The Dogmaticists have created an enviroment where even the mentioning of the term "National Sovereignty" can make people cringe and lash out.

No, I do not group you in. You make clear consise arguments on a per-issue basis for grounds and scope of principles of sovereignty and power.

And you are right... The Dogmaticists have created an enviroment where even the mentioning of the term "National Sovereignty" can make people cringe and lash out.

That's part of my reason for writing and posting this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382003), and I suspect it is the reason for Frisbeeteria posting the very thread we are in now.

I suspect it is the reason for Frisbeeteria posting the very thread we are in now.
Partly that, but partly because of those members who are so accustomed to the poorly-phrased sovereignty arguments that they discard it even when it's well presented.

In counter-argument; similar happenings occurr on the flips side:

One group seeks to draw lines, and reason out scope and definition of power where sovereignty lies, UN or national on a per-issue basis.

The other sees the UN as their personnal stomping ground for whatever their pet agenda is. And coined the phrase "If you don't like it leave!"

---

Unfortuneately Group 1 has grabbed that line sometimes too, when reaching a fed up state with Dogmatic Sovereigntists.

More or less, combining the two, since Group 1 of this set is, in reality, no different than the ethicists of the other..... You have three types represented:

1. Moralists
2. Ethicists
3. Radicals

The building politio-ideological contention between the Moralists and Radicals, have pot marked and assaulted the line that we ethicists have to spend all the time fixing, repairing, and upkeeping.

1. Moralists and Radicals are both dogmatic... In different directions... Moralists dogmatically hold religious views. Radicals dogmatically hold irreligious views.
2. Ethicists seek to draw the lines, and scope out the compromise between the extremes.

For the most part, I see most of the UN members, at least the active participatory ones, as Ethicists... Radicals and Moralists both making up minority.

In counter-argument; similar happenings occurr on the flips side:

One group seeks to draw lines, and reason out scope and definition of power where sovereignty lies, UN or national on a per-issue basis.

The other sees the UN as their personnal stomping ground for whatever their pet agenda is. And coined the phrase "If you don't like it leave!"

---

Unfortuneately Group 1 has grabbed that line sometimes too, when reaching a fed up state with Dogmatic Sovereigntists.

More or less, combining the two, since Group 1 of this set is, in reality, no different than the ethicists of the other..... You have three types represented:

1. Moralists
2. Ethicists
3. Radicals

The building politio-ideological contention between the Moralists and Radicals, have pot marked and assaulted the line that we ethicists have to spend all the time fixing, repairing, and upkeeping.

1. Moralists and Radicals are both dogmatic... In different directions... Moralists dogmatically hold religious views. Radicals dogmatically hold irreligious views.
2. Ethicists seek to draw the lines, and scope out the compromise between the extremes.

For the most part, I see most of the UN members, at least the active participatory ones, as Ethicists... Radicals and Moralists both making up minority.

That sounds about right.

I'm actually a moralist. I just play an ethicist on the forum.

But, I like this work being accomplished...

Because, ethicists have to be careful not to step into the bounds of the Moralists or Ethicists...

And this work you and Fris have been doing, has at least aided in, hopefully, preventing people from falling to one side to the other.

Unfortunately, the people who should be helping me improve respect for national sovereignty by the UN are actually alienating possible allies with poor arguments.

"My greatest opponents are the idiots who agree with me."

I think every side of every debate has that problem. :D

For the most part, I see most of the UN members, at least the active participatory ones, as Ethicists... Radicals and Moralists both making up minority.

Oh, how I wish that were true. If most members fell into the group you label "ethicists," we wouldn't need a thread like this. The left-leaning nations would be able to respect national sovereignty in respect to religious decisions, and the right-leaning nations would be able to respect the socialist tendencies inherent in the workings of the UN.

Personally, I wish that Max Berry had never encouraged the UN to breach national sovereignty at all, but he did and that is unchangeable. Therefore, we need to establish some kind of consensus over to what extent national sovereignty can be breached. I'm thinking of some kind of proposal about limiting UN power, but that would probably be in violation of the Game Mechanics rule. I wonder, would it be possible to pass some sort of resolution defining acceptable breach of sovereignty? This really wouldn't be in violation of Game Mechanics, just Max Berry's suggestion.

Anyway, on a lighter note, I would like to thank Fresbeteeria for authoring this thread. I am pleased to see that many of the nations screaming about newbies not reading the FAQ (one of these newbies being the United Socialist States of Nargopia) have commented here. Maybe we can have an international socio-political alliance that doesn't break down into petty bickering instead of relevant debate.

Oh, how I wish that were true. If most members fell into the group you label "ethicists," we wouldn't need a thread like this. The left-leaning nations would be able to respect national sovereignty in respect to religious decisions, and the right-leaning nations would be able to respect the socialist tendencies inherent in the workings of the UN.

Personally, I wish that Max Berry had never encouraged the UN to breach national sovereignty at all, but he did and that is unchangeable. Therefore, we need to establish some kind of consensus over to what extent national sovereignty can be breached. I'm thinking of some kind of proposal about limiting UN power, but that would probably be in violation of the Game Mechanics rule. I wonder, would it be possible to pass some sort of resolution defining acceptable breach of sovereignty? This really wouldn't be in violation of Game Mechanics, just Max Berry's suggestion.

Nope, it would be a violation of Game Mechanics. The UN can do whatever it wants. If a proposal came up ordering all domiciles to be painted brown, and it passed, the maker of brown paint is going to be rich.



Anyway, on a lighter note, I would like to thank Fresbeteeria for authoring this thread. I am pleased to see that many of the nations screaming about newbies not reading the FAQ (one of these newbies being the United Socialist States of Nargopia) have commented here. Maybe we can have an international socio-political alliance that doesn't break down into petty bickering instead of relevant debate.

Five bucks against. Any takers? Anyone? Anyone? :p

This came up this morning as part of the on going debate about the repeal of the 40 Hour Work Week.

Someone was voting for it purely because they think it is a violation of national sovereignty. Which is fair enough, I have no problem with that.

My reply was that the benifits we gain from it outweigh the perceived attack on my national rights. And that is how I Judge the benifits of any proposal and resolution - whether the good in it outweighs the bad.

Quite honestly people who's only arguement is that it invades their national sovereignty bug me (no offence). To me, they sound like people who say that the murder laws of a country iminge on their right to kill people. That speed cameras impinge on their right to speed.

National laws impinge on individual freedoms - they stop you from doing what you want, when you want. So if you step up a scale from national laws to international laws then you are going to step up the level of impingment - from personal to national. But in some cases it gives back more rights to the individuals, taking the power out of the governments hands and putting it back in the peoples, which is good. And some cases it ensures that things are dealt with fairly across all nations, so that one doesn't gain anything over another, which again is a good thing. And some cases ensure that the planet will go on for future generations which is a very good thing.

The only problem comes when the vote doesn't go the way you want. But that's the problem with democracy - oftentimes the other guy wins.

Oh, how I wish that were true. If most members fell into the group you label "ethicists," we wouldn't need a thread like this. The left-leaning nations would be able to respect national sovereignty in respect to religious decisions, and the right-leaning nations would be able to respect the socialist tendencies inherent in the workings of the UN.

Personally, I wish that Max Berry had never encouraged the UN to breach national sovereignty at all, but he did and that is unchangeable. Therefore, we need to establish some kind of consensus over to what extent national sovereignty can be breached. I'm thinking of some kind of proposal about limiting UN power, but that would probably be in violation of the Game Mechanics rule. I wonder, would it be possible to pass some sort of resolution defining acceptable breach of sovereignty? This really wouldn't be in violation of Game Mechanics, just Max Berry's suggestion.

Anyway, on a lighter note, I would like to thank Fresbeteeria for authoring this thread. I am pleased to see that many of the nations screaming about newbies not reading the FAQ (one of these newbies being the United Socialist States of Nargopia) have commented here. Maybe we can have an international socio-political alliance that doesn't break down into petty bickering instead of relevant debate.

Don't give me that "leftist" crap, Rightists are just as bent on stepping through national sovereignty as the rest of it, just not in the same areas of concern.

Most are ethicists, debating on "where" to draw the line. National Sovereignty does not exist as an absolute. And never will, nor should it. You can't uniformly limit UN power by resolution (game mechanics), and once again, nor should you. Sovereignty needs to be handled on a by-issue basis, as it is now.

National Sovereignty should not be an absolute concern, merely a consideration.

National Sovereignty should not be an absolute concern, merely a consideration.

But that's exactly my point. As I see NSUN now, national sovereignty isn't even a consideration. Every time I see a nation bring up the national sovereignty argument, it's immediately ridiculed and shot down, even if that argument was appropriate. The NSUN, in my opinion, is abusing its power. Does it have the right to do that? Yes. Is this breach of national sovereignty necessary? Sometimes. Looking at the real-world UN, I often think that it would be nice if national sovereignty didn't exist, like the issue with North Korea and inspectors or women's rights in the Middle East. However, there are other times when I am glad to see the national sovereignty argument used, as I believe it should be used more in NSUN. I'm not suggesting a system in which nations don't have to listen to NSUN, I'm proposing a check on the power of the UN to regulate laws it has no business regulating.

But that's exactly my point. As I see NSUN now, national sovereignty isn't even a consideration. Every time I see a nation bring up the national sovereignty argument, it's immediately ridiculed and shot down, even if that argument was appropriate. The NSUN, in my opinion, is abusing its power. Does it have the right to do that? Yes. Is this breach of national sovereignty necessary? Sometimes. Looking at the real-world UN, I often think that it would be nice if national sovereignty didn't exist, like the issue with North Korea and inspectors or women's rights in the Middle East. However, there are other times when I am glad to see the national sovereignty argument used, as I believe it should be used more in NSUN. I'm not suggesting a system in which nations don't have to listen to NSUN, I'm proposing a check on the power of the UN to regulate laws it has no business regulating.

Inherantly there is no "national sovereignty" amongst members. This is where the problem lays. the NSUN is the Confederation into which we entered, and it is the NSUN ruling body (council of members) which posess sovereignty against outside nations. The NSUN is in fact the "Nation" we have become merely "member states".... Thus the issue being presented is not "National Sovereignty" it is "State Sovereignty"... which does exist, in that the NSUN is a voluntary confederation of states. You gave up your nationhood the moment you entered the NSUN. This concept will not change. Because it is the foundation of the NSUN's design.

Since the issue is state sovereignty, rather than national sovereignty. There is technically no bounds to NSUN power and authority. And therefore the concept of there being "laws" which "the UN.... has no business regulating" is simply a dillusion by the "National Sovereigntists" to attempt against the NSUN to become oppressive upon their own population.

All you cry babies crying about your "national sovereignty" need to shut up. The whole point of the UN is to force minority nations to follow the majority! DUH!!!!! If you want your sovereignty, then quit the UN.

All you cry babies crying about your "national sovereignty" need to shut up. The whole point of the UN is to force minority nations to follow the majority! DUH!!!!! If you want your sovereignty, then quit the UN.
Y'know, some of us were having a reasonable and relatively adult conversation here.