NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings fellow UN Delegates.

So, here you are in the UN, but did you ever think that it would mean completly surrendering all your rights to govern yourself? Do you think that you can strike a balance between acting in the UN AND being a soveriegn nation unto yourself? Are you more interested in seeing the UN used as a mechanism to promote the well being of all peoples regardless of thier culture rather then as a grand experiment in social engineering?

Then you need to check out the National Soveriegnty Coalition. The NSc is a political party within the UN that seeks to help like minded nations organize thier politcal strength in order to counter balance those nations that have no regard for your national soveriegnty.

Here is our mission statement:


The National Sovereignty Coalition (the "NSC") aims to actively work against the encroachment of UN Resolutions whose sole purpose lies in mandated social engineering as proposed by extremist positions within the UN.

The NSC is very supportive of the UN and gladly participates in the enactment of Resolutions beneficial to all UN Member Nations. The NSC is also very supportive of the rights of individual nations to govern themselves regarding social policy, excluding such policies that violate basic human rights.

The NSC espouses no religious or political ideology, confining itself exclusively to its stated goal of defeating proposed social engineering resolutions within the UN.


We have setup a message board in order to help organize ourselves:

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

If this sounds like somthing you would be interested in being a part of, please drop on by!

If you're going to espouse a certain ideology, please learn to spell it correctly.

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty
Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

_____

I'm not attacking your message, and might even wish to join. Just have a spelling pet peeve.

Sovereignty. Look it up. Use it. Wear it out. Spell it correctly.

Go to Gatesville, the region. They've beaten you to this.

Hello Nation Sovereignity Group #49. Please take this placard and stand at the back of the line. No, we won't get to you before you die of old age and your descendents eventually pass into extinction, but at least you're in the line.

Why is it that whenever I hear nations complain about lack of respect for national soveriegnty I hear a nice southern voice like Orval Faubus or Bull Connor trumpeting state's rights?

Must be a glitch in my programming.

Go to Gatesville, the region. They've beaten you to this.
No they haven't. Gatesville has only one regional delegate; this coalition hopes to have many delegates as members. In fact, I believe the Gatesville delegate is a registered member of this coalition.

No they haven't. Gatesville has only one regional delegate; this coalition hopes to have many delegates as members. In fact, I believe the Gatesville delegate is a registered member of this coalition.Technically, it's the UN Advocate but I won't go into a lengthy explanation of the Gatesvillian internal political structure here.

And what the Delegate from Nargopia say is absolutely correct. I really wish delegates would actually consult with a representative from Gatesville before dragging our name into everything. :rolleyes:

..................Ummmmmm Thats kinda the point of the UN why don't you just resign. The gnomes can't get to you then. You say you are for resolutions that help all UN members this is impossible. Name one that has helped every single country. I don't understand your position. To boil down your post. Help us prevent any res that doesnt help everyone be stoped. You claim to wish to prevent social engineering experiments, but you never explain what you belive these entail.

..................Ummmmmm Thats kinda the point of the UN why don't you just resign.
Because we don't want to.

Besides the taxation ban, every single resolution infringes on national sovereignty. Are you going to be repealing every resolution then? Certainly sounds like it to me. Just go home and shut off the news ticker so you can pretend its not happening if you're so dead set on staying in the UN.

Besides the taxation ban, every single resolution infringes on national sovereignty. Are you going to be repealing every resolution then? Certainly sounds like it to me. Just go home and shut off the news ticker so you can pretend its not happening if you're so dead set on staying in the UN.

How do you define sovereignty?

Hello Nation Sovereignity Group #49. Please take this placard and stand at the back of the line. No, we won't get to you before you die of old age and your descendents eventually pass into extinction, but at least you're in the line.

As much as I appreciate your humor, DLE, I think you should give this group a chance. Gatesville is a member, and the other 48 groups are ripe candidates for contributing to our cause. Not only that, but it isn't just a bunch of n00bs running around screaming sovereignty. There are well-respected internationally known members of this coalition, and Zamundaland is doing a pretty good job of shepherding us.

How do you define sovereignty?

Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty
Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

_____

...

...

Rephrase: How do you define national sovereignty within the NationStates game construct as it relates to the NSUN?

Promoting National Sovereignty

A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Potomacia

Description: Observing that a small minority of the world's nations belong to the United Nations,

Noting that the causes for this are many, but that one of the leading factors is disillusionment with UN encroachment on national sovereignty,

Calling attention to the need for a much greater participation in the United Nations by all nations of the world,

Calling to mind that the United Nations is a community of equal, sovereign nations joined for the purpose of collective security,

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby:

1. Sets a standard whereby resolutions shall be tested not only on their efficacy and moral consistency, but also on the basis of effect on national sovereignty.

2. Commits this Body to supporting the principle of national sovereignty and the integrity of the nation-state by means of non-intervention in national governmental policy, unless such intervention is expressly authorized by a resolution meeting the new criteria of operative clause one.

3. Declares that the United Nations must pursue a momentous effort to expand membership and restore international confidence and respect for this august Body.

4. Recognizes that the standards set by this resolution do not alter any current U.N. activities, but rather serve as a new guide to cement respect for both international and national order.

Rephrase: How do you define national sovereignty within the NationStates game construct as it relates to the NSUN?

If I understand what you mean.. then the definition still stands. National Sovereignty refers to the ability of a State to be autonomous. If you are in the UN, when a resolution passes it is enforced by the Gnomes. That is a representation of Global Sovereignty. Thus, National Sovereignty doesn't exist, except in issues not delegated by the UN. Its really a US Constitution Amendment 10 thing: The States have full and complete control over those things not set down my the Nation.

If I understand what you mean.. then the definition still stands. National Sovereignty refers to the ability of a State to be autonomous. If you are in the UN, when a resolution passes it is enforced by the Gnomes. That is a representation of Global Sovereignty. Thus, National Sovereignty doesn't exist, except in issues not delegated by the UN. Its really a US Constitution Amendment 10 thing: The States have full and complete control over those things not set down my the Nation.

Roleplay: What if I ignore the gnomes? I can do that, as the gnomes are a roleplay device. Or, if I'm a bit more reasonable (as I am) I can change other parts of my legal system to nullify the resolution. So while the UN can make it harder for nations to assert sovereignty and promote the dissolution of sovereignty, it cannot remove sovereignty entirely as a roleplay function.

Game Mechanics: Why can we still take a different position on, say, prostitution (through our daily issues) than the UN if it overrides our sovereignty? We can still deal with prostitution in a different way than set out by the Sex Industry Worker Act, so the policy-making ability of our nation is still there, even from a game mechanics perspective. So how is our sovereignty being violated by every UN resolution (aside from UN Taxation Ban)?

Basically, I don't quite see where you get the idea that sovereignty is gone once you join the UN. Personally, I simply prefer that the UN have a greater respect for the sovereignty of nations, and focus on truly international issues in a pragmatic and considerate way.

Basically, I don't quite see where you get the idea that sovereignty is gone once you join the UN. Personally, I simply prefer that the UN have a greater respect for the sovereignty of nations, and focus on truly international issues in a pragmatic and considerate way.

Maybe people have different ideas on what constitutes an international issue. I personally feel that the right to self-defence is best dealt with at the national level.

As much as I appreciate your humor, DLE, I think you should give this group a chance. Gatesville is a member, and the other 48 groups are ripe candidates for contributing to our cause. Not only that, but it isn't just a bunch of n00bs running around screaming sovereignty. There are well-respected internationally known members of this coalition, and Zamundaland is doing a pretty good job of shepherding us.

You do realize that, under the definition of n00bs, you are seriously damaging your case, right? After all, take a good look at the majority of those running around screaming it on the forum right now. With UN politics, you are who is on your side, and in this case the side of this group is mostly a bunch of laughable newbies who have yet to realize the realities of the UN and have barely read the FAQ.

I'm giving this the chance it deserves, and that chance is that I haven't advised the member nations of this group to leave the UN. That's more than it deserves with the way certain members are trying the patience of their elders at this moment. Asking for more will only result in the label of n00b being viewed as justly bestowed.

Potomacia, posting it multiple times does not legitimacy or legallity create.

You do realize that, under the definition of n00bs, you are seriously damaging your case, right? After all, take a good look at the majority of those running around screaming it on the forum right now. With UN politics, you are who is on your side, and in this case the side of this group is mostly a bunch of laughable newbies who have yet to realize the realities of the UN and have barely read the FAQ.

I'm giving this the chance it deserves, and that chance is that I haven't advised the member nations of this group to leave the UN. That's more than it deserves with the way certain members are trying the patience of their elders at this moment. Asking for more will only result in the label of n00b being viewed as justly bestowed.

Potomacia, posting it multiple times does not legitimacy or legallity create.
I don't see much evidence that the vast majority of delegates you're complaining about are members of the NSC. Besides, are you actually prepared to say that you take responsibility for everybody who's used the "Leave the UN" argument on here. I'm afraid stupidity isn't restricted to one side of this argument.

Setting aside the merits of claims to national sovereignty, why do I have to register to even visit your groups off-site forum?

Truth be told, I'm about as likely to join the NSC as I am to play nude ice hockey, but you invited people to visit.

I don't see much evidence that the vast majority of delegates you're complaining about are members of the NSC. Besides, are you actually prepared to say that you take responsibility for everybody who's used the "Leave the UN" argument on here. I'm afraid stupidity isn't restricted to one side of this argument.

Before you accuse people of stupidity, make sure your reading comprehension is up to par.

1. "On your side" != "In your group." Basic common sense.

2. Where did you see me say anything about accepting responsibility? Finally, where do you see any evidence I was speaking of more than just myself? I want evidence to back that absurdity.

3. By evidence, at least one is allied with the group. My wording on the issue leave it ambiguous as to whether I am speaking of UN members or members of the NSC, and that's on purpose. When it comes to reputation affects, the results are the same.

Before you accuse people of stupidity, make sure your reading comprehension is up to par.

1. "On your side" != "In your group." Basic common sense.So those people who constantly bring up RL examples and point to the entirely OOC FAQ are "on your side=in your group"?

2. Where did you see me say anything about accepting responsibility? Finally, where do you see any evidence I was speaking of more than just myself? I want evidence to back that absurdity.
With UN politics, you are who is on your sideSo you are who is on your side. Surely you are responsible for who you are?
3. By evidence, at least one is allied with the group. My wording on the issue leave it ambiguous as to whether I am speaking of UN members or members of the NSC, and that's on purpose. When it comes to reputation affects, the results are the same.And do you accept that not everyone on your side of this argument is better? Or do you wish me to bring up specific examples?

So those people who constantly bring up RL examples and point to the entirely OOC FAQ are "on your side=in your group"?

And where, in the name of all that is damned and blackened, did you get this from? Seriously.

You might want to stop and look at the actual discussion before posting.

So you are who is on your side. Surely you are responsible for who you are?

Still not proving that I am speaking for anyone else. Thanks for admitting that arguement was illogical bull.

You are responsible for which side, if any, you choose. Note that I am not unknown for attacking people on my side when I felt they were in the wrong with their arguement.

And do you accept that not everyone on your side of this argument is better? Or do you wish me to bring up specific examples?

I fully accept it. I could even point out a few examples you wouldn't think of. But I do have the advantage of perception for this issue.

And where, in the name of all that is damned and blackened, did you get this from? Seriously.

You might want to stop and look at the actual discussion before posting.I have read the discussion. I may have misunderstood your argument, in which case I am always happy to hear clarification. Your argument seems to be that the NSC should be judged by all those who argue the national sovereignty argument on this forum. Is that a fair summary?

Still not proving that I am speaking for anyone else. Thanks for admitting that arguement was illogical bull.I didn't say you were speaking for them. I said that by your argument you were them. That's entirely different.

You are responsible for which side, if any, you choose. Note that I am not unknown for attacking people on my side when I felt they were in the wrong with their arguement.Absolutely. But do you not feel that it is better to pick sides based on how you feel about the particular issue? I really don't see how the behaviour of individual delegates changes that.

I fully accept it. I could even point out a few examples you wouldn't think of. But I do have the advantage of perception for this issue.So if we accept that surely it follows that the behaviour of individual delegates is entirely irrelevant to this debate?

I have read the discussion. I may have misunderstood your argument, in which case I am always happy to hear clarification. Your argument seems to be that the NSC should be judged by all those who argue the national sovereignty argument on this forum. Is that a fair summary?

No, my arguement is that it will be, and has been, judged by such.

I didn't say you were speaking for them. I said that by your argument you were them. That's entirely different.

You stated:

Besides, are you actually prepared to say that you take responsibility for everybody who's used the "Leave the UN" argument on here.

That leaves no interpretation but that of you accusing me of speaking for them.

My arguement is a case of seeing people who dislike tha basic, and FAQ-supported, way the UN operates and seem to have shown up expressly for the purpose of changing that. Quite a few of the recent proposals only help enforce that. Nor do I dare think I am alone in this.

Absolutely. But do you not feel that it is better to pick sides based on how you feel about the particular issue? I really don't see how the behaviour of individual delegates changes that.

I feel there are times when you cannot win because of who is on your side. This is one of those times for the national sovereignity crowd. And in this case, those with such loud voices will probably drag down the respectability of older members on the same side. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice your values in order to have a chance to back them later.

So if we accept that surely it follows that the behaviour of individual delegates is entirely irrelevant to this debate?

If that were true of the UN, it would be acceptable. But the UN does judge based on the actions of those associated. Just asked Tex about the descrimination he recieved just because of associations based on his screenname.

No they haven't. Gatesville has only one regional delegate; this coalition hopes to have many delegates as members. In fact, I believe the Gatesville delegate is a registered member of this coalition.

I think this is a good approach. By having an alliance of regions, your interests may be better supported.

My government likely shares some interests with nations interested in national sovereignty, for example, it finds UN resolutions that do not focus on an international problem to be better dealt with at local levels, however, there have been many important transboundary issues (such as tsunami warning systems) where my government has noted a misrepresentation of national sovereignty.

That said, my government would like to observe any National Sovereignty Coalition meetings, and would be happy to defend what it considers sensible international issues before such groups. I am confident that this sort of participation may be benefical to both groups.

I'll talk to Zamundaland about opening up the board to outside viewing.

Maybe people have different ideas on what constitutes an international issue. I personally feel that the right to self-defence is best dealt with at the national level.

So do I, which is why I really don't see the relevance of your comment.

I'll talk to Zamundaland about opening up the board to outside viewing.

If it is an invision board you can create a new membership level for people whom you want to *not* restrict their access to and then restrict guests or visitors.

My government believes in open and transparent processes. In fact, there are other regions and "smokey room" groups that it would rather avoid due to a lack of accountability. In your particular case, since the group is based on finding and protecting national rights, I think there is little to be lost by placing the core discussions out on the table for the UN as a whole to see. I think this sort of goodwill will really strengthen your cause (as well as encourage more nations to join).

OOC: More people on an off-site forum is good. The UNO is not invite only or supposed to be about a cliche of friends. Traffic is something I'd love to have on my board, and was only thinking you might want it too. Good luck! :)

Ecopoeia's position on the national sovereignty debate is probably... unclear. Would you object to my nation participating in your forum?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Ecopoeia's position on the national sovereignty debate is probably... unclear. Would you object to my nation participating in your forum?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I have no problem with it. Ultimately, however, Zamundaland is the one who has control over who gets to register.