NationStates Jolt Archive

Just Curious here, but why are we getting a glut of useless proposals, things such as legalizing gambling or required nudity, for example, things that are already sufficiently covered by the daily issues we already get? What is the point of this? If a daily issue covers it, then the individual countries may control their own destiny, but with a proposal, it becomes mandatory for everybody. These superfluous proposals also take up space and time that could be better served by proposals NOT covered by the daily issues.

Just Curious here, but why are we getting a glut of useless proposals, things such as legalizing gambling or required nudity, for example, things that are already sufficiently covered by the daily issues we already get? What is the point of this? If a daily issue covers it, then the individual countries may control their own destiny, but with a proposal, it becomes mandatory for everybody. These superfluous proposals also take up space and time that could be better served by proposals NOT covered by the daily issues.

Well - I can think of a few reasons.
Firstly - having a proposal brought to the floor, and then getting it passed to become a resolution, is not something that is easy to do, and if you can manage it you have made a permenent mark in the game - something that will stay on record regardless of how long the game runs for. That alone sometimes make people think it is worth the effort.
Secondly - every nation has their own views about what should or should not be in the purview of the UN. So while you may think that a proposal to enforce public nudity throughout the UN is a waste of time, there might be other nations out there who think it is GREAT and should be made law right now.
Thirdly - there are 150 odd daily issues? (I don't know the exact count), and they are being added to all the time. So eventually there will be nothing that the UN has the ability to have control over that is not dealt with in a local issue, meaning the UN would become superflous. (For example euthanasia is dealt with on a local issue basis, but the UN resolution superceeds any choice that is made, as far as I am aware).
Finally - I think they are mostly from relatively new nations (though I could be wrong about that). And it is a good way to get their feet wet - learning what the UN can and can't do, how to write a proposal, the best way to get it approved and so forth. I don't know the stats, but very few nations get their first resolution approved and passed at the first attempt - so they learn how to modify it, revise it and - most of all - (hopefully) how to debate the issues with the other nations so the proposal can get better and not appears as a waste of time.

But I will admit I do look at some of them and go "what in Delaya's name were they thinking?" - but that is just the way of things :}

Yes, but just because something is, as you put it, GREAT for one nation does not mean it has relevency to other nations, so why should we have proposals that mandate that EVERYbody do something that benefits a few, when with the daily issues you have the CHOICE of what to do. And if that makes the UN superfluous, then so be it. I think that some of the proposals and resolutions are entirely too intrusive anyhow.

Let the daily issues decide, and make proposals for what is not covered already. Lets stop the duplication of effort, please.

It's what the UN is for. I can't remember the thread, or the quote, but basically it says the UN is a chance to make the world a better place, or to turn try to mold it to your world view (depending if you are an optimist or a cynic I suppose).

Take trees for example. There are daily issues to strip mine nations, burn down trees and generally destroy all the woodland areas in a nation. However by doing that you could upset the balance on a global scale. Which I think merits it as a topic for UN consideration (and as it turns out there was a resolution passed about it).

So although there may be daily issues about it, there is some stuff that really is more international than national, and so should be the issue of the UN.

Some people might agree with you that the UN has too much power and interferes too much in daily life on certain topics, but that is why democracy is such a crappy government system - it isn't what all the people want, it's the will of the majority (aka Mob Rule). But in comparrison to the alternatives - all of us conducting our nations as we see fit with little thought to people in other nations - I think it does bring us together in a (more or less) common goal to work for the (more or less) common good.

)edit(

Also - and this will sound very patronising but eh - not every proposal is passed. They all need to be approved, then passed by a majority (which generally rounds out at 8000 to 10,000 votes, in my limited experience). So it is generally not so much the case that it is good for a few nations, more so that a lot of nations think it will be good.

i am starting to dislike the UN more and more, i have even heard talk about them putting laws that greatly affect non UN nations, i thought this was supposed to be impossible. I don't remember where i heard it but remember hearing it here somewhere. i am starting to get the desire to start an Anti-UN group and hope to get powerful enough to wage war on the UN :mp5: but hey it doesn't seem possible so Magnificata will keep on sacrificing itself to get it's point of view into the UN.

Yes, your last statement WAS rather patronizing, but I won't allow myself to be drawn into a flame war here.

The thing that bothers me most with the proposals that do make to a vote by the full UN, and thats what I'm talking about here, not just the idiot-proposals that never have a chance, is the Orwellian nature of most of them. All too many give the impression that the worlds problems can all be solved if only you add more bureaucrats, make it mandatory for all, raise taxes to pay for it. Adding endless bureaucratic empires is not the answer. "I think this is a good idea, so lets make it mandatory for everybody to do it" is not the answer.

I still say that we should let each nation decide for themselves through the daily issues and leave off all the panacea merchants.

It's what the UN is for. I can't remember the thread, or the quote, but basically it says the UN is a chance to make the world a better place, or to turn try to mold it to your world view (depending if you are an optimist or a cynic I suppose).

Take trees for example. There are daily issues to strip mine nations, burn down trees and generally destroy all the woodland areas in a nation. However by doing that you could upset the balance on a global scale. Which I think merits it as a topic for UN consideration (and as it turns out there was a resolution passed about it).

So although there may be daily issues about it, there is some stuff that really is more international than national, and so should be the issue of the UN.

Some people might agree with you that the UN has too much power and interferes too much in daily life on certain topics, but that is why democracy is such a crappy government system - it isn't what all the people want, it's the will of the majority (aka Mob Rule). But in comparrison to the alternatives - all of us conducting our nations as we see fit with little thought to people in other nations - I think it does bring us together in a (more or less) common goal to work for the (more or less) common good.

)edit(

Also - and this will sound very patronising but eh - not every proposal is passed. They all need to be approved, then passed by a majority (which generally rounds out at 8000 to 10,000 votes, in my limited experience). So it is generally not so much the case that it is good for a few nations, more so that a lot of nations think it will be good.

i have even heard talk about them putting laws that greatly affect non UN nations, i thought this was supposed to be impossible. I don't remember where i heard it but remember hearing it here somewhere.

I sincerely hope the powers that be are not considering something as ridiculous as that. I already cringe every time I log in and see a new and even more ridiculous than the last proposition on the deck, ready to drive my stats into the dirt. Pulling out of the United Nations and being a rogue nation is the only way to protect our nation from its 'tendrils of taxation'. I should hope that the United Nations will not be allowed to impose its will upon those nations that choose not to join the ranks because of the way the system works.

Waging a crusade against the United Nations will never come to pass, but you can bet there will be an unholy stink if the assembly tries to impose a decisively unpopular move such as that. I am a member of the United Nations, I do not agree with any half-baked notion that it should be allowed to dictate to non-member nations what it should and should not do. I would certainly be the very first to resign my Delegate status and remove myself from the United Nations altogether.

I haven't seen any indication it is trying to dictate laws on non-member nations, and I have seen a few proposals deleted for trying it.

However it can have resolutions that dictate how Member Nations can deal with non-Member Nations. And I can see nothing wrong with that.

The thing that bothers me most with the proposals that do make to a vote by the full UN, and thats what I'm talking about here, not just the idiot-proposals that never have a chance, is the Orwellian nature of most of them. All too many give the impression that the worlds problems can all be solved if only you add more bureaucrats, make it mandatory for all, raise taxes to pay for it. Adding endless bureaucratic empires is not the answer. "I think this is a good idea, so lets make it mandatory for everybody to do it" is not the answer.

I still say that we should let each nation decide for themselves through the daily issues and leave off all the panacea merchants.
If you want to be able to make all your own decisions all you need to do is simply leave the UN.

_Myopia_ supports many proposals which is already covered by daily issues or is viewed by many as too intrusive on national sovereignty, because we believe that sapient beings all deserve certain rights and freedoms, even if their national government disagrees, and even if the majority of them in any one nation disagree.

If 1% of a UN member's population wants to be able to visit or be a prostitute, and the other 99% disagree, national governments probably won't provide that right when confronted with the relevant issue. However, we think that that 1% still deserve the right to do what they will with their bodies, so are happy to have the UN force legalisation on such nations.

OOC: As to directing non-members, this is illegal according to the game rules.

If you want to be able to make all your own decisions all you need to do is simply leave the UN.

Or he could stay in and try to make the UN truly tolerant of the world's diverse beliefs and customs. That choice is also quite valid.

Or he could stay in and try to make the UN truly tolerant of the world's diverse beliefs and customs. That choice is also quite valid.

When people become tolerant, than it is valid. Until then, if the UN doesn't choose one side, the other will force their way through.

I just honestly don't understand why people submit proposals that they know won't pass. If you are going to submit some one sentence resolution with ten spelling mistakes that there are ten other of already in the UN (that are probably better, too), then why post it? I see a lot of proposals that could never even have a chance of passing.

I just honestly don't understand why people submit proposals that they know won't pass. If you are going to submit some one sentence resolution with ten spelling mistakes that there are ten other of already in the UN (that are probably better, too), then why post it? I see a lot of proposals that could never even have a chance of passing.

I think that that can be explained by the fact a lot of people don't read the stickies here, and the FAQ. And because people have the power to do it. But if democracy is to flourish (which is to be hoped) in the UN then everyone must have the power to submit any proposal, even if it is illegal and will be deleted, or badly typed and so on, when it might be ignored.

But to be honest - the only problem I have with spelling and grammar errors in proposals is if it makes the proposal unclear and open to interpretation.

When people become tolerant, than it is valid. Until then, if the UN doesn't choose one side, the other will force their way through.

Do you feel better now?

If you want to be able to make all your own decisions all you need to do is simply leave the UN.

Why should I be forced to leave the UN because of the actions of others? Do I not have the right to voice my opinion on issues the same as everybody else? Because I oppose something, does that mean I cannot have my say? I am getting VERY tired of hearing "if you don't like it, leave the UN". That solves nothing except to leave the UN in the hands of the panacea merchants.

Why should I be forced to leave the UN because of the actions of others? Do I not have the right to voice my opinion on issues the same as everybody else? Because I oppose something, does that mean I cannot have my say? I am getting VERY tired of hearing "if you don't like it, leave the UN". That solves nothing except to leave the UN in the hands of the panacea merchants.

But if you have the right to voice your opinion, about what proposals should be passed and what shouldn't, doesn't everyone else have that right?

Why should I be forced to leave the UN because of the actions of others? Do I not have the right to voice my opinion on issues the same as everybody else? Because I oppose something, does that mean I cannot have my say? I am getting VERY tired of hearing "if you don't like it, leave the UN". That solves nothing except to leave the UN in the hands of the panacea merchants.
you could say your opinion, even if nobody listen and your proposals will fail to get enough endoresments.
you could say that even if anybody tell you that you're wrong.
the only thing you can't do is say the UN had no right for deciding in some issue, or say that you ignore resolution you dosen't like.
if you want to do the last things I said, leave the UN.

you could say your opinion, even if nobody listen and your proposals will fail to get enough endoresments.
you could say that even if anybody tell you that you're wrong.
the only thing you can't do is say the UN had no right for deciding in some issue, or say that you ignore resolution you dosen't like.
if you want to do the last things I said, leave the UN.


I didn't quite follow all of that, but they can say whatever they like. Anyone can say the UN made a mistake in voting on something. It is the nature of governmental and quasi-governmental entities to venture into areas they have no business being in and it is the nature of people to oppose that encroachment. Obviously everyone doesn't agree. That's the point of having a UN to begin with. Grays Harbor makes a good point about the nature of some of the proposals. Don't think so? Go read the thread about trying to reintroduce slavery guised as a prison system.

Everyone has an opinion. Telling someone to leave because of their opinion is about as useful as telling them what they can or can't say.

I didn't quite follow all of that, but they can say whatever they like. Anyone can say the UN made a mistake in voting on something. It is the nature of governmental and quasi-governmental entities to venture into areas they have no business being in and it is the nature of people to oppose that encroachment. Obviously everyone doesn't agree. That's the point of having a UN to begin with. Grays Harbor makes a good point about the nature of some of the proposals. Don't think so? Go read the thread about trying to reintroduce slavery guised as a prison system.

Everyone has an opinion. Telling someone to leave because of their opinion is about as useful as telling them what they can or can't say.
maybe I wasn't clear enough, but as I said I think he has the right to have opinion.
all I said is:1-you have to folow all the UN decisions while you're member of the UN.
2-you can't use national sovereignty argument for reapeling proposals.

Why should I be forced to leave the UN because of the actions of others? Do I not have the right to voice my opinion on issues the same as everybody else? Because I oppose something, does that mean I cannot have my say? I am getting VERY tired of hearing "if you don't like it, leave the UN". That solves nothing except to leave the UN in the hands of the panacea merchants.
All I'm saying is that if you don't want the UN overruling you, all you have to do is leave.

maybe I wasn't clear enough, but as I said I think he has the right to have opinion.
all I said is:1-you have to folow all the UN decisions while you're member of the UN.
2-you can't use national sovereignty argument for reapeling proposals.
Yes, I saw that. But I did not see anywhere where Grays Harbor stated they wouldn't follow UN decisions so I don't understand that portion of your post. As to national sovereignty not being a sound argument for repealing proposals, how so? The repeal of legalized prostitution used this argument as its basis.

Yes, I saw that. But I did not see anywhere where Grays Harbor stated they wouldn't follow UN decisions so I don't understand that portion of your post. As to national sovereignty not being a sound argument for repealing proposals, how so? The repeal of legalized prostitution used this argument as its basis.
actually as I see it the repealing of the prostitution legalization passed only after they aim to the health arguments. before that, the failed many times using national sovereignty arguments, because the UN ignore those arguments.
also, I never said he said something. I just said what he can't an what he can do, in response to his post about the fact he think someone told him he shouldn't complain.

Yes, I saw that. But I did not see anywhere where Grays Harbor stated they wouldn't follow UN decisions so I don't understand that portion of your post. I'd suggest treating that particular argument as the cheap tactical ploy it is. It's an attempt to taunt nations who disagree with the dominant faction into resigning. I find it laughably transparent. And it's noticable that the nations most prone to using it tend not to be the better debators of the UN.As to national sovereignty not being a sound argument for repealing proposals, how so? The repeal of legalized prostitution used this argument as its basis.
And again, what that actually means is that the nation doesn't consider it a basis they'd acknowlege. And for some reason they think they can speak for the entire UN.

Just for the record,

1.) I have been entrusted by the members of a fairly prominent region to be their UN delegate, therefore resigning from the UN is not an option.

2.) I would like to thank those who pointed out that nowhere did I ever say that I would not follow UN resolutions. I may disagree with them, yes, and attempt to have those I disagree with the most repealed, but while they are in force, my nation abides by them. We are an extremely honour-bound society. To do otherwise would be anathema to us.

3.) Any proposals or resolutions that I disagree with, I feel it my responsibility to debate against them. To do otherwise would be surrenduring my rights as a UN nation AND a sovereign nation. I am tempted to say "If you don't like your proposals disagreed with, then don't make them and leave the UN.", But that would be both petty and mean, so I shan't do it. ;)

The point of debating the proposals before they become voted into resolutions is one of the keystone rights of UN nations, and the entire purpose of this United Nation forum, I might add. To have everybody merely post, "ohh, I like that. Lets vote for it" would become extremely boring in quite short order. A lively intelligent debate, one which does not include "if you don't like it leave the UN", is one of the best parts of the forum. I just wish some nations would take it a bit more seriously and stop the proposals for "make me god", or that *shudder* "public anal sex" travesty I saw in the proposals queue. To continualy use the same tired worn out arguments for something, such as the "leave if you don't like it" one demeans the entire process. If you want to be taken seriously, then act it.

I take it you have seen some of the debates? The Repeal of the 40 Hour Work Week, The Repeal of Prostitution, The Eon Convention - all of these were spirited and contested debates that went on for a few dozen pages (in some cases).

Sometimes the proposals get voted on because they sound nice, and other times they actually get debated pretty hotly - the 40 Hour Work Week was one of the latter, and that was the most fun I have had in recent times.

I admit - some of the proposals make me want to cry. But in amongst the ones that make me just want to take out my Giant Hammer Of Doom (tm) there are some wonderful ones. But (as my brother keeps on telling me) - it's the law of 10s. Not every single proposal can be a work of genius, and if we (or the game) starts limiting what can be proposed, it might put someone off who is going to submit the best proposal of 2005 - maybe the best ever. And that would be a disaster.

If 1% of a UN member's population wants to be able to visit or be a prostitute, and the other 99% disagree, national governments probably won't provide that right when confronted with the relevant issue. However, we think that that 1% still deserve the right to do what they will with their bodies, so are happy to have the UN force legalisation on such nations.

This is a dangerous argument to use. Where could this stop? 1% of a population feels pedophilia is perfectly alright. Do we force the other 99% to make it legal? Or 1% of a population thinks political assasination is a legitimate political tool. Do we then make that legal? 1% of a population wants human sacrifice, do we then make that legal?

Something such as that could set a dangerous precedent, where we would have tyranny by minority opinion. I have seen many proposals, and I believe we have 2 binding resolutions, for democracy and elections. Elections and democracy are rule by majority. Why should we then reverse ourselves and mandate that anything a small minority of the population wants should then be made legal, or even mandatory, for all?

I'd suggest treating that particular argument as the cheap tactical ploy it is. It's an attempt to taunt nations who disagree with the dominant faction into resigning. I find it laughably transparent. And it's noticable that the nations most prone to using it tend not to be the better debators of the UN.
And again, what that actually means is that the nation doesn't consider it a basis they'd acknowlege. And for some reason they think they can speak for the entire UN.

I know... I just couldn't resist :)

This is a dangerous argument to use. Where could this stop? 1% of a population feels pedophilia is perfectly alright. Do we force the other 99% to make it legal? Or 1% of a population thinks political assasination is a legitimate political tool. Do we then make that legal? 1% of a population wants human sacrifice, do we then make that legal?

Something such as that could set a dangerous precedent, where we would have tyranny by minority opinion. I have seen many proposals, and I believe we have 2 binding resolutions, for democracy and elections. Elections and democracy are rule by majority. Why should we then reverse ourselves and mandate that anything a small minority of the population wants should then be made legal, or even mandatory, for all?

Your two examples infringe on the rights of others. Prostitution is a consensual act.

Your two examples infringe on the rights of others. Prostitution is a consensual act.

Infringe on the rights of others? Is it not the right of every citizen (in a democracy at least) to have a say in his government? Is it not the right of the public to have their majority views heard and listened to? If 99% of a population wishes to outlaw a practice that they think degrades their country, then that 99% should be heard.

Collective Bargaining
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: John Bernhardt

Description: This proposal's purpose is to further the rights of the common worker by giving them the freedom to establish a union.

Articles:

I. An employee of both the private and public sector shall not be denied the permission of forming a union or other forms of free conglomerations of people.
A. Government involvement or regulation of a union is hereby restricted by the UN.

II. A union is permitted to collect duties if needed.
A. If a worker is unable to meet the duties or does not wish to pay them; the worker may be denied protection by the union, but may leave the union at any time if wanted.

III. A union's membership should not be compulsory if an individual wishes to work in a specific industry.
A. If a contract is agreed upon between a employee and employer restricting a right of this resolution; then that right will be nullified for the individual as long as the contract lasts.
B. An employer will not be forced to employ an individual by the government. All employment will be deemed voluntary unless a contract signed by the employee says otherwise.

IV. Corporations and other seperate buisness entities have the right to reject employment of workers belonging to a certain organization such as a union. This also applies to governments employing people since governments are represented as seperate organisms.

V. If a nation feels that its right to national sovereignty is being violated by this resolution; then the government of the nation may leave the United Nations.


This proposal, at least article V, is precicely what I am talking about. "If you don't like it, get the F out." A proposal which actually includes a provision inviting those who disagree with them to sit down, shut up and get out. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. :(

Infringe on the rights of others? Is it not the right of every citizen (in a democracy at least) to have a say in his government? Is it not the right of the public to have their majority views heard and listened to? If 99% of a population wishes to outlaw a practice that they think degrades their country, then that 99% should be heard.
I think the problem is that not all countries are a democracy. Some view democracy as mob rule and prefer other government forms.

This proposal, at least article V, is precicely what I am talking about. "If you don't like it, get the F out." A proposal which actually includes a provision inviting those who disagree with them to sit down, shut up and get out. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. :(
I wouldn't worry about that proposal, it will never become a reslution because it duplicates the resolution "The Rights of Labor Unions."

Infringe on the rights of others? Is it not the right of every citizen (in a democracy at least) to have a say in his government? Is it not the right of the public to have their majority views heard and listened to? If 99% of a population wishes to outlaw a practice that they think degrades their country, then that 99% should be heard.

We believe the sole justification for the existence of government is to uphold and provide for the rights and freedoms we think all citizens deserve. It just so happens that in _Myopia_, the best way to achieve this is democratic government, but we do not believe in democracy for the sake of it. Once a government fails to protect the rights and freedoms we believe citizens deserve, that government is in the wrong however it came to power.

i.e. we don't regard the right to set laws over fellow sapient beings as something people deserve, it's just a means to the end of ensuring other rights and freedoms.