NationStates Jolt Archive

As I look over the list of past United Nations resolutions I am struck by this institutions total disregard for nation’s sovereignty, or a nation’s right to rule itself. While I am sure the motive is good, the actual effect of these resolutions is to totally disregard an individual nation's right to determine its own government. Imagine if you will, that you are at home and about to eat some potato chips and watch an action movie. Suddenly someone bursts into your house and informs you that you are not allowed to do that! He tells you that because majority of your peers have decided potato chips are unhealthy, and action movies uneducational, you are not allowed to have either! He ignores your plea that you usually eat healthy food, or that you have just gotten back from hours of studying, or any other justification for you behavior. He calmly informs you that your individual circumstances are irrelevant, that because the majority of your peers feel that they eat too much junk food, or do not get enough education, then everyone must do the same. He replaces your chips with carrots, and your movie with a documentary on heart transplants. What would you do if this happened? You would be outraged, would you not!? Well this has happened! The United Nations is an intruder that has broken you’re your homes, your nation! They wish to subvert your countries right to decide what is best for itself and replace it with laws made by people who could not even point your country out in a map, let alone know what is best for it! The right of an individual to do as he or she wishes in their home is sacrosanct, why should this notion not apply to nations! I beg of you, the next time that you are submitting a resolution, stop, and think for a second. Do I have the right to do this? Is this issue so important that I feel I may violate another government's right to rule itself? To break into another person's house and tell them what they is best for them? I think you will find that in almost all instances, you do not.
Thank you for your time.

Can you give me an example of any resolution that would not interfere with national sovereignty in some way? Even if you just make it up on the spot?

If you want national sovereignty, don't be in an institution that's purpose is to pass proposals that limits national sovereignty. No one's forcing you at gunpoint to join the UN.

This issue has been brought up multiple times in multiple different resolutions. I believe you'll find plenty of discusion on this in the Technical forum (since limiting the UN's power is a game mechanics change, that's the place to talk about it).

I am afraid that none of you really understand what I am advocating.
TilEnca and Nanakaland, I never advocate unconditional sovereignty, simply that we must only break sovereignty in the most dire of circumstances. For instance I agree with the resolution to outlaw slavery, because the harm caused by slavery is greater then the harm caused by breaking a nation’s sovereignty. Once again I am simply asking that we only throw away a nation's right to self rule in the gravest of circumstances.
United Freedoms, I am also not advocating changing the game to limit the United Nation's power, nor am I hoping to pass some resolution. I am simply asking the people who write resolutions to way the harm caused by limiting a nation’s sovereignty next to the harms their resolution hopes to fix. If they feel that the harm in the status quo is greater, and then by all means submit your resolution.

Can you give me an example of any resolution that would not interfere with national sovereignty in some way? Even if you just make it up on the spot?

Resolution #4 UN Taxation Ban
Resolution #7 Sexual Freedom

I do understand that. But if you can show me a resolution that a) doesn't violate sovereignty or b) does but for a good reason, then I will be impressed. And if you can then get every UN member to agree that it is a good reason, and not a gross intrusion, I will be even more so.

Resolution #4 UN Taxation Ban

I wasn't asking you :}

Kudos to the Represenative from Larencia for emphasizing that just because the UN has the power to intrude upon national sovereignty does not mean it should do so every time it is so urged.

Also, when a nation points this out, other nations should not immediately assume that the only remedy is for the offended nation to resign from the UN. A better remedy is for nations to "stop and think" (as Larencia put it so well) about whether national sovereignty should be intruded upon in any particular case.

I wasn't asking you :}

^_o

How about Resolution #6, to end slavery, #8 to give citizens some form of self rule, #11 banning single hulled oil tankers, #14 ending child labor, all of these violate sovereignity, but it is my view that the violate it for a worthwile enough reason.

If you don't want to give up any part of your sovereignty, don't join the UN. It's as simple as that.

Once again, I do not think nation sovereignty is Inviolable! I apologize if I ever falsely gave that impression, however since my OP I have clarified this issue several times. I merely think that when it comes to, say DVD player's, a nation should be free to choose for itself!

A nation is free to choose for itself - you can leave the UN without suffering any adverse effects.

A nation is free to choose for itself - you can leave the UN without suffering any adverse effects.

Like leaving your region less well-defended?

How about Resolution #6, to end slavery, #8 to give citizens some form of self rule, #11 banning single hulled oil tankers, #14 ending child labor, all of these violate sovereignity, but it is my view that the violate it for a worthwile enough reason.

#6 - Criminals have no rights, so why can they not be treated like slaves? Slavery is very, very good for the economny, and my nation almost went bankrupt when it was made illegal. And just because someone is not free in my nation, why does it bother you?

#8 - I am the absolute dictator of my nation, and the nation works well. Now I have to give them some sort of decision, when clearly they are incapable of doing so - they don't have the ability to see the big picture and as a result my nation is going to hell in handbasket. Why does me being a dictator affect you?

#11 - I only have canals and internal rivers. Why does it matter if I only use single hulled tankers. Now I have to build huge expensive things and my oil business is all but shut down. It can't affect any other nation so why should I follow it?

#14 - Kids can get in to places that adults can't. And if one dies, we can pay someone to have another kid and bingo - a new work force. Plus why do children working in mines affect your nation?

Note - I don't believe any of that. I think all the resolutions do good, to one degree or another (except maybe Rights of Minorities and The Global Library). The above resolutions are all good things. But they all iminge on national sovereingty in the worst way, for what can easily be shown to be the worst of reasons.

Like leaving your region less well-defended?
Most regions have founders. And in any case, you can always create a UN puppet.

Most regions have founders. And in any case, you can always create a UN puppet.

1. Not all regions have Founders.

2. But that's not leaving the UN. One's national sovereignty is still endangered, it's just that it's the sovereignty of a different nation.

"They that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Benjamin Franklin

"They that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Benjamin Franklin

"Witty sayings are generally useless as arguments." -Me

1. Not all regions have Founders.

2. But that's not leaving the UN. One's national sovereignty is still endangered, it's just that it's the sovereignty of a different nation.
1. No, but most do, and those without founders can be re-founded.

2. If it's just a puppet, why should you care?

"They that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Benjamin Franklin
How about trading a little bit of useless liberty for a lot of permanent safety? ;)

1. No, but most do, and those without founders can be re-founded.

2. If it's just a puppet, why should you care?

1. Not The Pacifics.

2. It's still my nation, is it not?

1. Not The Pacifics.

2. It's still my nation, is it not?
1. Invading the Pacifics is pretty much impossible. They're so large that you'd need an immense invasion force.

2. Yes, but it's a nation created for the sole purpose of keeping the region safe - and therefore it is expendable.

1. Invading the Pacifics is pretty much impossible. They're so large that you'd need an immense invasion force.

Actually, you would need only a small invasion force if you're smart enough to plan ahead and insert an agent in the region that will slowly gain endorsements and rise to a level where it would only require 30 or so endorsements to acquire the delegacy.

Note: I do not support these sorts of activities.

2. Yes, but it's a nation created for the sole purpose of keeping the region safe - and therefore it is expendable.

I'm just sentimental, I guess.

TilEnca, I am aware that all of those resolutions effect my nations sovereignty, however I have personally weighed the harm caused by not passing those resolutions the breach of sovereignty and found that they are worthwile. Someone who judges things on a different framework may come to a different conclusion. Basically I think that the breach of sovereignty is justified if it is a in order protect basic civil and human rights, as well as the enviornment. I do not consider something like DVD players, 40 hour work week, or prostitution to fall under any of these categories.
And as to leaving the United Nations, why? Only a fool can fail to see that the world is increasingly getting global, and the only real way to be part of that is through the United Nations. I am no rogue nation who wants to be able to get rid of a pesky minority, I simply want the option of deciding it would be better for my country to have a 41 hour work week, or no prostitutes.

"Witty sayings are generally useless as arguments." -Me


Not an argument sir, i have no opinon on this matter. My speech was meant merely as an interjection for the enlightenment of those reading this discussion.

Not an argument sir, i have no opinon on this matter. My speech was meant merely as an interjection for the enlightenment of those reading this discussion.

Well carry on then.

OOC:

National sovereignty. Well, on the one hand we're playing a game where we get to control our nationstate's destiny, so yes: national sovereignty is important to me. That's why I have 1 nationstate in NS UN and one nstionstate that isn't. I can do what I want with the private nationstate; UN resolutions just don't apply. That's why rogue nations outnumber NS UN nations so significantly. It's not an insult when someone tells you to leave NS UN if you don't like it.

On the other hand, national sovereignty is something of a necessary evil in the RL UN. Nations, especially the powerful ones, just wouldn't join it without guarantees it wouldn't unduly infringe their sovereignty. And yes: I said evil, I meant evil. All kinds of genocide and starvation and wars in the last half century could have been averted if not for the religious adherence to existing national borders that forms the core of the RL UN.

Yes, I can think up any number of problems we don't have because the RL UN respects national sovereignty, too. I called it a necessary evil, and I recognize it as necessary. In the real world.

But NS UN isn't in the real world.
We don't do conflict resolution.
We don't do peacekeeping.
We don't monitor elections.
We don't inspect nuclear sites.
We don't pass symbolic resolutions against the jews.


We don't infringe on national sovereignty in a lot of the ways the RL UN does, if you think about it.

TilEnca, I am aware that all of those resolutions effect my nations sovereignty, however I have personally weighed the harm caused by not passing those resolutions the breach of sovereignty and found that they are worthwile. Someone who judges things on a different framework may come to a different conclusion. Basically I think that the breach of sovereignty is justified if it is a in order protect basic civil and human rights, as well as the enviornment. I do not consider something like DVD players, 40 hour work week, or prostitution to fall under any of these categories.
I'm not too concerned about DVDs, although I can see a trade issue being affected here so it doesn't bother me. The 40 hour work week? I would have preferred something better, but oh well. Prostitution affects two separate areas: the right of a woman to do what she chooses with her body over the objection of an onerous patriarchial religious system (civil rights) and a health issue. Until a cure for HIV/AIDS is found, our best bet at containing it is legislating those activities that are earmarked as "at risk." This is of a global concern, not a national one and therefore deserves attention from the UN over the objections of national sovereignty.

And as to leaving the United Nations, why? Only a fool can fail to see that the world is increasingly getting global, and the only real way to be part of that is through the United Nations. I am no rogue nation who wants to be able to get rid of a pesky minority, I simply want the option of deciding it would be better for my country to have a 41 hour work week, or no prostitutes.
I don't like the "if you don't like it leave mentality", either. But you have to consider that in exchange for reaching global consensus on certain issues, you're going to have to eat a few that you just don't like. <shrug> That's what democracy is all about. If you support it, you have to support it all the way, not just in those areas that you agree with or find convenient.

As I look over the list of past United Nations resolutions I am struck by this institutions total disregard for nation’s sovereignty, or a nation’s right to rule itself. While I am sure the motive is good, the actual effect of these resolutions is to totally disregard an individual nation's right to determine its own government. Imagine if you will, that you are at home and about to eat some potato chips and watch an action movie. Suddenly someone bursts into your house and informs you that you are not allowed to do that! He tells you that because majority of your peers have decided potato chips are unhealthy, and action movies uneducational, you are not allowed to have either! He ignores your plea that you usually eat healthy food, or that you have just gotten back from hours of studying, or any other justification for you behavior. He calmly informs you that your individual circumstances are irrelevant, that because the majority of your peers feel that they eat too much junk food, or do not get enough education, then everyone must do the same. He replaces your chips with carrots, and your movie with a documentary on heart transplants. What would you do if this happened? You would be outraged, would you not!? Well this has happened! The United Nations is an intruder that has broken you’re your homes, your nation! They wish to subvert your countries right to decide what is best for itself and replace it with laws made by people who could not even point your country out in a map, let alone know what is best for it! The right of an individual to do as he or she wishes in their home is sacrosanct, why should this notion not apply to nations! I beg of you, the next time that you are submitting a resolution, stop, and think for a second. Do I have the right to do this? Is this issue so important that I feel I may violate another government's right to rule itself? To break into another person's house and tell them what they is best for them? I think you will find that in almost all instances, you do not.
Thank you for your time.

It's ironic that you use this example, because for many, one of the main reasons for infringing on national sovereignty is to protect individual sovereignty - hence "legalise prostitution", "gay rights" etc.

As far as _Myopia_ is concerned, governments on any level are only justified in their existence if they serve the rights and freedoms that we feel people deserve. Therefore, we don't believe governments deserve rights or freedoms - they should just get those they need to protect the rights of the people themselves. In situations where governments fail to protect the rights and freedoms they should, then we have no qualms about using whatever power we might have over them (in this case the power of a UN vote) to force them to change their treatment of their citizens.

Ever heard of the Social Contract theory? Think of this on smaller terms. Say there's a bunch of people and they can do whatever they want. Kill, steal, dance, speak, eat, have sex, whatever. Then, those people decide to form a government, because a bunch of them are getting killed or abused and that's bad for their ability to do whatever they want. So, they give up the right to do specific things, such as kill or steal, in exchange for protecting those other things, such as eating and having sex and freedom of speech. Yay, everyones happy!

The United Nations is THE EXACT SAME thing, only on a scale of nations instead of people and far more extreme. It's not about giving up liberties for safety, it's about giving up liberties for more liberties. Resolutions that show a total disregard for National Sovereignty are never passed if they don't have a beneficial effect.

Precisely. Thank you for bringing up this excellent point.

Resolutions that show a total disregard for National Sovereignty are never passed if they don't have a beneficial effect.

Nevertheless, there is no harm in arguing for a different standard than "total disregard;" nations are justified in trying to develop a sophisticated understanding of what standard should be sufficient to infringe upon national sovereignty. And I suggest to you that it should be a more searching standard than "total disregard." (In other words, I suggest to you that not every proposal (or almost every proposal) that comes to a vote should pass).

I just have one question for all of you then. Where do you draw the line? When is it a purely internal matter for your country and not the UN? If you don't even draw that line on DVD players, I don't see how you can really claim there is a line.

Precisely. Thank you for bringing up this excellent point.

See how Pojonia did that with evidence and support, rather than insults and sarcasm?

Can you give me an example of any resolution that would not interfere with national sovereignty in some way? Even if you just make it up on the spot?

Resolution #4 UN Taxation Ban
Resolution #7 Sexual Freedom

#7 does interfere with National Sovereignty.

#4 does not, and is a rare instance of the limitation of UN powers.

TilEnca, I am aware that all of those resolutions effect my nations sovereignty, however I have personally weighed the harm caused by not passing those resolutions the breach of sovereignty and found that they are worthwile. Someone who judges things on a different framework may come to a different conclusion. Basically I think that the breach of sovereignty is justified if it is a in order protect basic civil and human rights, as well as the enviornment. I do not consider something like DVD players, 40 hour work week, or prostitution to fall under any of these categories.
And as to leaving the United Nations, why? Only a fool can fail to see that the world is increasingly getting global, and the only real way to be part of that is through the United Nations. I am no rogue nation who wants to be able to get rid of a pesky minority, I simply want the option of deciding it would be better for my country to have a 41 hour work week, or no prostitutes.

Part of a Global Union is the rule of the majority. Part and parcel of the UN.

Now, if you want the "option of a 41 hour work week", just conscript everyone early and declare everyone is permanently part of the military. That gets around that one.

As for "no prostitutes", can't help you there. You can decide "no legal prostitutes", but they'll still be there, trust me. As long as there is dating, there will be prostitution.

I just have one question for all of you then. Where do you draw the line? When is it a purely internal matter for your country and not the UN? If you don't even draw that line on DVD players, I don't see how you can really claim there is a line.

The line is wherever the mob rules it is. And the mob is very fluid on its definitions over time.

#7 does interfere with National Sovereignty.

Then we have very different understandings of what constitutes sovereignty.

Then we have very different understandings of what constitutes sovereignty.

And that in no way is going to complicate this discussion :}

And that in no way is going to complicate this discussion :}

Probably not for me. This is an old path I've walked before.

As for "no prostitutes", can't help you there. You can decide "no legal prostitutes", but they'll still be there, trust me. As long as there is dating, there will be prostitution.

Even if there were inevitable for there to be prostitution (which I don't believe to be the case), it doesn't mean that prostitution should be legalized (which has been your argument in the past, I believe). There have "always" been murders, as well. Should we legalize murder in the UN?

On the subject of UN legalized prostitution, I'd like to point out that Powerhungry Chipmunks looks like it will have a long future of illegal prostitution. If my predictions are accurate, Groot Gouda's legislation will pass. But it defines UN-wide legalized prostitution as this: "any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute". Upon review, Powerhungry Chipmunks lawyers and policymakers believe they'll have no problem with legalizing prostitution: allowing all to become "prosititutes".

See how Pojonia did that with evidence and support, rather than insults and sarcasm?

Not that I'm above insults and sarcasm. I just save that for the illiterate.

I will concede that certain times exist when national sovereignty should not apply. International security, human rights, and certain political freedoms should all of course be the business of the UN. It is here that I am glad the UN has the power to override national decisions. However, many other times exist when decisions should be left up to the individual governments. This should be the case because oftentimes, resolutions will place unnecessary tax burdens on governments that could have easily dealt with (or chose not to deal with) the issue at hand in their own way. For example, in the resolution legalizing prostitution, it states that nations are to develop regulation and education programs to deal with the negative effects of the practice. Some nations have a majority of citizens that would rather keep their taxes low than pay for the legalization of a practice they find to be morally repulsive. It is cases like this that should be left up to the individual governments, the establishments closest to the people.

As for The 40 Hour Work Week, Nargopia has found an interesting way around that. The resolution provides an exemption for those working for the government; as a socialist society, we consider every Nargopian to be "working for the government," especially since most private enterprise is illegal.

If you want national sovereignty, don't be in an institution that's purpose is to pass proposals that limits national sovereignty. No one's forcing you at gunpoint to join the UN.

Exactly. Not to mention that nations frequently harm those who live in it, which the UN is attempting to change.

I have to admit that I am also tiring of the "leave the UN argument." Shouldn't we also be concerned about our recruitment prospects? If we pass resolutions that evidence no respect for national sovereignty (again, as Larencia has persuasively argued what we in fact do), how can we expect to increase our global influence (when we threaten to run our current members off, and discourage prospective applicants from joining)?

I don't understand the original argument. If a nation does not like their sovereignty infringed by the UN, then why join it? Ok, my nation does not like it's sovereignty infringed either, but we joined the UN because we a trying to strive to change the World for the better (In our eyes!), and if that means having our sovereignty infringed the odd time, then that is a price we are willing to take.

If you don't like it PISS AWAY OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE AND STOP TALKING THROUGH YOUR ARSEHOLES!!! :upyours:

Thank you

Resolution #4 UN Taxation Ban
Resolution #7 Sexual Freedom
\

WHOA! texan, i know this was at the beginning of this thread and no one probably is on the subject anymore, but how can you say that Resolution #7 doesn't affect national sovereignty! In many parts of the USA sodomy is still illegal. granted they are rarley used, but the spirit of them was to make homosexuality illegal. i hate to break it to you, but a Resolution like this keeps the world from dealing with mass sexuality based genocide. i don't need to remind you that many gays and lesbians were killed in the holocaust as well as jews? ALL minorities need to be protected in the UN. this affects national sovereignty to a HUGE extent!

\

WHOA! texan, i know this was at the beginning of this thread and no one probably is on the subject anymore, but how can you say that Resolution #7 doesn't affect national sovereignty! In many parts of the USA sodomy is still illegal. granted they are rarley used, but the spirit of them was to make homosexuality illegal. i hate to break it to you, but a Resolution like this keeps the world from dealing with mass sexuality based genocide. i don't need to remind you that many gays and lesbians were killed in the holocaust as well as jews? ALL minorities need to be protected in the UN. this affects national sovereignty to a HUGE extent!

What constitutes national sovereignty?

I don't understand the original argument. If a nation does not like their sovereignty infringed by the UN, then why join it? Ok, my nation does not like it's sovereignty infringed either, but we joined the UN because we a trying to strive to change the World for the better (In our eyes!), and if that means having our sovereignty infringed the odd time, then that is a price we are willing to take.

If you don't like it PISS AWAY OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE AND STOP TALKING THROUGH YOUR ARSEHOLES!!! :upyours:

Thank you

The answer is simple, becasue there are issues that affect our nations that transcend our borders. Issues like Global Warming, The spread of Disease ( which does not respect national boundries ), and International Trade.

People like you are no better then any other petty dictator. trying to foist your morals, agenda on the rest of the world. the UN will never be more that a Backwater organization if it does not try and become inclusive rather then exclusive. That means respecting nations soveriegnty, and limiting itself to dealing with issues that truely have global implications.

\

WHOA! texan, i know this was at the beginning of this thread and no one probably is on the subject anymore, but how can you say that Resolution #7 doesn't affect national sovereignty! In many parts of the USA sodomy is still illegal. granted they are rarley used, but the spirit of them was to make homosexuality illegal. i hate to break it to you, but a Resolution like this keeps the world from dealing with mass sexuality based genocide. i don't need to remind you that many gays and lesbians were killed in the holocaust as well as jews? ALL minorities need to be protected in the UN. this affects national sovereignty to a HUGE extent!


You are making a really far reach suggesting that anti sodomy laws = mass sexually based genocide. having said that, i agree that resolution #7 most definatly infringes upon national soveriegnty. If my nation is a backward, religiously based Theocracy that believes Homosexuality is a crime, and the people living in my country are happy with that, then the UN should not be dictating that my country is in the wrong. becasue my local laws have no direct affect on what is going on in your country. On the other hand, if you country is dumping massive amount of Dioxin into the water table, That very well can affect my country, and therefore my hypothetical theocracy will want to be a member of the UN in order to lobby for enviromental laws that help protect the ENTIRE planet.

The N should be used to deal with issues that affect all the nations of the world, not as a tool to force some nations persnal beliefs on to the rest.

Even if there were inevitable for there to be prostitution (which I don't believe to be the case), it doesn't mean that prostitution should be legalized (which has been your argument in the past, I believe). There have "always" been murders, as well. Should we legalize murder in the UN?
Murder infringes on the right of another person - usually the dead guy's. How does prostitution violate the rights of another person?

On the subject of UN legalized prostitution, I'd like to point out that Powerhungry Chipmunks looks like it will have a long future of illegal prostitution. If my predictions are accurate, Groot Gouda's legislation will pass. But it defines UN-wide legalized prostitution as this: "any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute". Upon review, Powerhungry Chipmunks lawyers and policymakers believe they'll have no problem with legalizing prostitution: allowing all to become "prosititutes".
Not understanding this. Will those frisky Chipmunks be legalizing it or not?

Oh... wait... LOL - I get it. Jeez....

"Witty sayings are generally useless as arguments." -Me

You don't say it nearly as neatly as Voltaire did.

"A witty saying proves nothing." ~ Voltaire

I pointed this out in the Prostitution thread, figured I would post it here as well, since this is a whole topic on the issue.

Anyone who is angry at the UN for invading national soverneighty, you must realize one thing: The UN is a global sovereign. It is not the pansy-ass RL UN that is completely volitary in anything it asks its members to do.

I pointed this out in the Prostitution thread, figured I would post it here as well, since this is a whole topic on the issue.

Anyone who is angry at the UN for invading national soverneighty, you must realize one thing: The UN is a global sovereign. It is not the pansy-ass RL UN that is completely volitary in anything it asks its members to do.
I wish you would have read any of the posts on this thread before you decided to comment. That way, you would've decided that this point is stupid and patronizing.

Obviously, everyone here knows that the UN is a global sovereign. The argument is whether the UN abuses that power and encroaches on issues that might be better left to the individual nations.

(OOC) Imagine this: your parents decide that they aren't going to let you watch television anymore. As long as you're under their roof, this privilege will be denied you. If I translate your comments about the NSUN to this situation, then I can assume that you would not complain whatsoever. After all, your parents are not breaking any laws, and they have the power to decide what goes on in their house, don't they? Hmm. Maybe nations should be allowed to express their displeasure when they feel a world government is infringing on some of their rights or privileges.

I wish you would have read any of the posts on this thread before you decided to comment. That way, you would've decided that this point is stupid and patronizing.

Obviously, everyone here knows that the UN is a global sovereign. The argument is whether the UN abuses that power and encroaches on issues that might be better left to the individual nations.

(OOC) Imagine this: your parents decide that they aren't going to let you watch television anymore. As long as you're under their roof, this privilege will be denied you. If I translate your comments about the NSUN to this situation, then I can assume that you would not complain whatsoever. After all, your parents are not breaking any laws, and they have the power to decide what goes on in their house, don't they? Hmm. Maybe nations should be allowed to express their displeasure when they feel a world government is infringing on some of their rights or privileges.

I am commenting on the abuse of power issue, but I suppose I should spell it out a little further than I did. I'm saying that, its global sovereignity makes it impossible for the UN to abuse its power. Every nation as the right to complain about their sovereignity being infringed on, but that doesn't mean that something should change, or that the complaint should be considered. Historically, sovereignity has been a horrible reason for repeal, and this is why.

And to comment on the parents thing... I wouldn't say anything about it, cause it is their roof they are putting over my head. Any rights they want to take away is fine by me.

I am commenting on the abuse of power issue, but I suppose I should spell it out a little further than I did. I'm saying that, its global sovereignity makes it impossible for the UN to abuse its power. Every nation as the right to complain about their sovereignity being infringed on, but that doesn't mean that something should change, or that the complaint should be considered. Historically, sovereignity has been a horrible reason for repeal, and this is why.
Global sovereignty makes it impossible for the UN to illegally abuse its power, yes. However, it can (and does) legislate areas that are, by nature, very diverse and unique by locality. Even though the UN has the right to enforce its will in these areas, it should recognize that for the good of the people this is not always the best option.
And to comment on the parents thing... I wouldn't say anything about it, cause it is their roof they are putting over my head. Any rights they want to take away is fine by me.
Wow. What if they decided that they weren't going to listen to any family issues you wanted to bring up? What if they said that they'd stand there while you talked, but wouldn't comment on anything you said (except for the occasional "If you don't like it leave my house")? Because that is exactly what you are saying should be done here.

I am afraid that none of you really understand what I am advocating.
TilEnca and Nanakaland, I never advocate unconditional sovereignty, simply that we must only break sovereignty in the most dire of circumstances.

What these dire circumstances are, and whether sovereignity should be broken, is decided by a majority vote if the resolution makes it to the voting stage.

The UN very much respects national sovereignity; its members do not. And they have frequently shown that the response to your question is "we don't really care".

Sorry.

I realize that the general attitude in the UN is one that ignores sovereignty, but I believe that is more due to ignorance then inclination. I think only a minority of people really understand the concept of sovereignty, why we have, it's benefits and drawbacks etc. My main goal by opening up this discussion was to get people thinking about sovereignty. However I am disappointed with the response to my previous question on where the UN’s power stops. The vast majority of nations have constitutions that limit their power over the populace; it saddens me that the UN has not adopted this approach.

OOC: I am going to be gone from the computer for the next 4 days, but fully intend to resume this discussion.

I realize that the general attitude in the UN is one that ignores sovereignty, but I believe that is more due to ignorance then inclination. I think only a minority of people really understand the concept of sovereignty, why we have, it's benefits and drawbacks etc. My main goal by opening up this discussion was to get people thinking about sovereignty.
For those of us too ignorant to understand the issue of national sovereignty, we certainly appreciate your laudable attempt to get us to think about it. Although if we are ignorant on the subject, I'm not entirely certain what good thinking about it is going to do.

On a more serious note, as the issue of national sovereignty comes up whenever a proposal is made that someone doesn't like, I'm fairly certain more than a few members have a passing acquaintence with what it is and what it means.

However I am disappointed with the response to my previous question on where the UN’s power stops. The vast majority of nations have constitutions that limit their power over the populace; it saddens me that the UN has not adopted this approach.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to state you are disappointed that more people do not agree with you. The UN's power stops where the majority of people say it stops (or game mechanics - whichever comes first). Fairly simple concept.

The UN's power stops where the majority of people say it stops (or game mechanics - whichever comes first). Fairly simple concept.

It is a tyranny of the majority then. Basically if you can swing enough votes ( And it really is not truly representative since it is not limited to one vote per nation ) you can then force your own agenda onto the rest of the world.

So my only choices are to simply allow the bullys in the UN to dictate to my nation what it will and won't do regardless of my local culture, or leave the UN and not have a say in issues of true global impact that do affect the citizen f my nation.

What a wonderfully arrogant despotism you have arrange for.

There IS a place for both local soveriegnty and Global Co-operation in the UN. Unfortuntely those in power would rather just force thier will on others, and thus limit thier influence to just those that think as they do, and close thier minds to ideas other may have to offer. I had more hope for what I thought was an enightened community.

Unfortuntely those in power would rather just force thier will on others, and thus limit thier influence to just those that think as they do, and close thier minds to ideas other may have to offer. I had more hope for what I thought was an enightened community.

That's politics. It's dirty and it sucks, but it's politics none the less.

Back to Nargopia now...
Global sovereignty makes it impossible for the UN to illegally abuse its power, yes. However, it can (and does) legislate areas that are, by nature, very diverse and unique by locality. Even though the UN has the right to enforce its will in these areas, it should recognize that for the good of the people this is not always the best option.

Essentialy true, however, there are many people who honestly don't know what is best for them and what is not. That is why we have governments, to tell us what is best. Corrupt governments are different story, but thats something completely different...

In all honesty, the good of the people be damned. The greater net good is what the UN is all about. Certainly, you may disagree with it. Certainly, you may not see why it must do what it is doing. That does not give you the right to stop it from doing what it is doing should the majority of the member states not want it stopped.

In all honesty, the good of the people be damned. The greater net good is what the UN is all about. Certainly, you may disagree with it. Certainly, you may not see why it must do what it is doing. That does not give you the right to stop it from doing what it is doing should the majority of the member states not want it stopped.
I am a voting member of the UN. I have every right to work to change the direction of this body and to propose any legislation I wish. I don't think you understand that as a democratic body, the UN is obligated to hear each of its members if they have ideas or opinions. The UN also should (but of course isn't required to) respect individual nations enough to grant them some amount of sovereignty and jurisdiction over cultural, moral, and other local matters. If the UN doesn't trust its members to make educated decisions in even the simplest of areas, then why does it grant them the right to vote on international legislation that affects other nations?

You are making a really far reach suggesting that anti sodomy laws = mass sexually based genocide. having said that, i agree that resolution #7 most definatly infringes upon national soveriegnty. If my nation is a backward, religiously based Theocracy that believes Homosexuality is a crime, and the people living in my country are happy with that, then the UN should not be dictating that my country is in the wrong. becasue my local laws have no direct affect on what is going on in your country. On the other hand, if you country is dumping massive amount of Dioxin into the water table, That very well can affect my country, and therefore my hypothetical theocracy will want to be a member of the UN in order to lobby for enviromental laws that help protect the ENTIRE planet.

The N should be used to deal with issues that affect all the nations of the world, not as a tool to force some nations persnal beliefs on to the rest.


haha. i know its a far reach.. its the farthest one i could make. but i figure some people on here have to to be hit on the head hard to think logically. clearly i didn't hit you hard enough. yeah, lots of people everywhere are happy to hate other races/sexualities/etc. but don't you think that your laws do affect other nations if we have to run in and save a segment of your population from the others? what if you go too far: ie: genocide? hey, what if another country decides your religion is wacko and should be hated? what if they want to conquer you and change you because of that? if this is your view, don't expect the international community to run in and help you out. in fact expect to be taken over.

How about u leave the UN and be as soveireign as u want?

That's politics. It's dirty and it sucks, but it's politics none the less.



Actually that is not politics at all. Politics is the art of compromise. what we have here is more along the lines of despotism.

haha. i know its a far reach.. its the farthest one i could make. but i figure some people on here have to to be hit on the head hard to think logically. clearly i didn't hit you hard enough. yeah, lots of people everywhere are happy to hate other races/sexualities/etc. but don't you think that your laws do affect other nations if we have to run in and save a segment of your population from the others? what if you go too far: ie: genocide? hey, what if another country decides your religion is wacko and should be hated? what if they want to conquer you and change you because of that? if this is your view, don't expect the international community to run in and help you out. in fact expect to be taken over.


Who ever invited you to run in and "save" a portion of my populce? We call that an act of aggresion where I come from. Invasion comes to mind. As far as genicide is concerned, taking the argument as far as you did, those people being oppressed will quickly flee from the area doing the repression long before the situation denegrates into genocide. At least the smart ones will.

As far as another country coming in and taking me over, it is my responsibilty as the government of grebo to care for its protection. That includes forming the allainces necessary to provide for that protection. If I am not skilled enough to protect myself, then perhaps my populace would be better served to have someone else come in and counquer my nation. But the bottom line is, it is MY responsibility to defend my nation, not yours. Just as it is not YOUR right to meddle with the internal affairs of my nation.

How about u leave the UN and be as soveireign as u want?


How about you go play with your GI Joe and Barbie and tell them what to do...


As stated, there are MANY issues which do not affect national soverniety that make it necessary to participate in the UN. Issues that cross national boundries, like Global Warming. Not EVERY issue needs to be addressed by the legislative humping body that the UN has degenerated into. Keep to those issues that the UN is best suited to deal with. Leave the rest to the local nations.

The answer is simple, becasue there are issues that affect our nations that transcend our borders. Issues like Global Warming, The spread of Disease ( which does not respect national boundries ), and International Trade.

People like you are no better then any other petty dictator. trying to foist your morals, agenda on the rest of the world. the UN will never be more that a Backwater organization if it does not try and become inclusive rather then exclusive. That means respecting nations soveriegnty, and limiting itself to dealing with issues that truely have global implications.

THEN LEAVE THE UN FOR GODS SAKE AND STOP ANNOYING EVERYBODY! If you don't, the Irish Brotherhood will gladly make you leave. Take your petty little nation away off somewhere else. You're giving me a migraine. :sniper:

Murder infringes on the right of another person - usually the dead guy's. How does prostitution violate the rights of another person?


I wasn't meaning to imply that. What I mean is that the argument that "if we de-legalize it, it'll just happen anyway, why try?" doesn't really work in my mind. If we were to apply that mentality to everything, it would seem nations wouldn't realistically be allowed to make any laws. Certainly there will be violators to every law, and thus, according to the "it'll happen anyway argument", those laws shouldn't be, becase they aren't addressing the right issues.

I bring up murder because there certainly are murders, even though it's illegal. If the presence of an act after it's illegal makes it worthy of not being illegal, then we shouldn't make anything illegal. Prostitution should be legal or not based on its arguments of being a human right, not on the assumption that making it illegal is pointless. That's just sloppy rhetoric.

It is a tyranny of the majority then. Basically if you can swing enough votes ( And it really is not truly representative since it is not limited to one vote per nation ) you can then force your own agenda onto the rest of the world.
That's pretty much how it works, yeah. Except it isn't the rest of the world. It is only those nations that choose to be members of the UN. The majority don't.

So my only choices are to simply allow the bullys in the UN to dictate to my nation what it will and won't do regardless of my local culture, or leave the UN and not have a say in issues of true global impact that do affect the citizen f my nation.
Or you could stay and attempt to sway as much of the legislation as possible.

What a wonderfully arrogant despotism you have arrange for.
Well... I haven't arranged anything. Neither has anyone else. That is simply how the game is set up. In reality, the UN is far more a place of bargaining and the art of compromise. In this venue there really isn't a way to compromise. Look at your daily issues and you'll realize that. It just isn't set up that way. You can choose to blame that on others, but the reality is there is really nothing anyone can do about it. You could always design a game that is far more complex and goes into all those issues, though. I'd beta for you :)

I bring up murder because there certainly are murders, even though it's illegal. If the presence of an act after it's illegal makes it worthy of not being illegal, then we shouldn't make anything illegal. Prostitution should be legal or not based on its arguments of being a human right, not on the assumption that making it illegal is pointless. That's just sloppy rhetoric.
Gotcha. Not the best argument to use, no; but true, nonetheless :p

I am a voting member of the UN. I have every right to work to change the direction of this body and to propose any legislation I wish. I don't think you understand that as a democratic body, the UN is obligated to hear each of its members if they have ideas or opinions. The UN also should (but of course isn't required to) respect individual nations enough to grant them some amount of sovereignty and jurisdiction over cultural, moral, and other local matters. If the UN doesn't trust its members to make educated decisions in even the simplest of areas, then why does it grant them the right to vote on international legislation that affects other nations?
Which areas do you define as simple?

THEN LEAVE THE UN FOR GODS SAKE AND STOP ANNOYING EVERYBODY! If you don't, the Irish Brotherhood will gladly make you leave. Take your petty little nation away off somewhere else. You're giving me a migraine. :sniper:

...

The Irish Brotherhood cannot make anyone leave. The only way a player, other than the one controlling the nation in question, can be involved in another player leaving, is if he contacts the mods about game rules violations. Even then, it would be "you" making the nations leave the UN, it'd be their inability to play within the rule.



I, along with some other nations who've heard it a billion times now, am getting really tired of the "If you don't like the UN, Quit the UN!" copout. It's many negative things: ignorant, elitist, unprofessional, and juvenile.

Ignorant: Nations, even those that complain about UN resolutions, are probably fully aware that leaving the UN will rid them of compliance to the resolutions. However, the lovely UN resolutions they have to comply to probably aren't the reason they joined in the first place. For one, the UN is integrally tied to regional politics. If you want power in a region, you usually need to be in the UN, otherwise you have no vote/endorsement/approval to throw around. It’s ignorant to suppose that nations don’t have ulterior motives (other than the oh-so-fun resolutions) for being in the UN.

Elitist: The UN is meant for players to change the world (other UN nations) to more agree with their mindset. Not everyone's mindset is the same, so it makes sense that there are members of the UN who disagree resolutions or proposals. Many of these individuals don't want to be forced to do something they disagree with. This is the basis for most National Sovereignty arguments. To suggest that the only people who belong in the UN are those that agree 100% with passed resolutions is talking down to them, as if they aren't as good as more "compliant" nations--as if only a select few (not them) deserve to debate or have influence in regional politics. To suggest at all that they should leave the UN is talking down to them, elitist, disrespectful. The UN isn’t a snooty country club with an elite, rich membership. And players don’t have to wear argyle socks to stay.

Unprofessional: It's unprofessional because it's those things listed above and because it overlooks a major function of the UN: to debate and consider differing ideologies. If everyone of a certain opinion, say everyone that believed nations should be allowed to make Prostitution illegal, should leave the UN, the UN would be unrepresentative of players and unsuitably biased. It would cease resembling democracy in many ways. You and your ideological opponents are on equal footing, the professional thing to do is to recognize this. Imagine you're on a product development team. You and another team member have drastically different views on how to develop the product. Professionally, you two need to be civil, realize the other has merit-filled ideas, and work together to implement both sets of ideas. Unprofessionally, you'd both tell the other that if he or she doesn't agree with you then he or she needs to transfer off the project.

Juvenile: 'Us against them' is a product of immaturity. So is the attack of others on a personal level. I've been guilty of this. It was immature and juvenile. Mature discussion in the UN needs to be open to opposing viewpoints. "If you don't want to comply, quit" is an excuse to act as if the other's opinion doesn't matter. Even if a nation says "I don't like the UN infringing on my national sovereignty!" it isn't the purpose of the UN forum for certain members (cough, cough) to get a jolly out of telling this person that he or she "hasn't read the FAQ", "Can't spell or use correct grammar", or "needs to leave if they don't want it to infringe any more". If a poster is incorrect or doesn’t lay out why he or she disagrees, it’s not an excuse for you to bash him or her. If a poster says “I don’t like the UN!” or “I’m not letting gays marry!” it’s juvenile to respond “You already do, quit the UN if you don’t like it”. While the truth, it isn’t necessary. It's juvenile to expect crass statements things to be a good idea or even welcomed on here. It's juvenile not to be interested in why exactly another player doesn't like a resolution. It's juvenile to write off those that disagree with you as less than yourself.

If you don’t like that people who say “If you don’t like the UN, quit” are being juvenile, unprofessional, elitist, and ignorant, then you should quit the UN.

Which areas do you define as simple?
Areas of morality that are generally defined by local cultures. The UN can't possibly understand all of these as well as the national governments, which are much closer to the people.

THEN LEAVE THE UN FOR GODS SAKE AND STOP ANNOYING EVERYBODY! If you don't, the Irish Brotherhood will gladly make you leave. Take your petty little nation away off somewhere else. You're giving me a migraine. :sniper:


Fortunately I am not bound to your wishes, so eat dirt. Yo will have to put up with my cries of national soverienty for some time to come. Get used to it. Of course I do not expect a moron like you to realize the subtlties in my arguments. Go back to scratching your nuts and farting.

Areas of morality that are generally defined by local cultures. The UN can't possibly understand all of these as well as the national governments, which are much closer to the people.
Gay marriage is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral issue. There are others. They've all been tackled by the UN.

The one thing the UN understands far better than national governments is that it is wrong to infringe on personal rights and freedoms simply to go along with local cultures. If we determined the standard of national sovereignty as anything that can be considered moral by local cultures, I doubt there'd be *any* passed resolutions.

Taking freedoms and rights to their logical conclusion, anything that does not infringe on another person's rights or freedoms should be legal and some members, Zamundaland included, wish to see said rights and freedoms guaranteed, regardless of how repugnant local cultures may find them.

Until very recently, prostitution was legal. The resolution was repealed to include language related to health issues. Everyone seemed to be living with it just fine, including said horrified, moral local cultures.

Here's the problem with moral issues, including the one everyone is fuming over, legalized prostitution. If it isn't legal, someone pushes to make it illegal. Is this a better idea? Isn't this the same 'pushing a point of view down other people's throats'? Because face it, regarding prostitution, this issue isn't going away. If I have to choose between it being legal with regulation and strictly illegal no matter what, I'm taking legal every time. Since that is where we stand with these kinds of issues, the prudent thing to do is pick a side and be done with it.

You don't say it nearly as neatly as Voltaire did.

"A witty saying proves nothing." ~ Voltaire

Voltaire spoke English very well, then.

What constitutes national sovereignty?

I would like Emmental to respond to this.

Gay marriage is a moral issue. Abortion is a moral issue. There are others. They've all been tackled by the UN.

The question is not whether they where tackled by the UN, but Should they have been. That is a matter open to debate.

The one thing the UN understands far better than national governments is that it is wrong to infringe on personal rights and freedoms simply to go along with local cultures. If we determined the standard of national sovereignty as anything that can be considered moral by local cultures, I doubt there'd be *any* passed resolutions.

I'd have to disagree. How is it that the UN can know better then local governments what is best for the people living there? You assume some measure of omniscience in that even though you do not live in a place, you claim to know what is best for the people living thier. That is quite an arrogant position to adopt. Take for instance the idea of forcing Democracy into an area where people have no desire for it. Without the support of the local populace demoracy will fail. Yet you would claim to know what is best for these people, and perhaps force them into democracy at the point of a gun. But now your democracy has really become nothing more then despotism, in that you will force the locals to your will, reardless of thier desires. This is the major fallacy of your position. There is no way for such a large body, so far removed from the local happenings, to know whats best for the people of that region.

Taking freedoms and rights to their logical conclusion, anything that does not infringe on another person's rights or freedoms should be legal and some members, Zamundaland included, wish to see said rights and freedoms guaranteed, regardless of how repugnant local cultures may find them.

You are operating under a logical fallacy, because in order to force certain nations to adopt YOUR concepts of personal freedoms, you are yourself violating the rights and freedoms of these nations to self governance. So you are now violating your own stated purpose of guaranteeing the rights of ALL people. By forcing your own views of local governance onto these nations, you are destroying the cultures that make these countries unique and vibrant. Is culturcide really part of the UN mandate?


Until very recently, prostitution was legal. The resolution was repealed to include language related to health issues. Everyone seemed to be living with it just fine, including said horrified, moral local cultures.

Here's the problem with moral issues, including the one everyone is fuming over, legalized prostitution. If it isn't legal, someone pushes to make it illegal. Is this a better idea? Isn't this the same 'pushing a point of view down other people's throats'? Because face it, regarding prostitution, this issue isn't going away. If I have to choose between it being legal with regulation and strictly illegal no matter what, I'm taking legal every time. Since that is where we stand with these kinds of issues, the prudent thing to do is pick a side and be done with it.


What you are making here is an argument for allowing the local regions to make this decsion. Otherwise on side or the other is now force feeding thier own sence of morality upon the other. While you like strike down other peoples posts as being insignificant becasue they are making a moral argument, I would put forward that you aree doing the same thing, its just your 'morals' are originating from the other side of the aisle. When it comes to governance, be it world or national, you can not avoid it becoming a matter of morals. The question is, whether it is truely right for one side to dominate the other. If you are going to endorse the UN abusing its power in the game in order to force your own set of morals onto all member states, then you are already violating your own stated precedent of wishing to ensure the protection of all personal freedoms. If a people wish to live by a set of ultra conservativ e religious dogma, and still participate in the UN so they can act to protect themselves from the scurge of Global Warming, they should have every right to do so. They should not have a liberal social agenda forced upon them in order to protect themsleves form climatic disaster.

This is the argument of the Local Soveriegnity folks, and I have yet to see an intelligent argument as to why it should not be this way.

BTW, i voted for the current proposal for sexual industry workers. For me it is a matter of international trade. The sex industry is just that, and industry. ANd Sex workers will likly be operating across international borders. Therefore it now becomes part of the pervue of the UN.

2. If it's just a puppet, why should you care?
OOC: It's nothing personal but I despise that argument. It essentially boils down to "it doesn't matter what motions I support because I don't actually care about the effects on my nation". While keeping with the rules of the UN in this game I think it's highly dubious whether it's keeping in the spirit of things. I really hope NS2 bans puppets because far too many people abuse them in the way you've just illustrated.

IC: We agree with everything Powerhungry Chipmunks said. We'd also add to the list

Cowardly: It's a tactic used by delegates who's arguments are unable to stand on their own merits, being largely made up of semi literate sloganising. It's noticable that those delegates who are best at debate (including those we are used to finding ourselves on the opposite side to) don't do it. If it carries on we may feel the need to make our point by giving specific public examples.

To start:

THEN LEAVE THE UN FOR GODS SAKE AND STOP ANNOYING EVERYBODY! If you don't, the Irish Brotherhood will gladly make you leave. Take your petty little nation away off somewhere else. You're giving me a migraine.
I rest my case.

As I look over the list of past United Nations resolutions I am struck by this institutions total disregard for nation’s sovereignty, or a nation’s right to rule itself. While I am sure the motive is good, the actual effect of these resolutions is to totally disregard an individual nation's right to determine its own government. Imagine if you will, that you are at home and about to eat some potato chips and watch an action movie. Suddenly someone bursts into your house and informs you that you are not allowed to do that! He tells you that because majority of your peers have decided potato chips are unhealthy, and action movies uneducational, you are not allowed to have either! He ignores your plea that you usually eat healthy food, or that you have just gotten back from hours of studying, or any other justification for you behavior. He calmly informs you that your individual circumstances are irrelevant, that because the majority of your peers feel that they eat too much junk food, or do not get enough education, then everyone must do the same. He replaces your chips with carrots, and your movie with a documentary on heart transplants. What would you do if this happened? You would be outraged, would you not!? Well this has happened! The United Nations is an intruder that has broken you’re your homes, your nation! They wish to subvert your countries right to decide what is best for itself and replace it with laws made by people who could not even point your country out in a map, let alone know what is best for it! The right of an individual to do as he or she wishes in their home is sacrosanct, why should this notion not apply to nations! I beg of you, the next time that you are submitting a resolution, stop, and think for a second. Do I have the right to do this? Is this issue so important that I feel I may violate another government's right to rule itself? To break into another person's house and tell them what they is best for them? I think you will find that in almost all instances, you do not.
Thank you for your time.

I agree with you. Power to the nations.
U.N. power should be limited to international issues like global warming, wars, terrorism etc.

Hmmm,

Am I seeing the start of a political movement beginning to for here?

Perhaps all the 'Nations Rights" nations should form a political party in order to help advance our cause?

Help spread the word throughout our divulgent regions...

HELP END THE AGE OF UN TYRANNY
:mp5: :mp5:

Hmmm,

Am I seeing the start of a political movement beginning to for here?

Perhaps all the 'Nations Rights" nations should form a political party in order to help advance our cause?

Help spread the word throughout our divulgent regions...

HELP END THE AGE OF UN TYRANNY
:mp5: :mp5:

I would be willing to join that party.

Hmmm,

Am I seeing the start of a political movement beginning to for here?

Perhaps all the 'Nations Rights" nations should form a political party in order to help advance our cause?

Help spread the word throughout our divulgent regions...

HELP END THE AGE OF UN TYRANNY
:mp5: :mp5:
Wow. I still haven't decided if that's brilliant or doomed to failure. And I'm not being sarcastic. I promise to ponder this matter further.

After much deliberation, Nargopia has decided that we too would join this party. Knowing the UN Member nations in my region, most of them would probably go for it too.

Hmmm,

Am I seeing the start of a political movement beginning to for here?

Perhaps all the 'Nations Rights" nations should form a political party in order to help advance our cause?

Help spread the word throughout our divulgent regions...

HELP END THE AGE OF UN TYRANNY
:mp5: :mp5:
I wouldn't be against it. As much as I have been involved in the whole prostitution issue, if it weren't for the right-wingers trying to propose a resolution that prostitution be illegal, I wouldn't have cared one way or the other.

Mark this day on your calendars then my friends. For today the National Soverienty Coalition is borne!

First step is for all like minded nations to go back to thier regions and organise!

Get like minded nations to join the UN.

Lets get enough votes and delegates on the UN as we can. Then we can start affecting legislation!

POWER TO THE NATION-STATES!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Voltaire spoke English very well, then.


The point, of course, was not how he said it (you can translate the French anyway you like), but that you're ripping off Voltaire.

The point, of course, was not how he said it (you can translate the French anyway you like), but that you're ripping off Voltaire.

I've never read Voltaire, so it would be difficult for me to rip off of him. All I know about Voltaire is that he was some French philosopher.

Mark this day on your calendars then my friends. For today the National Soverienty Coalition is borne!

First step is for all like minded nations to go back to thier regions and organise!

Get like minded nations to join the UN.

Lets get enough votes and delegates on the UN as we can. Then we can start affecting legislation!

POWER TO THE NATION-STATES!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Power in the UN rests with regional delegates. The key would be to gather together regional delegates who support national sovereignty. A national sovereignty coalition would need a database of participants, central leadership, and active telegramming among members. Until all those things come together, a possible short-term solution would be to join Gatesville, a well-respected "national sovereignty"-ish region. They have the highest non-feeder region membership.

Yes, if nations which are interested in fighting (what they see as) over-stepping from the UN, then they need to stay in the UN.

I agree with the original poster, lately the UN has violated national sovereinty with several of the past resolutions. Many of the nations in the UN are stupid and ignorant.

Mark this day on your calendars then my friends. For today the National Soverienty Coalition is borne!

First step is for all like minded nations to go back to thier regions and organise!

Get like minded nations to join the UN.

Lets get enough votes and delegates on the UN as we can. Then we can start affecting legislation!

POWER TO THE NATION-STATES!
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites will join the coalition.

Whats with giving me a slagging? If you are trying to say that I havn't got the brains to hold an argument properly you are all sadly mistaken. I was only venting my anger out at Grebo because he was crying like a little girl. Also, I was only surprised that if one joins the UN, you should be prepared to suffer a few dents on your countries sovereignty, thats all. So don't you EVER suggest that I am simple because I am not. And seeing as alot of you live in countries that are not worth talking about and you need to take 10 injections just to enter, what the hell would you know about national sovereignty?

National sovereignty? The UN is under the impression that ordinary people are too stupid to know what they want.
It sickens me that such mindless twits make up these ridiculous resolutions, without even thinking about a nation's right to govern themselves! Take a look at the resolution that is currently up for vote to see my point.
The liberal left will have you believe that "big brother" knows you better than you know you and the bigger the government and big give away programs the better.

THE REALITY of the situation is that liberals crave a big government because most of them are too stupid to make it alone in the private sector. It's unfortunate, but true.

National sovereignty? The UN is under the impression that ordinary people are too stupid to know what they want.
It sickens me that such mindless twits make up these ridiculous resolutions, without even thinking about a nation's right to govern themselves! Take a look at the resolution that is currently up for vote to see my point.
The liberal left will have you believe that "big brother" knows you better than you know you and the bigger the government and big give away programs the better.
THE REALITY of the situation is that liberals crave a big government because most of them are too stupid to make it alone in the private sector. It's unfortunate, but true.
Then I'm assuming you will be volunteering your time to coordinate whatever sovereignty coalition might be formed here?

What you fail to take into account is that a proposal like this would never be brought up if the ultra-conservatives weren't just as eager to pass resolutions banning it. Most liberals don't really give a shit what other people do. But they DO give a shit when the right-wingers try to step on their toes using that morality argument. I personally do not care whether prostitution is legal throughout the UN member nations. But I most certainly do care that someone will try to tell me *I* can't have it if I want it. If I have to decide which side of the issue I'm going to be on - I'm for leaving the choice open. But that isn't acceptable to others. You see the vicious cycle I hope.

This is why I think a coalition would be a good idea. If both sides could be kept from implementing resolutions of this kind there would be room and time for other issues. It won't get rid of stupid resolutions - but then... nothing will.

I would be happy to help coordinate this issue. But someone else has to come up with the name ;)

National sovereignty? The UN is under the impression that ordinary people are too stupid to know what they want.
It sickens me that such mindless twits make up these ridiculous resolutions, without even thinking about a nation's right to govern themselves! Take a look at the resolution that is currently up for vote to see my point.
The liberal left will have you believe that "big brother" knows you better than you know you and the bigger the government and big give away programs the better.

THE REALITY of the situation is that liberals crave a big government because most of them are too stupid to make it alone in the private sector. It's unfortunate, but true.

For your information, I'm not a liberal and I'm not left wing either. I would call myself far right wing, thank you very much :P

National sovereignty? The UN is under the impression that ordinary people are too stupid to know what they want.
It sickens me that such mindless twits make up these ridiculous resolutions, without even thinking about a nation's right to govern themselves! Take a look at the resolution that is currently up for vote to see my point.
The liberal left will have you believe that "big brother" knows you better than you know you and the bigger the government and big give away programs the better.

THE REALITY of the situation is that liberals crave a big government because most of them are too stupid to make it alone in the private sector. It's unfortunate, but true.
Thank you for alienating a large portion of those who might be willing to join us in this coalition. I truly appreciate you screwing us over.

You missed the point. Many of the UN resolutions belong at the national, or even local level. They don't belong at some world level for all to suffer the wrath of.

You missed the point. Many of the UN resolutions belong at the national, or even local level. They don't belong at some world level for all to suffer the wrath of.
I didn't miss the point at all. I agree with what you're saying here. I don't agree with your mindless insults towards left-wing, socialist governments (like Nargopia). You're assuming that everyone will adhere to the stereotypes of a certain political affiliation, and in doing so, you're insulting many potential coalition members.

National sovereignty? The UN is under the impression that ordinary people are too stupid to know what they want.
It sickens me that such mindless twits make up these ridiculous resolutions, without even thinking about a nation's right to govern themselves! Take a look at the resolution that is currently up for vote to see my point.
The liberal left will have you believe that "big brother" knows you better than you know you and the bigger the government and big give away programs the better.

THE REALITY of the situation is that liberals crave a big government because most of them are too stupid to make it alone in the private sector. It's unfortunate, but true.


Dorksonia,

I consider myself pretty liberal, so your analysis that this is a liberal v conservative issue is just plain wrong. In fact the word, ignorant, springs to mind. The issues of protecting national soveriegnty is not a liberal or conservative one. It spans across such simple labels. I am afraid you are allowing yourself to be influenced by the kind of propoganda that RL politicos, ( like Karl Rowe ) use in order to maintain a polorization of the populace.


As to organization.

For a movement to work it must first crawl before it walks. the first step is to get the word out, and start forming grass root support. We need to get ans many like-minded natins into the UN. In the short run, these nations can help vote down any anti-soverignty legislation. Then we can start working on geting a block of delegates together. And yes, we will need a place to meet and discuss issues ( such as which proposals we want to vote as a block on ).

But for now, we need to drum up overall support. Second, does anyone have the capability to host an message board we can point people to.

As to a name, I like to keep things simple, so I suggest we simply call ourselves the National Sovernty Coalition, or NSC. I also suggest we stick to being a simple coalition of nations that wish to work twprds preserving the rights of natin-states to self rule, and limit UN legislation to those issues that have a significant global impact. To start with, i would look to limit legislation to things dealing with International trade, pollution and Global Climate change, and world health issues.

As to organization.
For a movement to work it must first crawl before it walks. the first step is to get the word out, and start forming grass root support. We need to get ans many like-minded natins into the UN. In the short run, these nations can help vote down any anti-soverignty legislation. Then we can start working on geting a block of delegates together. And yes, we will need a place to meet and discuss issues ( such as which proposals we want to vote as a block on ).
I agree it would need to crawl before it could walk. In order to do that, however, I think we need an offsite board. We then need a mission statement, organization of coalition leaders, etc. We then need to decide how to go about drumming up the support we need. Powerhungry Chipmunks is correct when he says the organization of the coalition must come first. So... offsite board, work on mission statement, create database of coalition members, assign TGing to members, etc.

But for now, we need to drum up overall support. Second, does anyone have the capability to host an message board we can point people to.
I've made a list of those on this thread who appeared willing to join the coalition. I will go back over the prostitution thread and see which of those mentioned sovereignty issues and make a list there as well. That will be the beginning I guess - Unless someone has a better idea.

As to a name, I like to keep things simple, so I suggest we simply call ourselves the National Sovernty Coalition, or NSC. I also suggest we stick to being a simple coalition of nations that wish to work twprds preserving the rights of natin-states to self rule, and limit UN legislation to those issues that have a significant global impact. To start with, i would look to limit legislation to things dealing with International trade, pollution and Global Climate change, and world health issues.
Sounds good. Want to work on the mission statement? I can look into the off-site board thing.

How about trading a little bit of useless liberty for a lot of permanent safety? ;)

I am curious what liberties are useless and how giving them up gives permanent safety?

Essentialy true, however, there are many people who honestly don't know what is best for them and what is not. That is why we have governments, to tell us what is best. Corrupt governments are different story, but thats something completely different...



"I'm from the government and I am here to help"

Nothing like a little arrogance. I am smart and wiser than you and I understand better how you should live your life because you are too dumb to understand what is best.

Hmmm,

Am I seeing the start of a political movement beginning to for here?

Perhaps all the 'Nations Rights" nations should form a political party in order to help advance our cause?

Help spread the word throughout our divulgent regions...

HELP END THE AGE OF UN TYRANNY
:mp5: :mp5:

Count me in

Created a board - will post details in a couple hours - off to lunch. :)

Created a board - will post details in a couple hours - off to lunch. :)


That's absolutley AWESOME!

I'll go to work on a mission statement. Got a busy day ahead of me so I can't promise anything until tommorow.

That's absolutley AWESOME!
I'll go to work on a mission statement. Got a busy day ahead of me so I can't promise anything until tommorow.

Eh.. no problem.

No worries about your schedule - my access on the weekend is sporadic so it's all good.

Check out the newness: http://s8.invisionfree.com/NSC/index.php

Anyone interested in this coalition, please register at the board.

Just out of curiousity, but what is this anti-UN coillition going to do? Overthrow the UN? Storm the Headquarters of the UN and kill all the delegates?

In any event - to actually do anything to UN resolutions and proposals the Nation (or delegate) would have to be a member of the UN as well.....

Eh. I am totally confused as to why people are forming this. You are pissed off with the UN that much? Quit. If not - if you sometimes agree and sometimes don't - fight for what you believe in and oppose everything you don't.

Anyway - I just don't get the problem.

You are pissed off with the UN that much? Quit.
From the little I've been able to understand, it seems some of them don't want the UN to affect them really, but want to make choices in it anyway.
I don't get it either.

Just out of curiousity, but what is this anti-UN coillition going to do? Overthrow the UN? Storm the Headquarters of the UN and kill all the delegates?

I don't recall there being an anti-UN coalition mentioned. There was an organization that would promote national sovereignty, however.

In any event - to actually do anything to UN resolutions and proposals the Nation (or delegate) would have to be a member of the UN as well.....

Eh. I am totally confused as to why people are forming this. You are pissed off with the UN that much? Quit. If not - if you sometimes agree and sometimes don't - fight for what you believe in and oppose everything you don't.

You haven't been reading the thread, have you? You seem to be mentioning points that are irrelevant or have already been addressed.

Anyway - I just don't get the problem.

That is quite clear.

From the little I've been able to understand, it seems some of them don't want the UN to affect them really, but want to make choices in it anyway.
I don't get it either.

Personally, I prefer that the UN promote (not mandate) an agenda of unity and liberty. My problem is that the UN often mandates rather than promotes. It's a fairly simple distinction, and I'm sure you're intelligent enough to grasp it.

I agree on the attack on national sovergnty. This is a world organization in which we look to have common defence and prevent genocides. It is not set up to make laws for domestic issues. That is why i am against the legal protitution proposal. IT is a matter on national, not international concern. The un is not congress, it is a body of world leader who can still hold their national identity dear and yet look to protect the members against invasion.

thats just me though

I think some people are only just getting to grips with what our county's leaders face in the real world!

For those that have not read the threads, or just don't get it, here is what is being proposed:

A coalition whose goal is to defeat those proposals that egregiously violate national sovereignty.

1. I do not need a lesson on what national sovereignty is.

2. I am aware that when you join the UN you lose some national sovereignty.

3. I am happy to abide by UN resolutions but these debates on prostitution, abortion and the like are just getting plain old. If neither the right-wing nor the left-wing were able to push these kinds of proposals the UN could concentrate on issues that are of global interest and importance.

4. If you don't like the idea - don't join the coalition.

Pretty simple I think.

I think some people are only just getting to grips with what our county's leaders face in the real world!
Not really - just decided to use the same tactics they do.

Just out of curiousity, but what is this anti-UN coillition going to do? Overthrow the UN? Storm the Headquarters of the UN and kill all the delegates?
In any event - to actually do anything to UN resolutions and proposals the Nation (or delegate) would have to be a member of the UN as well.....
Eh. I am totally confused as to why people are forming this. You are pissed off with the UN that much? Quit. If not - if you sometimes agree and sometimes don't - fight for what you believe in and oppose everything you don't.
Anyway - I just don't get the problem.
I am not anti-UN, nor do I propose violence.

As to how resolutions and proposals work and requiring delegates - yeah I think we get that.

Pissed off with the UN? No not at all. The whole point of the coalition is to defeat those proposals that are not truly of international or global concern.

So what part don't you get?

I am not anti-UN, nor do I propose violence.

As to how resolutions and proposals work and requiring delegates - yeah I think we get that.

Pissed off with the UN? No not at all. The whole point of the coalition is to defeat those proposals that are not truly of international or global concern.

So what part don't you get?

The whole point of it. Everyone will have a different idea of where to draw the line in relation to national sovereignty. I accept it is important, but (apparently) to a much lesser degree than some people. I will not have resolutions putting the death penalty in my nation, or one that lets my people own guns. But so far every resolution that passed (excepting the Axis of Evil) gets my support. Even the prostitution one. They don't interfere with the way I run my nation in a way I object to, and - aside from the two I mentioned above (and maybe some others I haven't considered yet) I can't think of any that would be something I could not support on those grounds.

Honestly I just don't see the point. And - somewhat ooc - it is things like this that just piss me off imensely about the game.

Personally, I believe that basic human rights supercede any rights of national sovereignty. The UN, with it's strong commitment to, and as principal upholder of, human rights, should endeavour to enforce human rights in its member nations. Nations wanting to join the UN must endorse these same principals. Any UN proposal which aims at improving human rights, therefore, SHOULD infringe on national sovereignty. The UN is ALWAYS going to infringe on it anyway, that's what happens when you join an organisation which as international authority. International law infringes on national sovereignty, but it is necessary.

The whole point of it. Everyone will have a different idea of where to draw the line in relation to national sovereignty. I accept it is important, but (apparently) to a much lesser degree than some people.

National sovereingty is indeed important to you, as evidenced by what you say below.

I will not have resolutions putting the death penalty in my nation, or one that lets my people own guns.

Now here you demonstrate a concern for the sovereignty of your nation. You object strenuously to the mere idea of a UN mandate that runs contrary to the policies of your nation. And yet you openly support doing that same thing (which you find so objectionable if done to you) to other nations.

Caveat: You might say that you oppose the other more conservative policies on the grounds that the arguments used in favor of them are very poor. Let's do a little illustration.

I decide to make a policy that will define water as having the quality of 'wetness'. The argument I use to support this policy goes like so: "Water is wet because I said so." I used a crappy argument, but my point was valid. (I could argue the opposite point on linguistic grounds, and still have another valid, though opposing, conclusion.)

As such, it's clear that a crappy argument does not invalidate a conclusion.

But so far every resolution that passed (excepting the Axis of Evil) gets my support. Even the prostitution one. They don't interfere with the way I run my nation in a way I object to...

Ah. They don't interfere with your nation, so it's okay. So if it doesn't interfere with your rights or cause you a problem it doesn't matter. I suppose then, for the sake of consistency, that you would say that protecting the rights of an oppressed minority doesn't matter as long as it doesn't directly affect you. But wait, you do support protecting the rights of oppressed minorities! How fascinatingly hypocritical of you, Tori.

Honestly I just don't see the point. And - somewhat ooc - it is things like this that just piss me off imensely about the game.

OOC: What about it pisses you off? Is it too divisive? ;)

If I'm being too pissy for you IC, just let me know and I'll tone it down.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Stupid%20Crap/deadhorse.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Stupid%20Crap/deadhorse.gif

It's not dead yet. Give it another year. ;)

Edit: Actually, I think the whole concept of national sovereignty in relation to the NationStates game construct and the United Nations policy engine is a facinating one that could do with some further elaboration. Exploring legal concepts such as this one in the peculiar context of an online simulation game is actually quite enjoyable for me.

It's not dead yet. Give it another year. ;)

Edit: Actually, I think the whole concept of national sovereignty in relation to the NationStates game construct and the United Nations policy engine is a facinating one that could do with some further elaboration. Exploring legal concepts such as this one in the peculiar context of an online simulation game is actually quite enjoyable for me.


Puts down Freudian couch and easy-chair

Drops Texan Hotrodders onto the couch

Arranges self on easy-chair

Lights cigar.

"Zho. Tell me about your mudder."

Puts down Freudian couch and easy-chair

Drops Texan Hotrodders onto the couch

Arranges self on easy-chair

Lights cigar.

"Zho. Tell me about your mudder."

looks around

shrugs

Well, Siggy, it all started when I was born. She was sreaming and moaning with pain when I came out, you know. It was all quite traumatic.

Then she would hit me when I did things as a child and tell me not to do it again. How was I supposed to know that poking people's eyes out was inappropriate?

Anyway, later on when I got older I got a huge car and drove off into the sunset.

what madness is this? sovereign states have enjoyed impunity since the 1300's the westphalian accord stopped johnny next door stomping over your border and stealing your nation, its goods chattels and placing the citizens in servitude (slavery) without the safety of the accord, i may as well develop weapons of mass destruction and become oppenheimer, (behold i am become death. shatterer of worlds).

nothing breeds fear like the unknown. peoples perceptions are always biased. in reality crime is dropping, yet those who would sell you security, will pander to those fears, just so they can sell you something.

i will defend my nation. and i will return a profit. remember folks, only two things come out of war. the dead, and the dead rich.

what madness is this? sovereign states have enjoyed impunity since the 1300's the westphalian accord stopped johnny next door stomping over your border and stealing your nation, its goods chattels and placing the citizens in servitude (slavery) without the safety of the accord, i may as well develop weapons of mass destruction and become oppenheimer, (behold i am become death. shatterer of worlds).

nothing breeds fear like the unknown. peoples perceptions are always biased. in reality crime is dropping, yet those who would sell you security, will pander to those fears, just so they can sell you something.

i will defend my nation. and i will return a profit. remember folks, only two things come out of war. the dead, and the dead rich.

Psst! Over here! I just figured I would let you in on a little secret. This is the NationStates United Nations forum, not the Nations in Real Life forum.

what madness is this? sovereign states have enjoyed impunity since the 1300's the westphalian accord stopped johnny next door stomping over your border and stealing your nation, its goods chattels and placing the citizens in servitude (slavery) without the safety of the accord, i may as well develop weapons of mass destruction and become oppenheimer, (behold i am become death. shatterer of worlds).

nothing breeds fear like the unknown. peoples perceptions are always biased. in reality crime is dropping, yet those who would sell you security, will pander to those fears, just so they can sell you something.

i will defend my nation. and i will return a profit. remember folks, only two things come out of war. the dead, and the dead rich.

*continues counting their quadrillions*

Sorry, did someone say something?

*continues counting their quadrillions*

Sorry, did someone say something?
My 4 billion people think you stole that!

You could be right.

Of course, that would depend on the definition of the word "stole".

We prefer "reappropriated".





Or "looted". "Looted" is good.

National sovereingty is indeed important to you, as evidenced by what you say below.


Yeah - but that's two things out of how many resolutions that have been passed? And proposed? It is something I consider, but I would not list it as "important" when reviewing a proposal for support.


Now here you demonstrate a concern for the sovereignty of your nation. You object strenuously to the mere idea of a UN mandate that runs contrary to the policies of your nation. And yet you openly support doing that same thing (which you find so objectionable if done to you) to other nations.


But generally I can find another, more valid reason to oppose them. Such as the death penalty is counter productive and arming everyone is just a way to get more accidental deaths. Which are both true, and have nothing to do with the way my government governs.


Ah. They don't interfere with your nation, so it's okay. So if it doesn't interfere with your rights or cause you a problem it doesn't matter. I suppose then, for the sake of consistency, that you would say that protecting the rights of an oppressed minority doesn't matter as long as it doesn't directly affect you. But wait, you do support protecting the rights of oppressed minorities! How fascinatingly hypocritical of you, Tori.


But here's the thing - they do interfere in my nation. Quite a lot. We had to change laws, make new buildings and do all sorts of fun things when we joined the UN. But we did them with a song in our heart and a smile on our face because we believed that what the resolution was trying to do was worthwhile, and was not worth standing up for our own national-self-interest against it (And yes - I am aware that was a pretty bad sentence, but hopefully you get the idea)



OOC: What about it pisses you off? Is it too divisive? ;)


(OOC)
Don't really know. I was kind of tired when I was posting last night, and .....
I will give it more thought to see if I can actually explain it :]

(further ooc edit)
Yeah - I think my whole explanation is that I am tired, I have been unable to sleep, and I haven't seen my Amy in nearly two months, and it's only 12 days till she is down again.
So sorry for that "pissing me off part" - it was somewhat uncalled for and I will try to avoid doing it again!
(back in character)



If I'm being too pissy for you IC, just let me know and I'll tone it down.

(grin) No - go ahead. You are being politely pissy rather than offensively pissy, so I have no problem with it :}

I read all the thread, but I still can't get one thing.
when someone said that you could find national sovereignty, many others said him they had the right to faught for their opinions and change the world by the UN.
but when others countries faught fot their different opinions and change the world by their wish (aborations, prostitution, gay rights, etc') you said the UN shouldn't do it because of your national sovereignty.
I can't understood why you think you had the right to change the world, and others can't (or worse, you want to be effected only from the resolutions you love, which is illegaly).

At the end of the day, people are happy only when they agree with the UN resolutions that are passed, or when they don't make a difference to their nation. Whenever they don't agree with it, they cry out with "national sovereignty". But you can't have your cake and eat it. Signing up to the UN, you know that motions will be passed that will affect your nation. And you may not always like them. But that is the choice you take: if you want to help change the world through the UN, then you must also willing to be changed. Otherwise, you can leave the UN.

It is clear alopt of people don;'t get it. It is not about this particuliar resolution or that one. Alot of people simply do not think the UN should be spoending its time debating issues trhe we feel are best left to local governments. It is a valid position to have. The coalition is merely a toill for people with those beliefs tpo organize and attempt to manifest those beliefs through the UN. In orther words we will be better in able to tryu and efeat those resolutions that we think go too far in abridging our Natinal SOveriegnty. Whether we are successful or not will be determined by whether or not we can gather enough votes. The coalition is a way to organize and gather votes. It is all legal and within the rules of the game.

Frankly, it is not selfish at all. It is simply organizing an opposition to those who like to use the UN to force thier own political agendas ontop other nations, when some of us feel we could be spending our time debating and dealing with real global issues, like the spread of AIDS, Global Warming, International Shipping and fishing rights, etc. These are real global issues that ONLY the UN can deal with. Frankly legalization of prostitution, drugs, Free speech, etc should really be the purvue of local nations, in my opinion. Now you don;t have to share my opinion, but please do not stand there and tell me I have no right to maintain my opinion or try to fur4ther my own agenda in the UN.

I think the extremist have held sway in the UN for too long, time to try and bring things back to the center...

It is clear alopt of people don;'t get it. It is not about this particuliar resolution or that one. Alot of people simply do not think the UN should be spoending its time debating issues trhe we feel are best left to local governments. It is a valid position to have. The coalition is merely a toill for people with those beliefs tpo organize and attempt to manifest those beliefs through the UN. In orther words we will be better in able to tryu and efeat those resolutions that we think go too far in abridging our Natinal SOveriegnty. Whether we are successful or not will be determined by whether or not we can gather enough votes. The coalition is a way to organize and gather votes. It is all legal and within the rules of the game.

Frankly, it is not selfish at all. It is simply organizing an opposition to those who like to use the UN to force thier own political agendas ontop other nations, when some of us feel we could be spending our time debating and dealing with real global issues, like the spread of AIDS, Global Warming, International Shipping and fishing rights, etc. These are real global issues that ONLY the UN can deal with. Frankly legalization of prostitution, drugs, Free speech, etc should really be the purvue of local nations, in my opinion. Now you don;t have to share my opinion, but please do not stand there and tell me I have no right to maintain my opinion or try to fur4ther my own agenda in the UN.

I think the extremist have held sway in the UN for too long, time to try and bring things back to the center...

I do get it. I always have. I know it is not about a specific resolution - it is about the fact the UN passes laws that affect all it's member nations, and some nations feel that the laws are too intrusive.

It's not that hard a concept to understand, and just assuming that because I disagree with you, I don't understand the problem is not helpful, but eh - you just assumed I didn't understand such a simple concept as your arguement.

The point is I don't get why you are doing this, because every single resolution is going to interfere in national sovereignty. Fishing rights means that a nation will no longer be able to fish the way it wants to - thus intruding on it's national sovereignty. Global warming? You are going to tell nations how to run their businesses and that won't intrude on national sovereignty?

And yet other ones - free speech for example - that is something a lot of people would consider a basic right of humanity - to be able to express your dislike of your government, to not fear the consequences of speaking out against injustice and intolerance. How is that not the business of the UN?

TilEnca, I'm sure that Repugnant was not talking about you. You have presented clear and intelligent arguments that show you understand both sides of the issue (up until this last post, of course). We in the coalition understand that every UN decision will intrude on national sovereignty at some level. Personally, I am often pleased when the NS UN does exercise its power to do so, but only in cases that require it. The Convention on Genocide, the Fairness and Equality Resolution, the HIV AIDS Act, and the Tsunami Warning System are all examples of resolutions that breached national sovereignty in some way. However, human rights or international issues were the point of the resolution, not cultural or moral norms.
At the end of the day, people are happy only when they agree with the UN resolutions that are passed, or when they don't make a difference to their nation. Whenever they don't agree with it, they cry out with "national sovereignty". But you can't have your cake and eat it. Signing up to the UN, you know that motions will be passed that will affect your nation. And you may not always like them. But that is the choice you take: if you want to help change the world through the UN, then you must also willing to be changed. Otherwise, you can leave the UN.
Or not. Nargopia, as well as many other nations here, argue against intrusive resolutions not because they interfere with our policies, but because we really do value national sovereignty.

1) Nargopia legalized prostitution a long time ago. Now the government runs the industry. However, we voted against the resolutions wishing to legalize it because it should be left up to individual nations to decide such issues.

2) We also have legalized pornography, but argued against a resolution demanding universal legalization, for the same reasons.

3) Nargopia faithfully complies with all resolutions the UN adopts, but will continue to exercise its right to work to change legislation.
I read all the thread, but I still can't get one thing.
when someone said that you could find national sovereignty, many others said him they had the right to faught for their opinions and change the world by the UN.
but when others countries faught fot their different opinions and change the world by their wish (aborations, prostitution, gay rights, etc') you said the UN shouldn't do it because of your national sovereignty.
I can't understood why you think you had the right to change the world, and others can't (or worse, you want to be effected only from the resolutions you love, which is illegaly).
See above comments to TilEnca.

TilEnca, I'm sure that Repugnant was not talking about you. You have presented clear and intelligent arguments that show you understand both sides of the issue (up until this last post, of course).


(smirk)


We in the coalition understand that every UN decision will intrude on national sovereignty at some level. Personally, I am often pleased when the NS UN does exercise its power to do so, but only in cases that require it. The Convention on Genocide, the Fairness and Equality Resolution, the HIV AIDS Act, and the Tsunami Warning System are all examples of resolutions that breached national sovereignty in some way. However, human rights or international issues were the point of the resolution, not cultural or moral norms.


But what some people consider certain things to be human rights that other people consider to be cultural norms, or acceptable risk. Take torturing terrorist prisoners for example. This is currently forbidden by the UN (under the Wolfish Convention and other resolutions) but a lot of nations want the right to do this for their own security. I would consider it a human right not to be tortured when you have been captured, but others might not.
Gay rights - some cultures might think it is fine to abuse gays and treat them like crap. I think that being able to exist as the person you are without having to hide or live in fear is a basic human right. Yet if I ask for the UN to enforce that right I am breaching some cultures idea of normality.

The EON Convention breaches all sorts of cultural norms and rights. If a massacre has occurred in my nation, is it not my place to determine how to punish those who did it? We could be a people who strongly believe in justice being done, and that people should be punished by those they affected. By taking the people who commit genocide out of the nation, and in to the international forum, my people are being deprived of something they have had all their lives.

But do I complain? No. Because I accept that sometimes the rights of a nation to dictate their culture have to be superceeded to ensure that everyone is treated fairly. While writing the Convention I KNEW that it would violate all sorts of people's ideas of national sovereignty, and I knew some people would object to it. Yet a lot of people are not objecting to it because it is on behalf of human rights.

So now the discussion shifts. Because if this new exciting shiny group accepts that some violation of national sovereignty is acceptable - if it is for an international cause, or for human rights, then the discussion now becomes what are basic human rights, and what are not. And what is an international issue, and what isn't. And the phrase "getting cats to dance in line" springs to mind.

Whats with giving me a slagging?With all due respect, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you are trying to say that I havn't got the brains to hold an argument properly you are all sadly mistaken.I don't say that for certain. I merely say that I have seen no evidence to the contrary. I was only venting my anger out at Grebo because he was crying like a little girl. And once again we see your preferred level of debate.Also, I was only surprised that if one joins the UN, you should be prepared to suffer a few dents on your countries sovereignty, thats all. So don't you EVER suggest that I am simple because I am not.I don't think I actually suggested that. And seeing as alot of you live in countries that are not worth talking about and you need to take 10 injections just to enter, what the hell would you know about national sovereignty?Ah, I see what you mean. The incisive logic in that near takes my breath away.

I didn't miss the point at all. I agree with what you're saying here. I don't agree with your mindless insults towards left-wing, socialist governments (like Nargopia). You're assuming that everyone will adhere to the stereotypes of a certain political affiliation, and in doing so, you're insulting many potential coalition members.I understand your distaste for those particular rather undiplomatic comments. But you do have to recognise they're from a rather inexperience delegate and hardly reflect on this coalition as a whole.

Just out of curiousity, but what is this anti-UN coillition going to do? Overthrow the UN? Storm the Headquarters of the UN and kill all the delegates?I wondered where my notebook had got too. ;)

In any event - to actually do anything to UN resolutions and proposals the Nation (or delegate) would have to be a member of the UN as well.....Absolutely. And I see no suggestion that nations should leave the UN. Indeed, I'd argue the opposite is true. Attempts to get people to leave the UN seem to be coming exclusively from your side of the argument.

Eh. I am totally confused as to why people are forming this. You are pissed off with the UN that much? Quit. If not - if you sometimes agree and sometimes don't - fight for what you believe in and oppose everything you don't.Because to do what you suggest here, some sort of basic organisation and co-operation is needed.
So now the discussion shifts. Because if this new exciting shiny group accepts that some violation of national sovereignty is acceptable - if it is for an international cause, or for human rights, then the discussion now becomes what are basic human rights, and what are not. And what is an international issue, and what isn't. And the phrase "getting cats to dance in line" springs to mind.I don't think that having a coalition that has members of differing views is necessarily a weakness. This at least allows those members of the UN who do believe that national sovereignty is an important issue to take into consideration when voting on motions, to discuss stances and tactics openly.

Since we seem to still be getting the "if you don't like it leave the UN" point of view, how about if we explain it this way.

Just as it is the right of people to attempt to garner enough votes for any and all resolutions which may or may not be beneficial, it is also the right of others to organize, if possible, to defeat said resolutions.

Now. If a group of people have decided that national sovereignty is an issue for them, they have every right, whether you get it or not, to try to organize enough votes to defeat those resolutions that group feels violate national sovereignty without enough benefit behind the resolution to make said violation appropriate.

This is what national leaders do all the time. They create groups and organizations whose purpose is to further their own political agenda. Don't think it will work? It very well may not. <shrug> Don't like it? Don't join.

Basically i agree with the last post. You must prioritize your own national interests. If you are a fan of national sovereignty, you should withdraw from the United Nations. It is not a forced issue to become part of the UN. You probably will not agree with every resolution that has been passed, but you must look at the whole plethera of resolutions

I do like the idea of coalitions within the UN, each with their own agenda. The coalition talked of in this thread is mainly one of reducing the UN's effect on national sovereignty. But there could equally be a coalition of liberal democracies who want to spread the liberal agenda through the UN.

There are coalitions in the real UN, such as a general coalition of Muslim states for example.

I do like the idea of coalitions within the UN, each with their own agenda. The coalition talked of in this thread is mainly one of reducing the UN's effect on national sovereignty. But there could equally be a coalition of liberal democracies who want to spread the liberal agenda through the UN.


I am hoping so :}

Basically i agree with the last post. You must prioritize your own national interests. If you are a fan of national sovereignty, you should withdraw from the United Nations. It is not a forced issue to become part of the UN. You probably will not agree with every resolution that has been passed, but you must look at the whole plethera of resolutions
Huh? That's the absolute opposite argument to the post you're talking about.

But there could equally be a coalition of liberal democracies who want to spread the liberal agenda through the UN. Because of course those within the UN who wish to do that aren't already working together in terms of things like co-operating on motions, telegramming delegates etc. Colour me unconvinced. ;)

Because of course those within the UN who wish to do that aren't already working together in terms of things like co-operating on motions, telegramming delegates etc. Colour me unconvinced. ;)

Well surely that's what everyone does already in trying to pass a proposal. I am telegramming as many delegates as possible (or at least as many as I can be bothered contacting) to ask them to endorse my proposal on humanitarian intervention.

*Blatant plug!* :D

Zamundaland, great board. I encourage anyone interested in the national sovereignty coalition to visit the board and register.

http://s8.invisionfree.com/NSC/index.php

A note on the NSC Mission statement, I know I said I'd have it done this weekend, unfortunatly I had some issues arise that kept me away from the computer. I'll try and have it up this evening ( West coast US time.. )

For the folks that do not seem to understand where we are coming from I suggest giving it a read when it goes up.

Zamundaland, great board. I encourage anyone interested in the national sovereignty coalition to visit the board and register.

http://s8.invisionfree.com/NSC/index.php

I've registered. Now I just have to wait for my account to be validated.

I've registered.

I'm registered and validated.

I validated this morning - I'll go back and validate anyone that wasn't there yet.

And no worries about not having the mission statement yet - it'll take a while to get this running anyway. :)

OK - UPDATE: I've validated the three members who were waiting.... Asshelmetta, I think the Texan Hotrodders and someone else - sorry I don't remember the name. Feel free to look around, let me know what you think it needs or what it doesn't.

I realize no substance has been posted yet - give us a few days :)

Wow, that was alot of posts to go through, I'm very glad this discussion has been going so well. I realize this has been said alot but I feel it bears repeating. I don't think anyone in this fledgling coalition hates the UN, if they did, then they would not have joined it. We simply feel that some issues (Global warming, terrorism, the spread of diseases etc.) are the business of the UN, and some issues (Gay marriage, prostitution, DVD players) should be left up to individual nations. Also don't confuse this with a conservative movement, many of the pro-sovereignity nations are liberal or moderate.
OOC: I Signed up for the board but acidently did it under my normal forum name (Neaden)

OOC: I Signed up for the board but acidently did it under my normal forum name (Neaden)
I was wondering who that was. I had hopes for a moment that word had reached members outside this thread (which by the way it will; I'm going to inform my region members, most of who feel that national sovereignty is an important right and will be glad to join the coalition).

I was wondering who that was. I had hopes for a moment that word had reached members outside this thread (which by the way it will; I'm going to inform my region members, most of who feel that national sovereignty is an important right and will be glad to join the coalition).

<grin> At first that's what I thought too :)

Just a final bump for some more Coalition exposure; if anyone has any questions visit the board or TG Grebo, Zamundaland or Nargopia.

Perhaps we should start communicating with people in the Gatesville region.

Perhaps we should start communicating with people in the Gatesville region.
I apologize for my ignorance. Please explain.

You're turning this thread into advertising, which is illegal.

The coalition we're "advertising" for is a direct product of this thread, and was discussed for several pages. I think it's okay that we make sure everyone is informed of the development of the discussion.

i'm actually supposed to be doing some... other things... right now (OOC: homework? :P) so could someone quickly just draw the lines simply?

What coalitions are we talking about here? I see two clear sides just from reading the arguments on page 10, with TilENca, Nargopia, and a few others on one side, and the guy that was responding to all those on the other.

What exactly is going on? Just a quick sum up?

That would depend on your perspective.

But here is what I think

A) A lot of nations are unhappy with the continued assult on national sovereignty that the NSUN brings. While they understand that for truly international topics (human rights, the environment, AIDS etc) it is a good thing (or at least, a necessary evil) they believe that it has strayed too far in to the realm of interference, especially given the most recent resolution to make prostitution legal again throughout the UN. To counteract this, they have formed a group to try to defend national sovereignty as much as possible, and there is a forum about it somewhere, but that might be classed as advertising if it keeps getting mentioned.

B) A lot of nations believe that the UN is here to make life better, and that it the right (and the power) to intrude wherever required. That human rights covers a much wider scale than genocide and disease prevention, and that ensuring all women have complete control of their bodies, and that everyone should have the right to marry whom they wish is just as important as stopping mass slaughter of innocent people around the world. These people do not have a group to try to defend the right of the UN to rule on whatever it's members wish to, because........ well I am sure there is a reason I just can't remember it right now.

C) All the other nations don't give a toss.

I think that about sums it up, and if I have done any injustice to either group (more likely Group A as I am obviously in Group B) I apologise - I really was trying to be as fair and balanced (but not in the Fox News way) as possible.

TilEnca right, but I think the reason for group B not get "coalition" is queit simple.
group B is the majority. we don't need special effort for convincing others, because most of the others think as same. gay rights, aborations, prostitution, all worked as group B wish.
maybe in the future we will have to worry, but for now we had much more power.

Much thanks, honoured representative from TilEnca.

I do not identify myself with either group mentioned there... I'm in the UN because I think that it is important to establish a world government that can achieve stability in this world. There are many things that I disagree with in regards to the UN, but I think that it is a forum where many productive things can happen as well.

Just this representative's opinion.

TilEnca, I must say that I am impressed with your completely unbiased summary of the coalition and its views. I don't feel that you've done injustice to either side.

You're turning this thread into advertising, which is illegal.
didn't mean to at all.

I am not a member of the gatesville region; I happened upon the region... well, I don't remember how I happened upon the region - but the point is, I was struck by the regions manifesto, which seemed to parallel the objectives of the working group forming in this thread.

didn't know it was illegal to mention regions. sorry.

That would depend on your perspective.

But here is what I think

A) A lot of nations are unhappy with the continued assult on national sovereignty that the NSUN brings. While they understand that for truly international topics (human rights, the environment, AIDS etc) it is a good thing (or at least, a necessary evil) they believe that it has strayed too far in to the realm of interference, especially given the most recent resolution to make prostitution legal again throughout the UN. To counteract this, they have formed a group to try to defend national sovereignty as much as possible, and there is a forum about it somewhere, but that might be classed as advertising if it keeps getting mentioned.

B) A lot of nations believe that the UN is here to make life better, and that it the right (and the power) to intrude wherever required. That human rights covers a much wider scale than genocide and disease prevention, and that ensuring all women have complete control of their bodies, and that everyone should have the right to marry whom they wish is just as important as stopping mass slaughter of innocent people around the world. These people do not have a group to try to defend the right of the UN to rule on whatever it's members wish to, because........ well I am sure there is a reason I just can't remember it right now.

C) All the other nations don't give a toss.

I think that about sums it up, and if I have done any injustice to either group (more likely Group A as I am obviously in Group B) I apologise - I really was trying to be as fair and balanced (but not in the Fox News way) as possible.
Oh, it was the external board that was illegal advertising? I'm much relieved.

You're only partly right about Group A. I strongly supported the legalization of prostitution and feel it was a warranted infringement on national sovereignty.

I look at 50 other NSUN resolutions, however, and am shocked and horrified at how they run ramshackle over national sovereignty without any great overarching reason. I look at the proposal queue today and am even more disgusted. Gun control throughout the 7 worlds? Concealed carry thoughout the 7 worlds? Drug bars? Yes, I know most of those proposals will die repeatedly in the queue and never come to a vote, and yes, this is partly the scotch talking.

So color me in the libertarian wing of Group A, rather than the religiously outraged wing.