NationStates Jolt Archive

Texan Hotrodders,

I understand your points and respect them, even if I do not agree. I think its clear where I stand and I do not plan to debate further.

Again, you should be congratulated for a thoughtful resolution.

Best wishes.

The can is open, and things are crawling out! :eek:

Actually, I'm amazed at how much of an opportunity we have here to define legal concepts and try to implement them in a world full of diversity and uniqueness. It is a worthy challenge. :)
Tell me about it. At least people didn't continually challenge my definition of Habeas Corpus, given that it is already an international-accepted legal term. But it still was amusing seeing people trying to find exceptions in what was always meant to be a one-size-fits-all resolution.

ok back on topic...

1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

there have been various hypothetical senarios suggested either pro or con.

I love these 'what if' senarios...

Someone is intent on burning your house down. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

Someone is intent on planting a car bomb next to a petrol station. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

Someone is intent on planting a time-bomb in a nuclear power plant. They are not attacking you, nor anyone else.

These mere threats against property would be far more damaging than one person attacking another, yet you would have someone stand idly by and do nothing to prevent them?


These incidents would fall under the protection of yourself and/or others as the explosion caused would kill many.

Interesting point though, Terrorist use these tacticks.
Stealing a plane is not bad (well it is but not worth killing for) but we need to look at thier intent.
Just like the other argument.. what is a threat, if you see someone coming at you with an Axe that's a personal threat, if you see someone planting a car bomb then that's a personal threat.

The act of stealing a car is not worth killing someone over (again using extreme force when translating "Reasonable") but if the intend to use it as a weapon then use reasonable force to subdue them.
Does this also include drunk drivers? Would this resolution allow us to interpret a drunk driver as an immediate threat and allow us to run him off the road, or (if your nation allows sidearms) ride up next to him and blow his head off???

These are the grey areas where we need to focus on.



everyone deserves their own opinion. However I will try to change their minds, using what ever means necessary.

totally agree with you on that point (shame we just don't agree on this resolution).


If passing a resolution means being vague and open for extreme variant interpretation then I don't think we should be passing any!

If you state in the resolution that to protect property use minimal force, or in other words the condition: Don't kill someone to get your car back then at least people know what they are getting themselves into.

If people want to kill thieves or chop off thier hands (allowable force in that nation) and then vote against the resolution then well too bad.

You can't make everyone happy.

Make a resolution telling people to kill or be killed , you'll get pros and cons.
Make a resolution telling people to forgive and forget, you'll have pro's and con's

This resolution basically says,
"do what you feel is nessissary in any situation",
sure that's vague enough that everyone can agree with it.

The debate is becoming somewhat futile now, after all, 10,000 - 3000 votes is a pretty strong majority in favour with two (including this one) voting days left.

Still there are supposed to be 37,000 UN nations. I reckon that, with most resolutions, only about half-the UN members actully bother to vote.

I, Minister Balen and The Armed Republic of Baleand voted against this issue because it will completely destroy the ideological foundations of BWP Territories and the rest of the world!

This is the kind of thing that encourages individual, or should I say, SELFISH thinking which is contrary to our collectivist life. Let the military-police deal with them and if they cannot then it is obvious that money is being invested in the wrong direction! Everyone has their role in society because we are all for the cause of Collectivism. It is not the job of a simple citizen or townsfolk to defend themselves. A vote against this issue is a vote for the good of everyone!

To me this just encourages vigilantism and mercanaries. I don't think that is what this is intended to do. I don't agree the way its worded... instead of "others" it should be 'dependants'. The entire judicial system would be thrown out of whack... think about it...

I, Minister Balen and The Armed Republic of Baleand voted against this issue because it will completely destroy the ideological foundations of BWP Territories and the rest of the world!

This is the kind of thing that encourages individual, or should I say, SELFISH thinking which is contrary to our collectivist life. Let the military-police deal with them and if they cannot then it is obvious that money is being invested in the wrong direction! Everyone has their role in society because we are all for the cause of Collectivism. It is not the job of a simple citizen or townsfolk to defend themselves. A vote against this issue is a vote for the good of everyone!

Do you have a police force that can respond to every house at once? With no delay time? Would you be willing to pay for that sort of level of policing?

Do you have a police force that can respond to every house at once? With no delay time? Would you be willing to pay for that sort of level of policing?
So you're saying that every man and woman and child should retain a weapon to protect themselves? Do you have the budget to supply those with the nessecery equipment? I would think adding a few thousand Police or Military units is alot cheaper than giving every man woman and child a handgun(not to mention the training on how to use it).

So, I say, if the resolution grants people legal protection (though not everybody, as you like to suggest) to defend themselves, is that not a legal directive, therefore a law?

Please, answer the question (though the question was originally for Texan).

It can be used to grant legal protection by a nation's legal system. Using it as such is not necessary or mandated.

So you're saying that every man and woman and child should retain a weapon to protect themselves? Do you have the budget to supply those with the nessecery equipment? I would think adding a few thousand Police or Military units is alot cheaper than giving every man woman and child a handgun(not to mention the training on how to use it).
you got a problem here. increasing the amount of policemen wouldn't be enough, because you can't put policemen everywhere (unless you are dictator with secret police forces and half of the countrey who spy after the other half).
the only way to let your police see every crime right when he occured is by spy cameras (another harm of the privacy). even then your police should be very quick to get the criminal.
so now we have to found other way to make it privately. don't you think that if (for example) any woman will have pepper spray (or hand gun), the amount of rape will reduce drastically?
people should get chance to defend themselves in real-time than wait to the police while the crime is over.

Perhaps you all perpetuate an environment in which people will need to protect themselves from such a high crimerate, but I do not.

Perhaps you all perpetuate an environment in which people will need to protect themselves from such a high crimerate, but I do not.
me neither, but I accept the different conditions other countries may have.
personally, I define this resolution in way that keep my crime level unknown (even for counter criminals crime), but I still vote yes to that resolution as it state important principal.

It can be used to grant legal protection by a nation's legal system. Using it as such is not necessary or mandated.

So what you are essentially saying here, if I understand you correctly, is that, should the resolution be passed, it would be entirely optional as to whether UN nationstates have to enforce it or not. If that is the case, an optional resolution, then it is really rather pointless, since nations that don't believe in human rights won't have to enforce it anyhow.

I always thought that UN resolutions were supposed to be binding. Meaning that, UN memberstates could not just go along with ones they agree with, and disregard others.

So what you are essentially saying here, if I understand you correctly, is that, should the resolution be passed, it would be entirely optional as to whether UN nationstates have to enforce it or not. If that is the case, an optional resolution, then it is really rather pointless, since nations that don't believe in human rights won't have to enforce it anyhow.

Those nations that wouldn't enforce would find legal loopholes to get out of it regardless of whether I made it mandatory. The real problems with this resolutions have already been pointed out by The Cat-Tribe.

1. It's vagueness makes misunderstandings of the legislation more common and abuse easier.
2. It doesn't mandate anything.

The second may or may not be a concern depending on whether you are a national sovereignty advocate or not.

I always thought that UN resolutions were supposed to be binding. Meaning that, UN memberstates could not just go along with ones they agree with, and disregard others.

That's what the FAQ says. The FAQ is incorrect, in that it doesn't lay out the effects of a.) roleplay considerations (such as the language of a resolution) and game mechanics effects. This is probably because the FAQ was written before many later developments occurred.

So you're saying that every man and woman and child should retain a weapon to protect themselves? Do you have the budget to supply those with the nessecery equipment? I would think adding a few thousand Police or Military units is alot cheaper than giving every man woman and child a handgun(not to mention the training on how to use it).

Guns? Who said anything about guns? I didn't. The resolution doesn't. Where did guns come in to this?

u·nit·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-ntd) adj.
1. Combined into a single entity.
2. Concerned with, produced by, or resulting from mutual action.
3. Being in harmony; agreed.

[www.dictionary.com]

The Royal Democratic Kingdom of Tihland will no longer support any resolutions that simply recommend, suggest, ask, or request and action to be taken by the nations in the UNITED Nations. The reasoning behind this is simple: The United Nations should be combined into a single entity, mutually act upon each other, AND be in harmony and agreement with the laws that it passes. Any further arguments about "national sovereignty" (as it is called) have no bearing on the United Nations, as far as the Kingdom of Tihland is concerned.

Since this resolution simply recommends, suggests, asks, or requests an action to be taken, the Royal Democratic Kingdom of Tihland votes AGAINST this resolution.

Perhaps you all perpetuate an environment in which people will need to protect themselves from such a high crimerate, but I do not.

There is almost no crime in TilEnca. As such this proposal is going to be used very rarely if ever. But I support the idea of it.

u·nit·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (y-ntd) adj.
1. Combined into a single entity.
2. Concerned with, produced by, or resulting from mutual action.
3. Being in harmony; agreed.

[www.dictionary.com]

The Royal Democratic Kingdom of Tihland will no longer support any resolutions that simply recommend, suggest, ask, or request and action to be taken by the nations in the UNITED Nations. The reasoning behind this is simple: The United Nations should be combined into a single entity, mutually act upon each other, AND be in harmony and agreement with the laws that it passes. Any further arguments about "national sovereignty" (as it is called) have no bearing on the United Nations, as far as the Kingdom of Tihland is concerned.

Since this resolution simply recommends, suggests, asks, or requests an action to be taken, the Royal Democratic Kingdom of Tihland votes AGAINST this resolution.


Now I have seen everything. People who object to national sovereignty violations usually object because they are too strong. You are voting down this because it's not strong enough - that it doesn't attack your national sovereignty enough?

National sovereignity is imaginary. I believe there should be no political boundaries. We should all be unified towards a common goal. It's time to stop flooding the U.N. books with beaucratic, administrative nonsense that does nothing for no one. It's time to do something in this organization once and for all! We are called the United Nations, not the Allied Nations! If we were just allied, then national sovereignity would be justified, but we are not. We are United, a word with much stronger meaning than allied! As such, there are laws that we must all agree to enforce completely, no questions asked!

National sovereignity is imaginary. I believe there should be no political boundaries. We should all be unified towards a common goal. It's time to stop flooding the U.N. books with beaucratic, administrative nonsense that does nothing for no one. It's time to do something in this organization once and for all! We are called the United Nations, not the Allied Nations! If we were just allied, then national sovereignity would be justified, but we are not. We are United, a word with much stronger meaning than allied! As such, there are laws that we must all agree to enforce completely, no questions asked!

I want a law that says I am permitted to kill every person named Lucinda in every member of the UN, and forbid anyone from naming their child in that in future. I have a number of reasons for this, all valid and all unarguable. It is already being considered as a law in TilEnca, due to historical and cultural reasons.

So - would you accept this in your nation? Or would that be a step to far in national sovereignty invasion?

Such a law would be unacceptable in all nations, including yours. If I have to, I will propose a resolution to stop you and everyone else from performing such atrocities. You are trying to find a loophole in my reasoning, but you have failed as of yet.

Such a law would be unacceptable in all nations, including yours. If I have to, I will propose a resolution to stop you and everyone else from performing such atrocities. You are trying to find a loophole in my reasoning, but you have failed as of yet.

I think we are getting off topic here, and I will not argue the point further within this thread. But if you do want to continue this discussion, telegram me and I will be happy to demonstrate my point :}

In regard to this proposal (as it is not yet a resolution) I think that the lack of complete defnition in it makes it a lot easier to integrate in to the various national laws.

In theory this resolution would be a superb deterrent against would-be assailants and criminals of a violent sort, but unfortunately the world that we live in is not a utopian one. By letting 'acts of violence' preempt 'acts of violence' even if it is in the name of self-defense you are in no way curbing the use of violence itself to solve problems. Furthermore in response to the clarification of the terms 'imminent' and 'reasonable force' I feel that if you have the means and ability to clarify these terms you should include them in the resolution. By excluding these integral details from the resolution you are left with something that sounds appealing but in practice could lead to a multitude of abuses both on the personal and global scale. Therefore I urge everyone to oppose this resolution to ensure that the UN as a whole will not justify the use of violence, in any form.


- The Empire of Nimram -

In regard to this proposal (as it is not yet a resolution) I think that the lack of complete defnition in it makes it a lot easier to integrate in to the various national laws.

That was the point though, as the UNITED nations (not ALLIED nations) we must come to a majority agreement as to the limitations of these resolutions, i.e. Resonable, non-leathal, force... with that one small adjustment you might just have a unanimous vote!


To me this just encourages vigilantism and mercanaries. I don't think that is what this is intended to do. I don't agree the way its worded... instead of "others" it should be 'dependants'. The entire judicial system would be thrown out of whack... think about it...

This is the major fear of this resolution, yes most (maybe all) of us would agree with the spirit of self-defese and the protection of others, I'd even agree with passing this law to allow legal protection for those who beat up a would-be mugger or car-jacker but there must be limits as to what the UN thinks reasonable is.
What is then the point of having a UN trying to create a global community, enhancing civil and political freedoms, if we allow arcane, anarchistic nations to join us and we can't say anything about it because they support these kind of resolutions... but to the extreme letter of thier law!

All I'm saying is if in your own nation you allow instant death penalty for jay-walking FINE but that should be frowned upon by the UN, and also reflected in our resolutions!!!

That was the point though, as the UNITED nations (not ALLIED nations) we must come to a majority agreement as to the limitations of these resolutions, i.e. Resonable, non-leathal, force... with that one small adjustment you might just have a unanimous vote!


No resolution is ever going to pass with a unaminous vote. Ever.

Ever :}


All I'm saying is if in your own nation you allow instant death penalty for jay-walking FINE but that should be frowned upon by the UN, and also reflected in our resolutions!!!

Why? You cross against the lights, and you could cause an ambulance to swerve off-course and crash in to a bus-load of school children. And in an instant you would be responsible for the death of fifty kids, the ambulance driver, the paramedic in the back and the patient. I think that causing the deaths of fifty three people just because you could not wait for the light to change is something that should be punished quite severely.

Or do you disagree?

Why? You cross against the lights, and you could cause an ambulance to swerve off-course and crash in to a bus-load of school children. And in an instant you would be responsible for the death of fifty kids, the ambulance driver, the paramedic in the back and the patient. I think that causing the deaths of fifty three people just because you could not wait for the light to change is something that should be punished quite severely.

Or do you disagree?

Again you pose some interesting WHAT IF senarios...

All I can say is this, when would you kill a jaywalker in TilEnca, before or after the fact? Before the fact then it's only hypothetical so you just never know what'll happen.
Besides my point was whether I agree with you or not the UN SHOULD NOT AGREE WITH THIS TYPE OF ACTION

Again you pose some interesting WHAT IF senarios...

All I can say is this, when would you kill a jaywalker in TilEnca, before or after the fact? Before the fact then it's only hypothetical so you just never know what'll happen.
Besides my point was whether I agree with you or not the UN SHOULD NOT AGREE WITH THIS TYPE OF ACTION

Just so as you know - we don't tend to execute people for jay-walking. Mostly because we don't tend to execute people for murder either.

But my point was that it is impossible to write down a hard and fast rule about what the UN should and should not do or frown upon, because there are so many nations in the UN there will always be one nation that will find a valid (or at least good) reason for doing what the UN thinks is bad. And who is to say that in the grand scheme of things that one nation is wrong while the other 370000000000000000000 are right? Maybe that one nation has it the right way round and everyone else is just too dumb to see it.

Come on TilEnca, you know what you have just said sounds redicuously stupid. Why, if what you have just said is true, that means that every UN resolution that has been passed, is wrong!

In fact, what you have just said, suggests that the whole political system of democracy is wrong, and that we should allow ourselves to be ruled by unelected dictators. Have you been drinking, today, TilEnca?

Unless, of course, you happen to fancy yourself as that unelected dictator.

Though this thread is getting off topic now, I would like to continue discussing the whole purpose of the United Nations elsewhere. But before closing the discussion here, I would like to point out that even TilEnca is partially correct. Democracy is not a foolproof system and neither is a dictatorship. Monarchies (of the type we are), oligarchies, republics, and communists nations are not foolproof. Nothing is foolproof. But one should not always concentrate on the negative aspects of a system and consider them points to never implement it. (Hmmm, I just thought of a new idea to help improve the United Nations system even further.) If we always concentrated on all the disadvantages, we would never get anything done!

I share in the analysis of the delegate from Windleheim. Although we have no great objection to clauses 1 and 2 of the resolution, I have always been hesitant to support resolutions that are essentially non-binding, even if they have good intentions behind them. However, I understand the fine line that my friend from Texan Hotrodders has had to walk in order to get a resolution to the floor that is not completely meaningless.

In the Liberal Unitary Republic, crime is low and violent crime is even lower. We imagine that the greatest effect of this resolution will be to promote the martial arts in the Liberal Unitary Republic, which will probably increase the physical well-being of our citizens. Healthiness is a good thing, but I continue to have qualms about whether it has much utility and over its possible promotion of violence in our global community. My vote is therefore very weak on this matter.

I wish to remind the representative from The Cat-Tribe that many resolutions have been rejected by this body, and I also wish to remind the representative from TilEnca that a few of us have been opposing those that wish to castrate the United Nations by overemphasizing national sovereignty for many a year.

I yield the floor.

Lord Evif sits down. After a brief pause, he rises again, slowly raising two fingers.

The TALLY CLERK. The Representative from Bawlmer?
Mr. EVIF. Aye.
The TALLY CLERK. Bawlmer's vote for Right to Self-Protection has been noted.

Lord Evif resumes his seat, still uncertain as to whether he voted correctly.

[ooc: And as you may have guessed, I don't have particularly strong feelings on this issue one way or another. It'll pass anyway, though, congrats Hotrod!]

There are a number of problems with this resolution. The two clauses presented also need to be argued separately.

1. The right to self-defence from personal injury or death.

In the first place, the resolution itself need not be implemented by any nation whose laws cover the interaction of actors during criminal acts. What this resolution does do as a UN resolution, however, is allow some nations to allow acts of vigilantism, and pre-emptive violence against a suspected other on the basis of self-defence. In this respect the resolution is too general. Any resolution that condones unprovoked violence between citizens is most definitely not in the spirit of the UN. The exception is obviously in cases where the threat is immediate and imminent, but in such situations anybody is of course going to defend himself or herself from injury or possible death. Enacting a law or resolution in respect to this situation via the UN is not required, however, as each nation’s courts of law should cover such an incident.

2. The right to protect property

The concept of “reasonable force” while protecting property is flawed, because nobody can predict with any certainty whatsoever the outcome of such a confrontation. There always exists the possibility that the violence will escalate in unforeseen ways. Anyone can think of numerous cases where the use of violence would be inappropriate, and perhaps ineffective, and would therefore need to proceed in the usual manner – in a court of law. No extraordinary concession should be afforded the alleged victim, in the case of theft or damage to property, if they have injured or killed the suspect while attempting to prevent the crime from occurring. Only in the event that the crime becomes violent due to the suspect directly threatening the victim should any legal concessions be granted to the victim of crime. However, in such a case we need to again consider the argument in the above paragraph.

The unpredictability of violence in such a heated environment should indicate to anyone that allowing a theft to proceed is prudent, as the successful retention of property in no way justifies the injury or death of another person during such a criminal act. In such a case the victim may actually end up perpetrating a much more serious crime than the alleged suspect, and in such a case no extraordinary concessions should be granted in a court of law. That is, nobody can say with certainty that what he or she would consider “reasonable force” now could be executed at a later time given the unpredictable nature of a crime scene. Too little force by the victim could result in violence where the suspect may not have considered violence. However, too much force could result in the victim becoming the suspect, an unacceptable outcome when the violent act is over property. In sum, there is no way that “reasonable force” can be used in such an unpredictable, emotionally heated environment.

There could also be cases where the suspect could claim diminished responsibility, of being under the influence of drugs, etc., while attempting to obtain property not lawfully theirs. While it is true that it was their choice to take substances that would alter their behaviour, is this enough to condone the use of violence against them that could occasion permanent injury or death?

The examples given above are not merely unreasonable hypotheticals, or exceptions to the rule; they are common to crime scenes.

The only exception that could be used to condone violence against perpetrator, who is attempting to obtain property not legal theirs, is if that property is necessary in sustaining another person’s life, i.e.: a drug, life support equipment etc. Again, however, the arguments relating to imminent, immediate threat etc. should be considered in line with local, regional or state laws.

Come on TilEnca, you know what you have just said sounds redicuously stupid. Why, if what you have just said is true, that means that every UN resolution that has been passed, is wrong!

In fact, what you have just said, suggests that the whole political system of democracy is wrong, and that we should allow ourselves to be ruled by unelected dictators. Have you been drinking, today, TilEnca?

Unless, of course, you happen to fancy yourself as that unelected dictator.

What I actually said was every resolution is wrong from a certain point of view. Clearly since no resolution has ever been passed with a unanimous vote (not even the Axis Of Evil) then at least one person each time has thought every resolution was wrong.

Citizens must feel safe and patriotic about their country. I agree with an earlier point: It is cheaper to have expanded military-police presence than to put a gun in the hands of all the citizens. Not to mention that this is totally dangerous. Only an officer or someone else of that sort should be trusted with a weapon.

Citizens must feel safe and patriotic about their country. I agree with an earlier point: It is cheaper to have expanded military-police presence than to put a gun in the hands of all the citizens. Not to mention that this is totally dangerous. Only an officer or someone else of that sort should be trusted with a weapon.

Again I am forced to ask - who mentioned guns? No one in TilEnca has a gun, and I am willing to embrace this proposal to permit defence with swords and shields and rocks and stuff.

Well lets just agree to disagree, this resolution is so vague that each nation can interpret it as we wish!

If we vote YES on this proposal then just make sure we control our own nations, we can decide for ourselves what is reasonable force, and let the rest of the world figure it out for themselves... I mean if I were to go to another UN nation on vaction that supports the death penalty for jay walking... or allows vigilanties and mercenaries walk the streets killing who they believe to be criminals without a proper police structure... well then I'll plan my vacation elsewhere.

the nation of Nan Og does not support leathal response to non-leathal threat.

What I actually said was every resolution is wrong from a certain point of view. Clearly since no resolution has ever been passed with a unanimous vote (not even the Axis Of Evil) then at least one person each time has thought every resolution was wrong.

Quite right, TilEnca. Such is the case with this one.

At present, the voting for this one is about 2.5 to 1 in favour.

However, you suggested that 1 person could be right and 370000000000000000000 wrong in a vote. Clearly, that sort of a figure is absurd.

Nothing is ever going to be black and white, and for that reason, it is impossible to always have unanimous agreement. However, if a majority vote in favour was ever so large, then I think it would be safe to say that the issue must have been fairly black and white, and the geezer who voted against it, was both blind and death and didn't have any brail to help him read it.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. … If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error (J. S. Mill, 1991, p. 21).

I've made crime virtually non-existant in my nation, and I've done it by NOT allowing this kind of frontier justice. The UN shouldn't force that kind of lunacy on my nation.

I've made crime virtually non-existant in my nation, and I've done it by NOT allowing this kind of frontier justice. The UN shouldn't force that kind of lunacy on my nation.

Well, as a UN member, once the resolution is passed you have to follow your civil approach to crime and repeal the "right to self-protection", as it is currently worded. I will be. This type of proposal, which will soon be a resolution, is designed to make the UN redundant. That is, to get people to resign from the UN because it appears useless. Useless because any quick-fix proposal can gain popularity and become a resolution and subsequently enforced through manipulation [think of a president and a certain country]. People who join the UN, I believe, have a common pursuit toward civil rights, human rights and social justice. People who I believe will remain vigilant against such barbaric resolutions like the "right to self-protection".

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. … If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error (J. S. Mill, 1991, p. 21).

Could not agree more. A very apt quote. (Although the year has got to be just of a reprint, anthology, etc.).

This proposal (seeing as this is the last voting day and the odds are it's going to pass) will cause Tir Nan Og to become slightly zenophobic.
I am afraid we need to invest in better travel agencies and post national and region warnings concerning which countries have EXTREMIST views and advise against traveling there.

Yeah, I forgot to get rid of the 1991 reference - not necessary. I saw it just as I pressed "submit".

The Mill quote relates to an area I have been writing about recently, hence the ref.

This proposal (seeing as this is the last voting day and the odds are it's going to pass) will cause Tir Nan Og to become slightly zenophobic.
I am afraid we need to invest in better travel agencies and post national and region warnings concerning which countries have EXTREMIST views and advise against traveling there.

I'm surprised you don't have such things in place already. If your nation is pacifistic you really should have been careful about allowing outsiders in well before this.

Well, we voted against this, but it'll pass, as do almost all resolutions. (The shiny For button is too tempting....) Makatoto has taken steps to redefine the word reasonable in the legal sense, as well as the word imminent. Of course, we have almost no crime, but we can't have people hurting each other now, can we....

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts our votes FOR the resolution.

The Most Serene Republic of Cowering Pacifists firmly REJECT the notion of a right to "self-protection". The nice people of my country don't need this right, we are all nice people. If someone is desperate enough to break into your home, well, he needs your stuff more than you do.

The Most Serene Republic of Cowering Pacifists firmly REJECT the notion of a right to "self-protection". The nice people of my country don't need this right, we are all nice people. If someone is desperate enough to break into your home, well, he needs your stuff more than you do.

Not everyone commits theft out of desperation. There are career criminals in the NationStates world for whom theft is an occupation, not a last resort.

That said, given your nation name, you probably have a solid idealogical reason for voting against, so my deconstruction of your argument won't change your mind.

to the sponsors of this resolution. It may be unwise and destructive as well as dangerous to the Human Rights it pretends to protect but it will pass. Haywiristan, regretfully withdraws from the UN since it has no wish to be associated in any way with such thinking or decisions. :(

They would only be known as career criminals if they were recognised as such by the authorities. In most cases the average householder does not possess this kind of information. So, how would anyone having their house burgled distinguish between the careerist and the desperado? Therefore, the motivations of any thief could not come into consideration whilst anyone was being burgled. This would need to be determined after the criminal act has taken place. We then get back to the issue of violence during a burglary involving persons whose intentions and motivations are unknown - back to square one.

On another point, if the authorities have records that determine the existence of “career” criminals and recidivist rates are high, then that nation’s criminal justice and/or rehabilitation system is failing somewhere. If a nation’s criminal rehabilitation and/or justice system is failing, is it the UN’s responsibility to fix the problem? Personally, I don’t think so.

They would only be known as career criminals if they were recognised as such by the authorities. In most cases the average householder does not possess this kind of information. So, how would anyone having their house burgled distinguish between the careerist and the desperado?

How indeed?

This is where some UN resolutions get murky, dark and dangerous. This is because if the authorities have records of “career” criminals and recidivist rates are high, then that nation’s criminal justice and/or rehabilitation system is failing somewhere. If a nation’s criminal rehabilitation and/or justice system is failing, is it the UN’s responsibility to fix the problem? Personally, I don’t think so.

Neither do I.

The Peoples of the Jovian Worlds will vote against and are recommending the same to all UN members of the region (and allied regions). The resolution is appallingly vague about what "reasonable" means. For a resolution to permit violence, it must be very specific about cases in which it is legal to use force. This resolution threatens to transmute orderly society into raw chaos and law of the jungle. This is not progress. This is atavistic insanity.

The Peoples of the Jovian Worlds will vote against and are recommending the same to all UN members of the region (and allied regions). The resolution is appallingly vague about what "reasonable" means. For a resolution to permit violence, it must be very specific about cases in which it is legal to use force. This resolution threatens to transmute orderly society into raw chaos and law of the jungle. This is not progress. This is atavistic insanity.

And if you define what reasonable is, it will lead to loopholes galore, or a situation where it can never be reasonable to do anything.

This lets the member nations decide what reasonable is, so that every nation will make up its own mind, rather than a "one size fits all" approach which will be too strong for half the nations, and too wussy for the other half.

Well in that case, don't expect a very "reasonable" vote from opposers, sir.

Well - it passed, so I am not that concerned about the vote from those who oppose it :}

The Democratic Republic of Dragunova will not ever side with a treacherous pack of dogs like the UN. If you attempt to force me to comply with your pitiful laws concerning our excellent standards of human rights, I'll torture and perhaps kill a few thousand of my citizens. I'll start with the small ones and move up...

I've forgotten to do this, but: Congratulations, Texan Hotrodders!

The Democratic Republic of Dragunova will not ever side with a treacherous pack of dogs like the UN. If you attempt to force me to comply with your pitiful laws concerning our excellent standards of human rights, I'll torture and perhaps kill a few thousand of my citizens. I'll start with the small ones and move up...

And yet you're in the UN. Go figure. :rolleyes:

The resolution Right to Self-Protection was passed 12,458 votes to 4,949, and implemented in all UN member nations.
Congratulations, Texan!

And yet you're in the UN. Go figure. :rolleyes:

We like to be in mixed company... thanks to your comment, my country will become a junta!

Yes, you heard me...

Thanks for the congratulations, Krioval and Enn! :D

Before this thread gets closed, I add my congratulations.

Before this thread gets closed, I add my congratulations.

Thanks! I hope you'll continue being a regular presence on this forum, TCT. We need more regular members. :)