NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a philosophical debate I though I, a non-UN member, would get going.

I don't think that it does. It is a choice, not a responsibility. Anyone who disagrees with the powers granted to the UN can simply leave. If you disagree with a proposal, rally those around you against it.

Just a philosophical debate I though I, a non-UN member, would get going.

How about you stick this in General as it serves no purpose here?

A discussion of the NSUN in the United Nations Forum is far more fitting than a discussion of the NSUN in the General Forum.

A discussion of the NSUN in the United Nations Forum is far more fitting than a discussion of the NSUN in the General Forum. Agreed!

I have to agree with Hegelian Montesquieu - regardless of your membership or lack of membership, you still have the Irrefutable right to do two things.

1. The right to join the UN
2. The right to leave the UN

What happens whilst you are in the UN is not in your own hands. Some nations hold more influence than others, and arguably are better equipped to take the UN in a direction that favours their nation.

Similarly there are groups of like-minded nations who have considerable influence over the UN, at the expense of other groups. At the moment there is a strong group of liberal secularists that overwelm by sheer numbers any other beliefs or objectives from other nations who might want to join the UN. Which I think is a great shame, but I doubt that will change anytime soon.

As one of those 'liberal secularists', I should probably point out that there was a similar trend when I joined, before the environmentalists took over, then we regained power. May not seem like much of a change, but it was there.

Changes in the make-up of the UN are slow to occur, but may seem obvious in hindsight.

As one of those 'liberal secularists', I should probably point out that there was a similar trend when I joined, before the environmentalists took over, then we regained power. May not seem like much of a change, but it was there.

Changes in the make-up of the UN are slow to occur, but may seem obvious in hindsight.

In fairness - I consider myself fairly liberal, and I'm an aethist as well, so I could be labelled in a similar group. So please dont think I was using that description with any implied negative connotations.

I feel that the UN would benefit from a more varied perspective from it's members, so I do like to try and consider more conservative positions in my policies, so I'm probably more moderate than many others I've so casually labelled.

I'd still like to see a strong showing from 'liberal secularists' in the UN, but I'd like to see it tempered by differing perspectives. What I'd like to see even more is nations from all perspectives having the decency and courtesy to try and listen and respect differing arguements without resorting to petty debates.

But I know I'm dreaming, and it's never going to happen, but I can always dream!

I don't think that it does. It is a choice, not a responsibility. Anyone who disagrees with the powers granted to the UN can simply leave. If you disagree with a proposal, rally those around you against it.

I must disagree, most heartedly, with this statement. Yes, it is a choice. But, if we do not attempt to change that which we do like, we will never become better than we are right now. If everyone who had one resolution they do not like left, there would be no UN.

I, certainly, do not and can not agree with some of the resolutions of the past. It is our duty, and obligation, as members to attempt to change the powers of the UN to ensure that ALL people rights and freedoms are ensured, not just the few masses that some would care for.

Just a philosophical debate I though I, a non-UN member, would get going.

Thanks. And yes, I do think that the NSUN overrides national sovereignty to an excessive degree.

For more information about national sovereignty and the NSUN, read the sticky I wrote on that very topic.

I'd still like to see a strong showing from 'liberal secularists' in the UN, but I'd like to see it tempered by differing perspectives. What I'd like to see even more is nations from all perspectives having the decency and courtesy to try and listen and respect differing arguements without resorting to petty debates.

Actually, I think the debates are helpful, sans the pettiness, of course. I can use the debates to present my case before everyone, not just my opponent, and I can use the debates as a way of trying new ideas and seeing if they're valid.

As a brand-spanking-new member of Nation States, I decided to read all the UN resolutions before I decided if I should or should not join them.

And all I gotta say is that I think I am gonna stay a "rouge nation."

Besides the large # of resolutions that are minor variances of the same thing, I don't belive I want to have a group of large, powerful, and already established nations dictating if I can have a 42 hour work week, for example.

Besides, have you looked at some of the nations that have had their bills passed? I wouldn't want to live there.

I belive my people will grow all on their own and make their own mistakes instead of having the world's forced upon us.

Artimese

Actually, I think the debates are helpful, sans the pettiness, of course. I can use the debates to present my case before everyone, not just my opponent, and I can use the debates as a way of trying new ideas and seeing if they're valid.Oh certainly, I totally agree the debates are important but I think it's disappointing when they degrade from a civilised debate, to a petty arguing contest, which I think is something which is not beneficial.

Every nation on here is guilty of such lapses from time to time. Just some lapse more than others. :)

Oh certainly, I totally agree the debates are important but I think it's disappointing when they degrade from a civilised debate, to a petty arguing contest, which I think is something which is not beneficial.

Every nation on here is guilty of such lapses from time to time. Just some lapse more than others. :)

Aye. Even I have lapsed occcasionally, though more in the General forum than the UN forum.

We debated joining the UN for some time, for precisely this reason. However, We finally decided to join, since it's quite literally "the only game in town". What good is national sovereignity if your nation exists in a vaccuum?

We debated joining the UN for some time, for precisely this reason. However, We finally decided to join, since it's quite literally "the only game in town". What good is national sovereignity if your nation exists in a vaccuum?

That depends on how much one likes vacuums. ;)

That depends on how much one likes vacuums. ;)Personally, I think they suck.


The Principality of Quadlia apologizes for the poor humor of its delegate and wishes it to be known that said delegate has been sacked.

Personally, I think they suck.


The Principality of Quadlia apologizes for the poor humor of its delegate and wishes it to be known that said delegate has been sacked.
Why, I was going to make the same joke.:)

Does it override national sovereignity too much? Not really. It could be far worse than it is. At least you have the option of leaving.

As for the arguement discussion: That's the nature of the beast. Nothing we can really do about it that is legal in most nations. Besides, it's fun. Oh, and technically, all forms of discussion on here are petty, as they are about items that don't actually matter in the long run and involve a game that all of us would survive without. So, please, continue whining about petty arguements.

:begins plotting to write a "Repeal The Right To Leave The UN" proposal:

:begins plotting to write a "Repeal The Right To Leave The UN" proposal:Teehee :p

I believe there are times that certain resolutions have stepped all over the toes of national sovreignty. The worst of the culprit resolutions are the ones I fight against the most.

But the argument of national sovreignty does not stand alone against any resolution. I find the need to examine other ways to attack a resolution which impedes on nation's rights.

Eventually, I would like to reinitiate the NSSRC, to offer a solid voting block for or against resolutions. The NSSRC was intended to examine each proposal for several points, including the one which we hold most dear to us: our sovreign rights.

I have no problem with resolutions that infringe on national sovereignity; they all do to a point. Indeed, I don't think any resolution doesn't at some level.
My main problem is with proposals and resolutions that do not transcend national boundaries or are not human rights issues; such as gun control or drugs law.
Still, I think that for every bad resolutions, there are two decent one's.

I think this is the very heart of the issue in NS: controlling the UN.

The US, like every nation, containes political factions of varying policy. When one wins, the others of necessity lose. We have two options at this point: withdraw, or lobby for change. Those in the UN who oppose the UN policies and invasion of national sovereignty must work together to stop it.

Anyone willing to help me write repeals for the resolutions is most welcome.