NationStates Jolt Archive

This has now been submitted and naturally any support from delegates will be greatly appreciated. The text is as follows:

Argument:

The United Nations:

RECOGNISES that a vague reference to self rule on "some level" is so vague as to be almost meaningless,

REALISES that while this is the case, it is clear this motion is meant as an attack on specific forms of government,

BELIEVES that diversity in UN member's governmental structure should be respected, not undermined.

FURTHER BELIEVES that obvious spelling mistakes like "rouge" nations merely makes the UN look unprofessional and are an obvious target for ridicule.

REPEALS " Citizen Rule Required ", originally implemented Fri Apr 4 2003

100% supported. I was wondering when you were going to get around to submitting this. ;)

Holy Word, we may not agree on much, but on this one I'm with you.

Approved!

I got your back Holy Word!


Kimo

Even after reviewing "The Prince", we find ourselves in agreement with the representative from The Holy Word.

Obviously its time for some heavy drinking....

Obviously its time for some heavy drinking....
Perhaps a UN-wide happy hour?

Of course, it would be quite a horror when all the delegates wake up from the couches they passed out on and realized what they've just approved and ratified...

:p

That's already happened (#74 Law of the Sea, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women). :rolleyes:

I'm against this. The United Nations is supposed to be for the citizens of the world, and removing rights from them is not the way to go.

With the understanding that a better-worded proposal will replace this shoddy piece of work, Vastiva is supporting it.

while we aknowledge the existance of dictatorships and such, the fact that they are participating in a democratic organisation seems to be a bit contradictory. but in aknowledging that there are dictatorships, yes, we agree with this

Good work, Father Crayfish. :)

The Venerable Libertarians is For this repeal if and only if, it is replaced with a much improved and less vague version. Citizen rule is important.

Happy hour!! Yard of Ale competition winner = Nargopia
Prize = 6 vestal vergins for six nights!!!
:fluffle: :D

Like Vastiva and the Venerable libertarians, Wang Chun supports this if the repeal is to make room for a better version.

A better one would never pass. The arguement would be that the UN can not dictate government type to it's members as that could/would violate game mechanics. So the only alternative to saying "you must have a democractic government" is saying "your citizens must approve of your government type", which either means a violation of game mechanics, or lots of people lined up with machine guns making lots of other people saying "yes - we support this government" (ala Iraq).

Either way it would either echo this resolution too much to be worth replacing, or be totally pointless.

But eh - maybe I am just being too cynical.

while we aknowledge the existance of dictatorships and such, the fact that they are participating in a democratic organisation seems to be a bit contradictory. but in aknowledging that there are dictatorships, yes, we agree with thisNot really. It's entirely consistent to believe that the co-operation of equal nations on an international scale is important, while at the same time beliving that your nation's populace's interests are best served by a system other then democracy. I tend to avoid the term 'dictatorship' because of the unfortunate negative connotations. But it covers everything from absolutist monarchies to theocracys to 'father knows best' states and is not necessarily malevolent. For example, we don't have a democratic system, but that doesn't stop us from having a universal 'cradle to the grave' welfare system and full employment for all citizens capable of working.

I do think though, that the arguments on what, if anything, should replace this motion are best left for a later date. The important thing at the moment is to repeal this motion. Because, frankly, it's an embarassment.

Bah!

This is exactly the thing that I feel I should argue against, but your argument is so agreeable! There is no real argument against it!

Bah!

With the understanding that a better-worded proposal will replace this shoddy piece of work, Vastiva is supporting it.

OK, then if you want my vote, write that proposal first, get it passed, and then propose repeal of the badly-worded one.

OK, then if you want my vote, write that proposal first, get it passed, and then propose repeal of the badly-worded one.

A "replacement resolution" can't be proposed until the original one is repealed. Thus, while one could debate the merits of a replacement, it can't be submitted (or passed) while the original is still in effect.

Citizen rule is meaningless. The only thing there is is liberty, and whether this is accomplished through a dictator or through democracy doesn't matter to me. That's why I'm a benevolent dictator, because I know if I gave my citizen's there own rule they would only use it as a strong arm to oppress the minority's that they didn't agree with.

I found the original resolution to be very comical to read, and, in my lovely dictatorship, i fully complied with it by allowing my citizens to have complete self-rule over their wardrobe. I also was glad to see that action was being taken against rouge governments, because frankly, i thought most politicians DID overuse rouge when making public appearances. I was hopeful that there would be a statement in opposition to eyeshadow as well, but alas, i was disappointed.

on a more serious note, yeah, this needs repealed. badly.