NationStates Jolt Archive

This needs to be passed in the UN. If not what kind of UN is this. And I feel there is more publicity here:
"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom speech and expression-everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship in his or her own way-everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want-which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings, which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear-which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-anywhere in the world."

I can not take credit for these world but for merely proposing them, and I as I have said. These points are so imperitive in the progress of humanity if these do not pass I am certain that they will eventualy.

After all, "To that high concept there can be no end save victory."

The fouth point there will effectivly kill the proposal, simply because UN resolutions don't affect non member nations and the UN membership is outnumbered by about 3 to 1.

I would dispute point's three and four. Three is not defined clearly enough ("I want a Jaguar"). It should state that nobody should be forced to live without certain very basic essentials. Basically food and water.
Four is a problem, for the reasons that Flibbleitian Ambassador has already mentioned.

Of course, what catagory would this go in?

I belive I saw this on the list of proposals. You should always post your proposal here before submitting it, even though the Mods won't enforce it, it's still a good idea.

This needs to be passed in the UN. If not what kind of UN is this. And I feel there is more publicity here:

The kind of UN that doesn't pass redundant resolutions that a simple case of bothering to read the passed proposals would reveal.

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

Freedom is not essential to survival. Just ask my dog.

The first is freedom speech and expression-everywhere in the world.

Covered by the Universal Bill of Rights.

The second is freedom of every person to worship in his or her own way-everywhere in the world.

Covered by the UBR.

The third is freedom from want-which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings, which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

Unclear as to purpose. This can either be illegal, already covered, or simply worthless. It would have to be clearer to see which.

The fourth is freedom from fear-which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-anywhere in the world."

Either impossible due to the fact UN resolutions only cover the UN or illegal through trying to force a UN resolution on nonmember nations. Either way, not worth supporting.

I can not take credit for these world but for merely proposing them, and I as I have said. These points are so imperitive in the progress of humanity if these do not pass I am certain that they will eventualy.

Actually, that's a logical fallacy. Human history has always been defined by conflict. The most progressive periods in human history have always been coupled with conflict of some sort, such as race riots or nations competing for resources. Even the modern era is full of conflict as nations try to play each other as chess pieces, maneuvering to try to oust each other while keeping themselves safe. If anything, conflict is imperative to human progress.

Oh, and two of them have already been covered while the fourth is impossible.

After all, "To that high concept there can be no end save victory."

If victory includes your extermination by those who are not willing to share sch ideals and willing to use them against you, then that quote is entirely true.