NationStates Jolt Archive

Note, this isn't a proposal yet... I'm just sounding y'all out to see what you think. I'll be interested to hear opinions actually - I haven't heard a single reasoned argument against this idea from anyone I've offered it to bar the one addressed in the potential proposal. Please, do try to shoot it down, I'd love to find out =]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSAL - Minimum Parental Age

In many member-states, teenage pregnancy is a serious problem, as is poor parenting. As such, the following is proposed:-

1) In any member-state wherin there is no minimum age of consent, this resolution/proposal is invalid and non-applicable.

2) In any member-state wherin there IS a minimum age of consent, all citizens are required to be 'neutralised' at birth, i.e. their sexual reproductivity be removed. The technology exists to do this painlessly, reversibly and without any effect on growth or development, and in any member-state which does not possess the technology, that technology shall be granted to them freely. Please note that this should be performed in such a way as to leave the citizen with their sexual potency... merely their reproductive potency is removed. Upon these citizens reaching the age of consent for their nation-state, these citizens become eligible to take a simple test. This test would not be compulsory, may be taken whenever the citizen wishes it, and would be no more difficult than a drivers test; it would contain questions on child-rearing, hoping to show that the person has an adequate knowledge to be able to bring up a child without causing it lasting harm. Once the citizen has passed their test, they will have their sexual reproductivity returned to them. Citizens under the age of consent wishing to be artificially inseminated (assuming that is legal at their age in their nation) would be required to take the same test to have their productivity returned to them.

PROBLEM - this proposal could potentially increase the damage of STDs on member-states, as it would lead to many, many more citizens engaging in unprotected sex. However, the money saved a) in health service fees for maternity etc. in nations which have a national health service and b) in productivity after those citizens who could go on to do great things are waylaid by falling pregnant or their partner becoming pregnant, would free up
a lot of capital, some of which would go towards funding the required testing and neutralisation, and the remainder of which could be leveraged towards STD research, finding cures for diseases which have no such cure as of yet.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal hopes to put an end to teenage pregnancy, and stop around 90% of unwanted pregnancies. It does not violate any laws, as it is build AROUND the laws of member-states, and it does not violate human rights because to attempt to reproduce before reaching their nations age of consent they would be breaking the law. I don't see it as breaching national sovreignty, but that is merely my opinion... I shall wait to hear yours. I can't think of any problems bar the potential STD problems (other than the potential damage of neutralising citizens at birth... but the technology DOES exist to do this without damaging the growth or development of the children in question), but I expect that there will be problems I haven't thought of. Please venture your opinions.

Note -
1) The wording of the proposal hasn't been considered, as this is merely a potential proposal. It will of course be reworded if I deign the support for it worthy of its submission. Once the initial debate has subsided, I would be grateful for any suggestions on wording, so that I could create a proposal which the maximum number of people will back.

2) People saying things such as 'this is just plain stupid' will be ignored. Either give civilised, sensible reasons or don't bother posting. I don't mean to be harsh or to dictate what happens in this forum, but I want to discuss this matter rather than have to defend myself against illogical attacks. Leave your weapons outside before entering the thread :P

3) As to how the technology would be spread through member-states which do not possess it, I thought those member-states could pay for the wages and travel-expenses of a handful of nurses or doctors to travel to said member-state and teach the health professionals in that nation how to do the procedure. The equipment and chemicals required are not expensive, and again they would be purchased by the member-state requiring them. The technology being 'freely given' refers only to the technology, not to those teaching it or the materials required.

4) Actually to be honest I can't think of any more points, but the more points I have the more intelligent I look ^_- just kidding >.<

Aside from the fact that this potential proposal is well thought out and practical, I have only one thing to say. I would prefer that we let each nation decide for itself the appropriate age for parenthood in accord with their own biological, cultural, and technological characteristics instead of forcing them to purchase materials and services that may either be prohibitively expensive for them or use money better spent on more pressing issues in their nation like...say...a military to protect the citizens from hostile non-UN nations. :)

People saying things such as 'this is just plain stupid' will be ignored. Either give civilised, sensible reasons or don't bother posting. I don't mean to be harsh or to dictate what happens in this forum, but I want to discuss this matter rather than have to defend myself against illogical attacks.

Too bloody bad, because this really is stupid. It is so stupid, that logical arguments would be a waste on it. You actually want to force us into sterilizing a huge amount of our population!? While we may be Fassist, we are not fascist.

This whole proposal is stupid, not to mention that it is a clear violation of several resolutions:

"What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.)."

I.e. you cannot penalise people for having sex. You cannot preclude them from having it, and you cannot affect their ability to have it. You cannot sterilise them without affecting their sexual ability - as they are so closely linked.

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

2. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present resolution to each minor within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the minor's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

Your proposal is clearly discriminatory towards minors.

All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Yes, forced sterilisation is "cruel or inhuman treatment".

Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State,

And, look, people have a right to choose, which also means they have a right to deny medical treatment - i.e. you cannot forcibly sterilise them and forcible sterilisation - this violation of their human dignity - is hardly "reasonable".

All in all, your proposal is stupid, violates the spirit and content of several other resolutions, is trying to legislate which sort of technology we have access to (and forces us to use it - how you could ever be so confused as to not see the violation in sovereignty of this is a complete mystery!) and is sickening to anyone who values the freedom of the individual to decide over their lives themselves.

I can see three potential problems with this, one to do with the effect on national laws of this proposal, one to do with game mechanics, and one to do with your costings.

The first problem is that you state that there would be many more citizens engaging in unprotected sex. Presumably many of these would be under the legal age of consent, and hence this proposal, while only applying to nations with an age of consent, would actually undermine the laws designed to enforce this age of consent. Note that this is not a moral argument (as far as I'm concerned teenagers can screw as much as they like, providing there is genuine informed consent on both sides), but a logical inconsistency within the propsal which could lead to unintended effects.

The second problem is that your decision to exclude nations without a law of consent from the proposal means that nations can, in effect, decide whether the resolution would apply to them. This is counter to my understanding of the role of NSUN resolutions (albeit this understanding is limited, since I'm a newbie), which should apply to ALL nations within the UN.

The third problem is that I think you have significantly underestimated the cost of this process. Even if the cost is very small for each operation, it would have to be multiplied by millions in some nations where millions of children are born every year, month, week or even day. Add to that the cost of reversing the process, of training staff in new techniques (if they don't yet regularly use this process) etc. Many of the costs associated with childbirth are borne (pun intended) by parents or other family members, even where the children are unplanned. This kind of state-enforced operation would, I think, have to be paid for entirely by the state in most nations.

I think if you can find ways around these problems this has the makings of a good resolution, although given the number of fundamentalist crackpots in NS you might have trouble getting it passed.

This is a well written proposal, but unfornuately there are too many problems, most of which my esteemed colleagues have noticed on commented on. The main one that comes to mind is that is not an issue that transcends national boundaries.
However, it might make an interesting idea for an issue...

I read through the first couple of lines and stopped. The rest will just waste my time.

I stopped here:

In any member-state wherin there IS a minimum age of consent, all citizens are required to be 'neutralised' at birth, i.e. their sexual reproductivity be removed.

This goes against a UN resolution against mutilating female genitalia.

Besides that, the UN has no right to impose this kind of resolution on its members. The age of consent, and the age which is acceptable to have a child are different in every nation.

hmm, I'm impressed, I didn't expect so many good points so soon. However:-

I.e. you cannot penalise people for having sex. You cannot preclude them from having it, and you cannot affect their ability to have it. You cannot sterilise them without affecting their sexual ability - as they are so closely linked.

If you cannot sterilise without affecting sexual ability then I feel sorry for all the poor sods who have undertaken vasectomies for the very reason that it stops them from having children without precluding them from sexual relations... Oh, and it's not penalising people for having sex. They're free to have sex whenever they want, just not have children until they've proved they're capable.

Your proposal is clearly discriminatory towards minors.

It is only discriminatory towards minors insofar as laws against minors having sex is discriminatory towards minors. As soon as it becomes legal for the minors to have sex, they become eligible for parenthood also. If in your nation-state you have no laws forbidding sexual relations with minors it must be a paedophiles paradise.


Yes, forced sterilisation is "cruel or inhuman treatment".

Hardly... it couldn't be described as 'cruel' because it is all but painless and doesn't infringe on anything bar a persons right to break the law. As for inhuman... define it so that I can show you how it doesn't apply here.

And, look, people have a right to choose, which also means they have a right to deny medical treatment - i.e. you cannot forcibly sterilise them and forcible sterilisation - this violation of their human dignity - is hardly "reasonable".

The only thing people have a 'right to choose' which has relevance here is a right to break the law and take part in underage sex. Why exactly you should be proposing to aid your citizens in breaking the laws you yourself lay down is a mystery to me. It wouldn't be looked upon as medical treatment per se, merely the enforcement of law. And finally for you:-

Too bloody bad, because this really is stupid. It is so stupid, that logical arguments would be a waste on it. You actually want to force us into sterilizing a huge amount of our population!? While we may be Fassist, we are not fascist.

This whole proposal is stupid

'too bloody bad' indeed. As far as I can see this is a civilised forum and a fair one to boot. If you want to stoop to abuse and insults rather than cogent debate then go ahead, by all means. Just don't expect me, or indeed anyone else, to hold any respect for your opinions.

The first problem is that you state that there would be many more citizens engaging in unprotected sex. Presumably many of these would be under the legal age of consent, and hence this proposal, while only applying to nations with an age of consent, would actually undermine the laws designed to enforce this age of consent. Note that this is not a moral argument (as far as I'm concerned teenagers can screw as much as they like, providing there is genuine informed consent on both sides), but a logical inconsistency within the propsal which could lead to unintended effects.

I don't quite see it as undermining those laws... it may make it slightly more convenient to break those laws, but let's face it, if minors are going to engage in underage sex then no amount of laws are going to stop them. Ideally they wouldn't [ideally from a legal point of view that is], but this isn't an ideal world (virtual though it is). The resolution would merely safeguard against the potential threats from breaking the law; I find it hard to believe that it would cause more people to break it.

The second problem is that your decision to exclude nations without a law of consent from the proposal means that nations can, in effect, decide whether the resolution would apply to them. This is counter to my understanding of the role of NSUN resolutions (albeit this understanding is limited, since I'm a newbie), which should apply to ALL nations within the UN.

True enough, but it's doubtful that any nation would be willing to make paedophilia legal simply to avoid a resolution such as this. I think any nation which DID do this would probably be brought to justice via some resolution or other aimed at protecting children. I might be wrong of course, I'm a newbie too ^_-

The third problem is that I think you have significantly underestimated the cost of this process. Even if the cost is very small for each operation, it would have to be multiplied by millions in some nations where millions of children are born every year, month, week or even day. Add to that the cost of reversing the process, of training staff in new techniques (if they don't yet regularly use this process) etc. Many of the costs associated with childbirth are borne (pun intended) by parents or other family members, even where the children are unplanned. This kind of state-enforced operation would, I think, have to be paid for entirely by the state in most nations.

Good point... If anyone can see a way around that I'd be grateful :P

This is a well written proposal, but unfornuately there are too many problems, most of which my esteemed colleagues have noticed on commented on. The main one that comes to mind is that is not an issue that transcends national boundaries.

I've noticed a great deal of resolutions already passed don't transcend national boundaries... An example would be Resolution #7 - Sexual Freedom, which doesn't have any international relevance but passes a restriction in the interests of human rights and fairness.

This goes against a UN resolution against mutilating female genitalia.

Besides that, the UN has no right to impose this kind of resolution on its members. The age of consent, and the age which is acceptable to have a child are different in every nation.

Read the entire proposal and you'll see that all of those arguments are addressed. The proposal is different for all ages of consent, and there is no lasting damage to any body parts. Please read the entire proposal before making comments which are incorrect (I apologise if that comes across as insulting)

Thank you to everyone who has posted constructively so far.. I welcome more debate

In the first place, I don't know what "permanent yet reversable" sterilization technology to which you are reffering. If you are referring to tubal ligation and/or vasectomy, these procedures might be reversable, but they are not guaranteed to be reversable - so much so that many doctors outright refuse or are extremely reluctant to sterilize any woman who has not already had children, or is under the age of 30. (have you tried to get your tubes tied as a young, unmarried, childless woman? Have you? My friends who have tried to have had incredible difficulties in obtaining this proceedure.) Additionally, these procedures are not as "outpatient" as you might suspect just from reading about how people are home in the afternoon after being opened up in the morning. For women, there is a 2 week recovery time (sometimes longer), and for men, it is similar, depending on the kind of work they do.

The technology to which you refer in your proposal does NOT exist, so the entire thing is moot.

UN Proposals are laws, not essays. The "Problems" section does not belong in this, regardless of any other potential problems of potential conflicts with previous Resolutions.

Also, this would not fly as anything except Moral Decency: Strong.

Finally, Point 1 is of questionable legality. UN Resolutions affect all member nations, not some. However, this is largely a semantic issue and one easily avoided without altering the substance of the Proposal.

I.e. you cannot penalise people for having sex. You cannot preclude them from having it, and you cannot affect their ability to have it. You cannot sterilise them without affecting their sexual ability - as they are so closely linked.
...
And, look, people have a right to choose, which also means they have a right to deny medical treatment - i.e. you cannot forcibly sterilise them.

Actually, it is possible to sterilise somebody without affecting their sexual potency (in other words their ability to have sexual intercourse of any kind) - in female humans this is called a tubal ligation in which the fallopian tubes are closed, and in male humans this is called a vasectomy, in which both the vas deferentia are blocked (usually by tying or cutting). I think it is safe to assume that similar procedures exist for other sentient species.

And in this proposal people do have the right to choose - when they reach the legal age of consent in the particular nation. As long as this process is reversible (which it is, according to the proposal) there is no problem.

Regarding the 'This is stupid' thing I think you should at least respect that the proposition author doesn't want to hear that until this becomes a submitted proposal - at the moment constructive criticism is what's needed.

EDIT: Apologies for the delay in replying - a number of other people posted while I was drafting my reply (and doing about 4 other things).

The technology to which you refer in your proposal does NOT exist, so the entire thing is moot.

Perhaps in your nation this isn't possible, but in mine the breakthrough was made a few months ago... this is the beauty of the fact that the game is fictional :P

UN Proposals are laws, not essays. The "Problems" section does not belong in this, regardless of any other potential problems of potential conflicts with previous Resolutions.

Aye, which is why I noted in my original post that the wording hadn't even been considered. Thank you for your correction though ^_^ and of course your suggestion for a category... I hadn't begun to consider that yet.

I must say this is proving to be more productive than I thought it would be - I assumed it would be shot down within the first five posts due to some major flaw I hadn't seen or simple illogical ethical outrage. If anyone can come up with a solution to the cost issue, that would be great, and as always I welcome your criticism. As far as I can see, if a proposal is capable of withstanding the vigorous testing of these forums, it's capable of withstanding anything, including a vote, especially if it's fashioned around others' suggestions ^^

This proposal seems to Us unreasonably complex and involved, and in a word, "icky".

Wouldn't it be simpler just to outlaw premarital sex? That's Our nation's customary way of dealing with the problem.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to outlaw premarital sex? That's Our nation's customary way of dealing with the problem.

Nah, because the main thing this is preventing is pregnancy in underage citizens - and it's illegal for them to have sex anyway. People are always gonna break the law if they want to have sex, and as the Dictator of Yiplonia I accept that in my citizens, so long as those citizens are consciencious [can't spell that -.-] and know what they're doing. The age limit is there purely to stop paedophiles. However, it's clear that the law won't stop pregnancies in this area, so I feel the need to take other steps towards solving the problem. NOTE - I will be implementing this procedure in my own nation regardless of how the vote goes, but I haven't as yet in case some ideas come up which improve it or show it to be foolhardy. I'm willing to pay the extra capital.

Well, it is clear that the citizens of Yiplonia have a different set of sexual mores than the people of The Eternal Kawaii. We accept this; it's becoming more and more clear to Us as We participate in the UN that for many nations, "your ways are not our ways". We do suggest, though, that the simplest solutions are oftentimes the best.

The combined cost of performing and reversing the surgery, dealing with the rise in STDs, and administering the tests, would far outstrip any financial gains. It would also waste our surgeons' time when they could be performing life-saving operations.

We also find objectionable the notion of a parenthood test. Since you have failed to specify that this test should only be on general knowledge about health and safety issues, in many nations, significant bias would enter into these tests, discriminating against those who did not adhere to conventional ideas. Many nations would slant their tests against, for instance, minority sexual orientations, or those who would not indoctrinate their children with the majority religion. It is not for the state to dictate how children are to be brought up, short of prosecuting parents for direct harm in a fair trial.

Finally, no medical procedure of this kind is completely reliable, and claiming that this sterilisation method is reversible 100% of the time is just god-modding. Therefore, there will always be at least a small percentage of people for whom it will turn out to be impossible to return to full fertility. If you consider how many billions of people are born across all the UN nations every year, that's going to come out to an immense number of people who end up permanently sterile. Quite apart from the appalling violation of their rights, we'd probably have to compensate them quite generously.

The technology exists to do this painlessly, reversibly and without any effect on growth or development, and in any member-state which does not possess the technology, that technology shall be granted to them freely.Cite, please?

Oh, and don't give me this "Well, we here in Yiplonia have developed such technology..." nonsense. If you can't point to a web site here in RL that proves this to be possible, then any MT nation is free to say, "Sorry, but that doesn't exist today in RL (the technological template for MT) and so I can't use it, having limited myself to MT". N.S.U.N. resolutions may not force a player to RP at any particular tech level.

OOC: Having received a vasectomy a few years back, I know for a fact that such operations are not truly "reversible" (my urologist was adamant about me understanding that fact). There is a significant chance that the effects of such a operation can not be undone. I also believe the same is true for a woman who has her tubes tied.

Beyond the question of whether a persons reproductive potential can be reversibly "neutralised" at birth (or prior to puberty), the United States of Allemande objects to this proposal on the grounds that it violates a fundamental human right, that of bodily integrity.

Simply put, bodily integrity is the right to refuse to let others perform medical operations and the like on one's body without one's consent. Experience in Nazi Germany and in America prior to the series of Supreme Court rulings (starting in the 20's and ending in the 70's) that ultimately culminated in Roe v. Wade shows that, without bodily integrity, governments feel no compunction at all about sterilising, castrating, mutilating, or performing medical "experiments" on their citizens (and especially those deemed inferior or defective) without the consenting of the targets of their actions. Bodily integrity stops this, asserting that - for each and every one of us - our bodies belong to ourselves.

In the case of children, we transfer the right to decide such matters to that child's parent, with the potential for judicial override where the parents' choices are suspect (although the burden of proof is on those who would seek to set aside the parents' wishes, and is quite high). This resolution casts aside this entire framework, asserting that - for the good of society and (even) of humanity as a whole - a person's body is not at all their own, but a public resource, like an oil field, a road, or a wilderness preserve.

Surely teen pregnancy and other ills can be better handled through education (of both children and their parents), through the wider dissemination of birth control technologies, and through societal pressure. The United States of Allemande endorse these techniques, which respect human rights, and will oppose with the utmost vigour authoritarian proposals such as this, up to and including a TG campaign. While it is not our habit to threaten to withdraw from the N.S.U.N. if proposals we don't like are passed, we would be forced to do so if were this to ever pass, and we would scarcely be alone.

We also find objectionable the notion of a parenthood test. Since you have failed to specify that this test should only be on general knowledge about health and safety issues, in many nations, significant bias would enter into these tests, discriminating against those who did not adhere to conventional ideas. Many nations would slant their tests against, for instance, minority sexual orientations, or those who would not indoctrinate their children with the majority religion. It is not for the state to dictate how children are to be brought up, short of prosecuting parents for direct harm in a fair trial.

Aye, good point, but the finalised proposal could easily specify points to be avoided or undertaken in the test. General knowledge on health aspects, as well as the utilisation of basic tools [e.g. the temperature to which milk should be heated], would probably be included, as well as general knowledge on the subject. An example question (though not quite so stupid):-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your child is crying you should

a) Hit it
b) Offer it food, rest, burp it, and otherwise attempt to divine the reasons behind its distress
c) Call it stupid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously that's not a serious example, but it's a suggestion of layout possibilities.

Finally, no medical procedure of this kind is completely reliable, and claiming that this sterilisation method is reversible 100% of the time is just god-modding. Therefore, there will always be at least a small percentage of people for whom it will turn out to be impossible to return to full fertility. If you consider how many billions of people are born across all the UN nations every year, that's going to come out to an immense number of people who end up permanently sterile. Quite apart from the appalling violation of their rights, we'd probably have to compensate them quite generously.

Were it within my power I would offer to finance any compensation out of my own pocket. That is beyond my means unfortunately, but I'd say that the compensation requirements would be fairly small compared with even the cost of the operations themselves. The cost is (as far as I can see) the only issue which has not been properly solved yet... 50,000 pies [the national currency of Yiplonia] to the first person to solve the problem!

Also, this would not fly as anything except Moral Decency: Strong.And, per the design of the game, any Moral Decency proposal is essentially a proposal to reduce or eliminate Civil Rights.

The United States of Allemande cherishes Civil Rights and will organize a worldwide campaign against this proposal, both before and after it passes.

The "after" part will probably require us to abandon our self-imposed restriction against the development of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps in your nation this isn't possible, but in mine the breakthrough was made a few months ago... this is the beauty of the fact that the game is fictional :PThen this wonderful fictional technology is FT or PMT and can not be used - or given - to MT Member nations. This makes the proposal illegal, since it requires all nations to RP at the PMT/MT+, FT, or MagiTek levels (essentially, it bans FT and Ancient/Medieval/Renaissance/EMT/MT- RP).

BTW, this also reveals the author's motivation. This could better be called the "Make Yiplonia the Most Powerful Nation in the NS World Act" because it requires us to purchase training in this fictional technique from you. You've agreed to give us the "technology" for free, but you've stated in this thread that the training in how to use it will not be, and even though you've said that it requires equipment and supplies of "minimal" cost, how are we to know whether or not this fictional technique requires the use of "Yiplonium" (which is only found in your country) and the "Yiplonising Sterilisator" (which only you know how to build), therefore giving your people untold power over the planet (or at least the power to decide can and can not adhere to N.S.U.N. rules - which is mandatory), and thus irresistable leverage in any negotiations you may choose to initiate, on any matter, now or in the future?

For the good of Civil Rights and the safety of the planet, this proposal must die.

We also find objectionable the notion of a parenthood test. Since you have failed to specify that this test should only be on general knowledge about health and safety issues, in many nations, significant bias would enter into these tests, discriminating against those who did not adhere to conventional ideas. Many nations would slant their tests against, for instance, minority sexual orientations, or those who would not indoctrinate their children with the majority religion. It is not for the state to dictate how children are to be brought up, short of prosecuting parents for direct harm in a fair trial.Yes, it's clear to us now that the Dictator of Yiplonia - Yiplonia is an authoritarian dictatorship, of that we have no doubt - intends to use the right to bear children as a way of stamping out "undesirables" - religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, troublemakers, and whatnot. This smacks of genocide, and now he wants to have that power over the entire planet.

We will begin debate within our National Assembly over whether military action might be required to liberate the people of Yiplonia from such a noxious regime. We will certainly look into trade sanctions, a travel ban, and consider reporting Yiplonia to TPP.

Yes, it's clear to us now that the Dictator of Yiplonia - Yiplonia is an authoritarian dictatorship, of that we have no doubt - intends to use the right to bear children as a way of stamping out "undesirables" - religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, troublemakers, and whatnot. This smacks of genocide, and now he wants to have that power over the entire planet.

I don't suppose you're related to George Bush? He's the only world leader I can think of that claims to be a civilised world leader and yet would jump to such wild conclusions. My rule is a dictatorship, aye, but it is a benevolent one. My citizens have rather extensive civil liberties I think you'll find, and they are free to act as any civilised population would, including religious freedom, freedom of speech and whatnot. And we don't discriminate against ethnic minorities either - even the government is an equal opportunities employer. The only thing they're not allowed to do is attempt to remove me from power. Quite how you can leap to the conclusion of 'genocide' from a simple proposal for the control of unwanted pregnancies is beyond me...


Then this wonderful fictional technology is FT or PMT and can not be used - or given - to MT Member nations. This makes the proposal illegal, since it requires all nations to RP at the PMT/MT+, FT, or MagiTek levels (essentially, it bans FT and Ancient/Medieval/Renaissance/EMT/MT- RP).

Please speak English X.X You can see from my number of posts I'm not exactly a regular here, so please restate your point in a manner which I can understand -.-

BTW, this also reveals the author's motivation. This could better be called the "Make Yiplonia the Most Powerful Nation in the NS World Act" because it requires us to purchase training in this fictional technique from you. You've agreed to give us the "technology" for free, but you've stated in this thread that the training in how to use it will not be, and even though you've said that it requires equipment and supplies of "minimal" cost, how are we to know whether or not this fictional technique requires the use of "Yiplonium" (which is only found in your country) and the "Yiplonising Sterilisator" (which only you know how to build), therefore giving your people untold power over the planet (or at least the power to decide can and can not adhere to N.S.U.N. rules - which is mandatory), and thus irresistable leverage in any negotiations you may choose to initiate, on any matter, now or in the future?

I believe I stated in the proposal that the required materials were 'simple' or 'basic' or something along those lines... That would imply to me that they're widespread. And, as I said, the only money which you would be required to pay would be that of the wages of any people sent to train you - I don't have much faith in the power of volunteer organisations. Dictator I may be, but I have no wish for control over any lands bar my own - they keep me busy enough thank you. Please stop leaping to conclusions about me and my people.

The United States of Allemande cherishes Civil Rights and will organize a worldwide campaign against this proposal, both before and after it passes.

The "after" part will probably require us to abandon our self-imposed restriction against the development of nuclear weapons.

Attacking me is an abuse of my civil right to choose what form of government my country takes. Furthermore, I have displayed in many ways, mentioned above, that I have no interest in attacking any lands or controlling things any more than I do at present - attempting to wrest control of my nation from me would merely show *you* to be the immoral, power-hungry leader. Please go ahead and ban trade and travel to Yiplonia - this merely restricts your own citizens freedom more, and in fact restricts their civil rights. Ironic really - your actions are making my citizens far more free than your own whilst still remaining under my Dictatorship.

Now please, go away. This isn't even a proposal yet, it's merely a debate on how the proposal would be created and worded, and how to solve the various problems it poses. Any offensive action towards Yiplonia will be returned in kind by Yiplonia and its allies, but we shall not seek to invade or otherwise attack you. Your choice of rule may be as 'noxious' to us as ours is to you, but at least we don't feel the need to remove your rule. Barbarian.

Yiplonia, they're speaking about technology levels. There are multiple technology levels on NS, each detailed below.

Ancient Tech (AT or PT)- Anything before modern.

Modern Tech (MT)- Twentieth Century to Twenty-First Century. Basically, current technology.

Post Modern Tech (PMT)- Basically, advancements of modern technology to the next level. This includes nanotechnology, AIs, cybernetic implants, fusion reactors, rail guns, cloning humans, etc. Note that antimatter technology is not included in this, despite the fact that we currently have the technology to produce antimatter atoms and are actually doing so in real life.

Future Tech (FT)- Basically, science fiction. War reactors, Star Gates, androids, graviton cannons, and that sort of technology. Pretty much, my entire nation is an example.

Fantasy Tech (Magic Tech)- Involving elements of fantasy, such as magic and dragons.

What Allemande is saying is that your tech is PMT, FT, or Magic Tech and, therefore, discriminatory to MT nations. To them, you can easily respond by pointing out that the UN has done it before or by pointing out how it is modern tech.

But as it is, Allemande has made one hell of an arguement against your proposal, better than I was going to. I agree with them.

Ah, I see. Well, thank you for explaining that to me.

However, the argument made has, for the most part, been returned in my previous post... The only problem I see with this so far is the price. I'd appreciate people attempting to solve the problem rather than launching attacks which are aggressive and destructive in nature...

Read the entire proposal and you'll see that all of those arguments are addressed.

It doesn't matter if you "addressed the argument". A UN resolution cannot be broken unless it is repealed. Besides you have NOT addressed female genital mutilation in your original post. Please read your entire post before responding.

Female Genital Mutilation is banned by UN resolution. It does not define Female Genital Mutilation specifically, but I do believe that removing the ability to conceive a child IS mutilation to the female genitalia.

Mutilation is defined as:

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Genital is defined as:

1. Of or relating to biological reproduction.
2. Of or relating to the genitals.
3. Of or relating to the final stage of psychosexual development in psychoanalytic theory, beginning in puberty and during which the genitals again become the focus of gratification, and interest develops in relationships with persons of the opposite sex. The genital stage is preceded by the latency period.


This proposal DOES mutilate the female genitalia, and even worse! it forces this mutilation!

The proposal is different for all ages of consent, and there is no lasting damage to any body parts. Please read the entire proposal before making comments which are incorrect (I apologise if that comes across as insulting)

I doubt that removing the ability to conceive children will not create any lasting damage! Not only does this unnecessary procedure cause undue danger to the baby – as any procedure will – but also you cannot guarantee 100% that the removal of their sexual organs is reversible!

Besides all of that, our children will not develop properly as the genitals are needed to produce hormones during development!

You seriously need to think of a less damaging and more acceptable way to approach your goals.

This proposal DOES mutilate the female genitalia, and even worse! it forces this mutilation!

As (as far as I can see) voluntary neutralisation (e.g. vasectomies) are not prohibited by this resolution, I see no reason why the resolution would apply to involuntary, reversible neutralisation also. Additionally, the resolution in question merely 'condemns the practise' of such procedures, rather than outlaws it outright, therefore the resolution does not hold any true power over this proposal. Furthermore, the resolution is designed to avoid the ritual damage to the female genitals rather than the medical *reversible* procedure in question, and so in quoting the resolution you are using the wording of the resolution in a manner in which it was not intended.

I doubt that removing the ability to conceive children will not create any lasting damage! Not only does this unnecessary procedure cause undue danger to the baby – as any procedure will – but also you cannot guarantee 100% that the removal of their sexual organs is reversible!

Besides all of that, our children will not develop properly as the genitals are needed to produce hormones during development!

For the majority of this discussion we have debated under the assumption that the procedure would be reversible and would not damage the child - the technology exists to do both, merely not with a 100% success rate, at present.



However, the it seems that this debate has been reduced from a fair, reasoned debate to a petty war of angry people trying desperately to avoid this proposal at all costs, including the use of badly worded resolutions and threats of war, sanctions and so on. I'm sick of it. I will hereby remove myself from the argument - whilst I shall still check the thread, I won't bother debating the potential of the proposal.

I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the people who attempted to find flaws with the proposal without trying to attack it or my nation; in other words, I thank the mature people. As for you others... well, suffice to say my recent discovery of a cure for cancer shan't be shared with your citizens ;) [N.B. this is a joke, for you picky people -.- the scientists of Yiplonia are no closer to a universal cure than the rest of you are -.-]

If anyone would like to let me know how I could propose this matter as an 'issue', I'd be grateful if you would send me a telegram... the same goes to anyone who considers the death of the proposal to be a wasted opportunity (I doubt anyone liked it that much :P). I shall think twice before submitting any proposals in future -.-

And my final words whilst still officially defending the proposal - ME LIKE PIE!

Many needed hormones are produced by the genitals during development, and therefore Koroser cannot support any resolution that would harm our children.

For the majority of this discussion we have debated under the assumption that the procedure would be reversible and would not damage the child - the technology exists to do both, merely not with a 100% success rate, at present.

Hang on, you expect us to squash our citizens civil rights and trample their human rights into the mud over a procedure that doesn't have a 100% success rate? Assuming I would ever allow one of my citizens to undergo this procedure (and that will never happen), we want a full explaination of what this procedure is and any possible problems it can cause to the patient. I know you don't want our people to have the right to refuse to have this inflicted on their children but both the government and parents do have the right to be fully informed of exactly what this procedure is, how it works and exactly what it will do to the childs body.

However, the it seems that this debate has been reduced from a fair, reasoned debate to a petty war of angry people trying desperately to avoid this proposal at all costs, including the use of badly worded resolutions and threats of war, sanctions and so on. I'm sick of it. I will hereby remove myself from the argument - whilst I shall still check the thread, I won't bother debating the potential of the proposal.

That could be because many of us find the very idea of this proposal completly repugnant. You have the right to destroy your own people's civil rights if you wish but please don't try to push this form of ultimate government control on ours. We value our people's right to choose very highly in this nation. We find a good education (including full sex education) and social welfare system a lot better than forced sterilisations and parental tests.

*sigh* despite being withdrawn, I feel the need to respond to a single comment:-

That could be because many of us find the very idea of this proposal completly repugnant. You have the right to destroy your own people's civil rights if you wish but please don't try to push this form of ultimate government control on ours. We value our people's right to choose very highly in this nation. We find a good education (including full sex education) and social welfare system a lot better than forced sterilisations and parental tests.

Whether you find it repugnant or not, aggressive behaviour is neither warranted nor civilised. Noting that I didn't even make the proposal because I wanted to see how people would respond beforehand, I would think I deserved at least the courtesy of a reasoned argument. The early stages of the thread were light, they brought up issues to be addressed, and they made the positions of the leaders in question clear without being aggressive. Now, the position has regressed into 'nope, I don't like the sound of this, let's trash it with whatever we can bring to bear'. I've already said I'm not going to make the proposal; back off, jesus.

I'm just wondering how Yiplonia expects people to go through puberty without having the required hormones being produced by genitalia. No puberty, and people are permanently sterilised.

The Senate of the United States of Allemande has voted, 23-12 with 1 abstention, to withhold support for any military action against Yiplonia. It has, however, called upon the State Department to ask these questions of the Yiplonian ambassador to the N.S.U.N., so that - should this proposal ever be offered to the General Assembly, appropriate action may be taken.
Does this procedure work unfailingly on all sentient species? In addition to humans and humanoids (like elves, dwarves, goblins, halfings, etc.), many nations within the N.S.U.N are populated by robots, aliens, animals (like cats, dogs, cows, and rats). Any mandatory procedure must work on all sentient Member species, or it can not be made mandatory for anyone.


Has Yiplonia tested this technology thoroughly on both sexes throughout the range of possible ages at which it might be conducted? If so, is it willing to divulge the results of said testing?


If the procedure failed, would injured persons have the right to sue the people who developed this procedure?


Does the procedure (either part - sterilisation or reversal) require materials that can only be obtained from within Yiplonian territory? If so, what measures would Yiplonia take to ensure that all nations have uninterrupted access to these resources?


Does the procedure (again, either part of it) require technology that can only be acquired from Yiplonia? If so, would this technology be placed in the public domain for the use of all nations, so that none is dependent on continued commerce with Yiplonia for compliance with U.N. regulations?


If the goal is to stop teen pregnancy, why the test of parental "fitness"? For that matter, what does Yiplonia demand of a citizen to be a "fit" parent? Unflinching support for the State and for Yiplonia's Leader? Wholehearted endorsement of Yiplonia's policies? The United States of Allemande find any claim of "benevolence" on the part of any dictator suspect: such an individual always has to oppress someone to remain in power, if only the political opposition. Holding the power of procreation over its citizens, why should we believe that Yiplonia isn't willing to use that power to enforce compliance with its policies?

Our belligerence is borne of the fact that this was offered as an N.S.U.N. proposal. Once it became obvious that this was all about compelling other nations to use a technology developed by Yiplonia for the purpose of controlling its population (in more ways that one), we were naturally led to suspect ulterior motives on Yiplonia's part. Imagine a nation whose population is being sterilised under N.S.U.N. orders requiring Yiplonia's consent to reverse the procedure; the effect would be to give one person - the Dictator of Yiplonia - the power to destroy any N.S.U.N. member with a single word.

We're glad that your trial balloon failed. We still find your intention to forcibly sterilise your citizens an obscene violation of their right to bodily integrity, and will protest this before any and all international bodies that hear such complaints. You can claim all the benevolent intentions you wish: if your people do not own their own bodies, then they are all your slaves.

Do not offer this proposal again. We will react to it as strongly next time around as we did this time.

The representatives from Allemande would do good to recognize the difference between a draft Proposal and one that has been submitted. As far as we have been able to tell, this was never submitted for Delegate approval.

Furthermore, they seem to be confused as to the technological levels of the world in general. Yiplonia is not the only nation in the world with the technology to sterilize and then un-sterilize humans.

Allemande's bullheaded belligerance in this situation, to the extreme on holding a vote on possible war, makes us quite concerned with the state of the United Nations. Surely such warmongers are not welcome in these halls.

~ Chancellor Birdstuff

Our belligerence is borne of the fact that this was offered as an N.S.U.N. proposal. Once it became obvious that this was all about compelling other nations to use a technology developed by Yiplonia for the purpose of controlling its population (in more ways that one), we were naturally led to suspect ulterior motives on Yiplonia's part. Imagine a nation whose population is being sterilised under N.S.U.N. orders requiring Yiplonia's consent to reverse the procedure; the effect would be to give one person - the Dictator of Yiplonia - the power to destroy any N.S.U.N. member with a single word.

The lengths you are going to to daemonise me are quite absurd. If you wish for an embassy in my nation so that you can establish some kind of link, to find out exactly what we do in Yiplonia before declaring that I'm an evil SoB hell bent on conquering the world at any cost, then please send an ambassador or three - just don't expect them not to lose their freedom of movement around my properties if much more of this goes on.

Allemande's bullheaded belligerance in this situation, to the extreme on holding a vote on possible war, makes us quite concerned with the state of the United Nations. Surely such warmongers are not welcome in these halls.

Thank you very much... I'm glad that at least one nation has the intelligence to see how foolhardy it is to be aggressive without a scrap of information.

As (as far as I can see) voluntary neutralisation (e.g. vasectomies) are not prohibited by this resolution, I see no reason why the resolution would apply to involuntary, reversible neutralisation also. Additionally, the resolution in question merely 'condemns the practise' of such procedures, rather than outlaws it outright, therefore the resolution does not hold any true power over this proposal.

Unlike the real life UN, members of the NS UN has to abide by ALL resolutions in place. The resolution, although not strongly worded, outlaws female genital mutilation by NSUN rules and regulations. Read the stickies.

Furthermore, the resolution is designed to avoid the ritual damage to the female genitals rather than the medical *reversible* procedure in question, and so in quoting the resolution you are using the wording of the resolution in a manner in which it was not intended.

If a woman is forced to mutilate her genitalia than it is against the Female Genital Mutilation resolution. Thats all there is too it. It doesn't matter how reversable or not this is. I could track down several other resolutions that will render your proposal illegal just because what you propose is *forced*.

For the majority of this discussion we have debated under the assumption that the procedure would be reversible and would not damage the child - the technology exists to do both, merely not with a 100% success rate, at present.

I cannot understand why you think it is appropriate to risk the ability for people to have children. Just because you say it is reversable does not make it so for every nation.

However, the it seems that this debate has been reduced from a fair, reasoned debate to a petty war of angry people trying desperately to avoid this proposal at all costs,

I am not angry, I am just shocked at what you propose and also shocked that after explaining myself you flick away already pass resolutions like they were nothing, and still maintain that mutilating a woman's body - or a man for that matter - is "okay".

including the use of badly worded resolutions and threats of war, sanctions and so on. I'm sick of it. I will hereby remove myself from the argument - whilst I shall still check the thread, I won't bother debating the potential of the proposal.

I guess you can only say "reversable" so much.

And if you don't like those badly worded resolutions, I suggest you leave the UN as those resolutions are in power over you and your nation.


I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the people who attempted to find flaws with the proposal without trying to attack it or my nation; in other words, I thank the mature people.

Are you flaming me? or just mad that I did find a flaw in your proposal that you couldn't solve?

Are you flaming me? or just mad that I did find a flaw in your proposal that you couldn't solve?

Actually that statement was aimed at the idiot threatening war and other such measures in the face of the proposal. As I've said repeatedly, I already have a flaw in the proposal I can't solve, brought up by someone else - the very reason behind setting up the thread was to find out if there WERE any big holes in the theory before it was proposed.

I won't bother to reply to the rest of the points because I've lost interest in the thread in general...

Allemande's bullheaded belligerance in this situation, to the extreme on holding a vote on possible war, makes us quite concerned with the state of the United Nations.You should be concerned about the state of the United Nations. We are.

All of this could be avoided were a majority of the Members to accept the principle of National Sovereignty and consequently limit their proposals to matters that are truly international in nature, while drafting proposals that mandate only what must be mandated, in order to permit the Membership as much freedom as possible to govern their own affairs. But sadly, a majority of Members believe that the United Nations should establish universal laws regulating every aspect of their "subjects'" lives en route to creating a single supra-national World State.

This is possible because of the compulsory nature of N.S.U.N resolutions. This proposed resolution is a perfect example: if accepted by a majority of Members (likely, given the tendencies displayed by that Membership of late) it would force all Members to violate the bodies of their children, to deny all their citizens personal sovereignty, and to lord over them as Yiplonia lords over its own citizens (and yes, if Yiplonia says that by speaking of its government in this way we are "demonising" that government, so be it - no society can tell its citizens that their very bodies belong to the State and call itself free, no matter how many other liberties it may permit them; and certainly no Dictatorship can ever call itself free, when it lords over its Citizens in such a way and then denies them the ability to pick those who exercise such power). The entire relationship between State and Citizen would - for all Members - become one of the most fascist variety: the State gives life, the State takes it away, and the Citizen is but a cog in the machinery, a mere "component" within society, of no particular value, to be rejected if deemed "defective" (by being, for instance, resistant to State orders) in favour of a more pliant, more "useful" part.

There are too many Yiplonias out there: too many nations that see the N.S.U.N as their vehicle to reshape Humanity in their own image. And sadly, most of them are no more liberal than Yiplonia; to the bulk of them, people are not important in and of themselves, but simply as members of "society". Left to their own devices, without vigorous opposition by those of us who still believe in individual liberty and true personal sovereignty, they will eventually succeed in transforming the Membership into a herd of clones. What they will then do to the rest of us (for by then the devotees of freedom will have long since fled the N.S.U.N.) can only be left to the imagination. Surely, though, people so arrogant as to trample on the rights of their own citizens can not care much for the rights of foreigners. Those of us who believe in freedom will likely be fighting for our lives by then.

My citizens have rather extensive civil liberties...Well, let's look, shall we?Yiplonia
UN Category: Father Knows Best State
Civil Rights: Very Good
Economy: Good
Political Freedoms: Outlawed... and by way of comparison, since Yiplonia and its supports think us unenlightened thugs:Allemande
UN Category: Corporate Bordello
Civil Rights: Excellent
Economy: Powerhouse
Political Freedoms: SuperbInteresting, isn't it, that somehow we Allemanders manage to enjoy a wider array of civil liberties and yet still enjoy the chaos of free elections and an open political system. Yet Yiplonia would take all of that away from us, subjugating us under the foetid hand of a autocratic state that infantalises us (and, quite symbolically, neuters its real infants - what's the real message there?).

As far as whether we should have waited to torpedo this proposal until it was offered as a resolution, the answer is a resounding "no". By then, given the recent history of the N.S.U.N., it would have been far too late to stem the tide. We believe in defending our liberties to the utmost, and in even suggesting such an abomination, Yiplonia was assaulting those liberties.

Surely such warmongers are not welcome in these halls.We're not yet ready to quit, and you can't do anything to throw us out. Deal with it.

Oh, and Yiplonia still hasn't told us what "gotchas" lie beneath his proposal. He still hasn't assured the Membership that we wouldn't have to bow down before his authority in order to either implement his proposed scheme for sterilising our children or - worse still - get his permission to restore their fertility. We can just see some slimy dictator putting himself in the position of being able to kill any nation he wishes through mandated population implosion.

We remain both sceptical and suspicious.

Allemande, your defence if individual freedoms, and the freedoms of individual states is clearly heart-felt and certainly contains many reasonable points. But at the end of the day these are ideologies, and as such are no more valid than Yiplonia's ideology. There's no point in trying to compare ideologies with each other using ideological arguments. That's like trying to describe maths using only numbers and formulae.

[OOC]Irrespective of whether you consider it to be democratic or not, if the majority of NSUN states votes for a resolution it passes and its laws apply to your nations. If you don't like it, lump it. That's how the game works, as far as I can see. If you're not happy with that, there are more appropriate forums in which to post your suggestions on how to improve it.

Eugenics, is a very dangerous ground, upon which to tread. Natural Law, will overcome any ideological effort to mold it, with disastrous results. Just as physics, will overcome, any ideological effort, to overcome it. An engineer must work within the limits of physics, lest what he design refuse to work, no matter how much he argues with it.

Any tampering in human evolution, will have troubling consequences. Though a person should not procreate until able to deal with the consequences, forcible interference in the matter will produce equally troubling results, with the added drawback of irreversibility. Children should not procreate, but preventing those who are foolish from doing so will simply lead them to abuse of such favors, leading to a rise in other sexually produced and entirely penalties. Let the girls watch a woman give “natural” birth, maybe help out, boiling water and whatnot and they will think twice. Let the boys watch their fathers work to feed five kids and see what irresponsible behavior has in store for them. Try to keep the two apart growing up anyway, it is for the best. In the end, you will have a stable and productive civilization, filled with hard working, iron willed and iron gutted strongmen married to battle axes, instead one of those narcissistic suicidal liberal civilizations that want to sterilize everyone while denying the right to self defense.

With regard to ideological differences, Krioval is not so relative in its thinking as to naively equate all ideologies. For example, if one had the belief that raping babies was a perfectly fine and wonderful thing to do, Krioval would oppose it vigorously. I personally would be shocked to hear that Krioval's protests against such a view would be countered by "no ideology is more valid than any other", the rather horribly written resolution to that effect notwithstanding. At the end of the day, ideological arguments may be exactly that, but at the end of the month, that's really all NSUN members have to go on. Anything can be construed as a primarily ideological argument, up to and beyond the idea that logic is useful.

~ Yuri Sokolev

With regard to ideological differences, Krioval is not so relative in its thinking as to naively equate all ideologies. For example, if one had the belief that raping babies was a perfectly fine and wonderful thing to do, Krioval would oppose it vigorously. I personally would be shocked to hear that Krioval's protests against such a view would be countered by "no ideology is more valid than any other", the rather horribly written resolution to that effect notwithstanding. At the end of the day, ideological arguments may be exactly that, but at the end of the month, that's really all NSUN members have to go on. Anything can be construed as a primarily ideological argument, up to and beyond the idea that logic is useful.
I wasn't equating all ideologies. I was pointing out that 'your ideology is wrong because my ideology is right' is not a very convincing argument except to someone who already agrees with my ideology.

In the post I referred to, Allemande wasn't pointing out why individual points in the resolution were bad (this would be using ideological arguments to evaluate specific actions or laws, which is fine by me). S/he was saying that the correct way for nations and the NSUN to conduct themselves is for everyone to have individual freedoms, and for nations to have absolute sovereignty about things which happen within their borders. S/he did not really give any reasons for this view, except that s/he felt strongly about it. S/he compared the politicals systems of Allemande and Yiplonia, without explaining why one was better than the other, in his/her view.

So yes, I agree NSUN is dependent on ideological arguments, but lets at least have arguments with some real substance and examples, rather than 'I'm better than you because I am'.

You should be concerned about the state of the United Nations. We are.

But unlike you, very few nations are willing to go to war over it. Perhaps your nation is simply warlike; Yiplonians are by nature peaceful, and those who wish to pursue a career in the armed forces are asked (i.e. forced) to relocate to our sister state Karnivean, an altogether more brutal place.

(and yes, if Yiplonia says that by speaking of its government in this way we are "demonising" that government, so be it - no society can tell its citizens that their very bodies belong to the State and call itself free...)

The demonising I referred to was your rather idiotic attempt to declare that my nation was hell-bent on rulership of the world without even considering that I might simply be running a proposal past the UN as a theory which could, potentially, help out, but could also have holes in it which I hadn't seen. Don't try to wash over your actions; you call yourself a civilised national leader, and yet your first response to a proposal which offends you is to ask your citizens if they fancy a war. Ironic really.

There are too many Yiplonias out there: too many nations that see the N.S.U.N as their vehicle to reshape Humanity in their own image

It says in a sticky around these forums (I can't be bothered to track down the exact posting) that all national leaders have the right to choose their own form of government and ideology. Therefore, whether you like it or not, you're stuck with it.

Surely, though, people so arrogant as to trample on the rights of their own citizens can not care much for the rights of foreigners.

My citizens have the right to, as I have said before, do whatever they wish to within the confines of our law (which is considered by most to be fair and just) and UN resolutions. The only thing they may not do is vote to remove me from power. If, at some point in the future, our scientists come up with a way to determine a persons intelligence reliably (all our present IQ tests are flawed in some way or other) then I will ask every citizen to take an IQ test, and those over a requisite level will be allowed to vote. Until then, I refuse to let idiots pollute our voting pool, and therefore control the country myself. That's my choice, and it is one you may not change. If you disagree, if you think it is foolish, if it offends you, tough.

Interesting, isn't it, that somehow we Allemanders manage to enjoy a wider array of civil liberties and yet still enjoy the chaos of free elections and an open political system. Yet Yiplonia would take all of that away from us, subjugating us under the foetid hand of a autocratic state that infantalises us

A rather rash statement really... just because your civil liberties are 'excellent' doesn't mean that our 'very good' is worth rueing. The proposal is in one field, and has already been withdrawn; once again you take my actions and extend them to their illogical conclusion.

As far as whether we should have waited to torpedo this proposal until it was offered as a resolution, the answer is a resounding "no". By then, given the recent history of the N.S.U.N., it would have been far too late to stem the tide. We believe in defending our liberties to the utmost, and in even suggesting such an abomination, Yiplonia was assaulting those liberties.

The irony in this statement is that I withdrew my support for the proposal a long time ago and your actions, rather than encouraging me to withdraw it, merely served to encourage me to support it - I find it entertaining to fly in the face of arrogant warmongers. What convinced me to withdraw is the few large holes in my proposal, together with my realisation that, as a whole, the UN was not keen on the idea. If your intention is to kill the proposal then stop replying to the thread; the only thing keeping me here, really, is my entertainment at displaying how your supposedly civilised rule is hell-bent on destroying other nations because they offended you whilst my 'slimy dictatorship' has been peaceful from the outset, merely offering a possibility before the UN which has now been removed.

We're not yet ready to quit, and you can't do anything to throw us out. Deal with it.

Yet more of a display of your arrogance. 'We will threaten other member-states whenever we like and you can't do a thing to stop us'. How civil.

Oh, and Yiplonia still hasn't told us what "gotchas" lie beneath his proposal. He still hasn't assured the Membership that we wouldn't have to bow down before his authority in order to either implement his proposed scheme for sterilising our children or - worse still - get his permission to restore their fertility. We can just see some slimy dictator putting himself in the position of being able to kill any nation he wishes through mandated population implosion.

We remain both sceptical and suspicious.

Um... wrong...

I believe I stated in the proposal that the required materials were 'simple' or 'basic' or something along those lines... That would imply to me that they're widespread. And, as I said, the only money which you would be required to pay would be that of the wages of any people sent to train you - I don't have much faith in the power of volunteer organisations. Dictator I may be, but I have no wish for control over any lands bar my own - they keep me busy enough thank you. Please stop leaping to conclusions about me and my people.

As you can see, I clearly state here the materials would be widespread (i.e. freely available) and that I wish for no control over any other lands than my own. Stop trying to make me out to be a megalomaniac - I've stated I like my own lands, and that I don't want yours. If anything, you are the megalomaniac, as you have expressed a desire to sieze my lands over a petty squabble. If I could offer up one word in description of you (dismissing all of the ruder ones which come to mind for fear I might be called a flamer) it would be 'hypocrite'.

Eugenics, is a very dangerous ground, upon which to tread. Natural Law, will overcome any ideological effort to mold it, with disastrous results. Just as physics, will overcome, any ideological effort, to overcome it. An engineer must work within the limits of physics, lest what he design refuse to work, no matter how much he argues with it.

Any tampering in human evolution, will have troubling consequences. Though a person should not procreate until able to deal with the consequences, forcible interference in the matter will produce equally troubling results, with the added drawback of irreversibility. Children should not procreate, but preventing those who are foolish from doing so will simply lead them to abuse of such favors, leading to a rise in other sexually produced and entirely penalties. Let the girls watch a woman give “natural” birth, maybe help out, boiling water and whatnot and they will think twice. Let the boys watch their fathers work to feed five kids and see what irresponsible behavior has in store for them. Try to keep the two apart growing up anyway, it is for the best. In the end, you will have a stable and productive civilization, filled with hard working, iron willed and iron gutted strongmen married to battle axes, instead one of those narcissistic suicidal liberal civilizations that want to sterilize everyone while denying the right to self defense.

A well thought out, well worded and intelligent rebuttal. These are interesting ideas indeed... I shall consider putting them into practise in Yiplonia. Oh, and Allemande, take note - this is how civilised people debate. Now put the gun down. Down.

Ok... everyone take a deep breath and calm down before their next post, please. I'd like to see this discussion continue rationally. :)

All of this could be avoided were a majority of the Members to accept the principle of National SovereigntyYes, well, you are still quite new at this. You see, when you join the UN, you sign away certain freedoms. Like the freedom to be completely in charge of your destiny. National Sovereignty arguements are older the Moses and more irritating than his plagues.

In reality, all of this could be avoided if people would debate the issues as opposed to running around like chickens with their heads cut off. My name may be "Birdstuff", but I keep my wits about me. Something your entire nation seems to be incapable of.

Seriously. Voting to go to war over a draft Proposal? Gimmie some of them shrooms, man, you've had enough. The fact that you went from debate to a vote on war is simply chilling. This wasn't even proposed, let alone actually passed by the UN! Does the concept of "reasonable responce" even exist for your people?

Let me tell you how relieved I am that we have vast numerical superiority. Otherwise, you'd probably declair war on us!

But sadly, a majority of Members believe that the United Nations should establish universal laws regulating every aspect of their "subjects'" lives en route to creating a single supra-national World State.Well, as the "Info-Pak" you received upon joining clearly states, that is the point of the UN. I still have my copy around here somewhere...

...

...ah! Here we go:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.

This proposed resolution is a perfect example: if accepted by a majority of Members (likely, given the tendencies displayed by that Membership of late)Pfft. The UN is a bunch of left-wing, free-love, commie-wannabes. They'd never vote for this. Hell, it'd never even reach queue. If it was construed as a business-destroying environmental proposal, then it might. But Moral Decency? Please.

it would force all Members to violate the bodies of their children, to deny all their citizens personal sovereignty, and to lord over them as Yiplonia lords over its own citizensNot good at finding loopholes, huh? Eliminate your age of consent and this proposal wouldn't affect you.

and certainly no Dictatorship can ever call itself free, when it lords over its Citizens in such a way and then denies them the ability to pick those who exercise such power).Oh dear. You are new at this, aren't you? You will find that there are many, many dictatorships in this world that are far freer than you are. Not everyone views "voting" as vital as you seem to.

And before you try to compare yourselves to my nation, don't bother. I am well aware of our level of civil and political freedoms. I am also aware that our priorities are quite different than yours. The Robotic Musicians are concerned with economic freedoms and little else. And we are quite happy, thank you.

the State gives life, the State takes it away, and the Citizen is but a cog in the machinery, a mere "component" within society, of no particular value, to be rejected if deemed "defective" (by being, for instance, resistant to State orders) in favour of a more pliant, more "useful" part.My intelligence briefings don't paint Yiplonia that way. After all, they have very good civil rights. The view you paint doesn't fit the facts of Yiplonia. You may offer your citizens more freedoms, but Yiplonia's freedoms are well above average. Please, come out of your ivory tower.

There are too many Yiplonias out there: too many nations that see the N.S.U.N as their vehicle to reshape Humanity in their own image.Indeed. Enough of these anti-business resolutions! Repeal the 40 hour work week! Repeal the rights of labor unions! Repeal all environmental resolutions!

Left to their own devices, without vigorous opposition by those of us who still believe in individual liberty and true personal sovereignty,HA! So sayeth the warmonger!

Those of us who believe in freedom will likely be fighting for our lives by then.You'll be fighting all right. Of course, if you'd stop starting wars, you won't need to. Even the Robotic Musicians have heard of voting and know how it works. Surely you with your "superb" voting rights will know about it. Vote down bad proposals. Encourage others to do the same. I would have thought that such an "enlightened" nation such as yours wouldn't have resulted to war so quickly.

I shudder to think what you would have done if it had actually been proposed. Or even, shudder, made it to queue.

We believe in defending our liberties to the utmost, and in even suggesting such an abomination, Yiplonia was assaulting those liberties.And the liberties of others? I guess they can just sit and spin, huh? After all, only your rights, liberties, and world-view matters, I guess. Why else would you threaten to murder people?

We're not yet ready to quit, and you can't do anything to throw us out. Deal with it.Could you possibly sound any more childish? Just wondering.

~Chancellor Birdstuff

The People's Republic of Coquetvia respects the representative of Yiplonia's attempts at addresssing the critical issue of teen/underage pregnancy.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia sympathises with the Yiplonian dictatorship, and does not approve of the threat of military action against Yiplonia by the representative of Allemande.

Having said this, the People's Republic of Coquetvia could not support this proposal if it ever came to the UN for approval as a resolution. There were too many flaws in the concept (such as possible violation of human rights and the potentially crippling federal cost of the practice) to make this a viable proposal.

However, as previously stated, the People's Republic of Coquetvia holds tremendous respect for the Yiplonian government's brave move to put this potential-proposal out for discussion in the forums before raising it as a proposal. If all nations did this before raising proposals, then the quality of all proposals would no doubt increase.

Finally, the People's Republic of Coquetvia must admonish the representative of Allemande for their behaviour in regards to this issue. Whilst the People's Republic of Coquetvia respects the right of all nations to hold their opinions and disagree publicly when matters of national interest are raised, the behaviour of Allemande in regards to this issue can be best described as "an over-reaction".

The People's Republic of Coquetvia re-affirms that this was never a proposal, just an idea that may have become one. As a result, such a reaction at this stage of the debate is not helpful to N.S.U.N or bilateral relations generally, and may cast the nation of Allemande in a less flattering light to smaller nations.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia has always enjoyed engaging in public forum when the representaive for Allemande is involved, and trusts that this reaction was a blip on the otherwise clean and respectable Allemandian radar.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia has always enjoyed engaging in public forum when the representaive for Allemande is involved, and trusts that this reaction was a blip on the otherwise clean and respectable Allemandian radar.Thank you for that statement. What makes this "proto-proposal" qualitatively different is that it requires that we violate the bodily integrity of our children starting on the very day it takes effect. We probably wouldn't have reacted as we did if there had been a clause like "starting one year from the date of the passage of this resolution".

Unfortunately, there wasn't, and so consequently if this were to hit the floor, Allemande and any other nation that finds involuntarily medical procedures an abomination would have to quit the N.S.U.N. before the votes were done being counted. If we waited for the gavel to fall, it would be too late for millions of our children.

Normally, resolutions that are offered to the General Assembly are merely ill-considered and obnoxious. This one crossed an important line in requiring us to take action of such a hideous nature that it would be intolerable. No government among our people could have survived even one day under such a rule.

I shudder to think what you would have done if it had actually been proposed. Or even, shudder, made it to queue.It is best not to think too much about it, considering the stakes. Our most likely response would have been to make compliance with the resolution impossible for everyone, which would have required making sure that the technology described in the resolution did not exist any more by the time the gavel fell on the vote.

We're actually quite surprised that people don't see the problem with this for a nation with beliefs like ours. Suppose the resolution required that we euthanize everyone above the age of 80, or that we engage in mandatory female genital mutilation (come to think of it...). Would you expect us to wait for the resolution to take effect and the first of our citizens to be harmed before acting?

And don't tell us that belief in bodily integrity is just a peculiar idea that we have. It's the basis for abortion rights, for laws prohibiting marital rape, and half a dozen other liberal concepts. Usually, it's conservatives like RL Judge Robert Bork who find the principle laughable.

Yes, well, you are still quite new at this. You see, when you join the UN, you sign away certain freedoms. Like the freedom to be completely in charge of your destiny. National Sovereignty arguments are older the Moses and more irritating than his plagues.[/quite]Man or Astroman apparently doesn't comprehend the difference between what the N.S.U.N. can do and what it ought to do.

[quote=Man or Astroman]Well, as the "Info-Pak" you received upon joining clearly states, that is the point of the UN. I still have my copy around here somewhere..."Abandon every hope, ye who enter?" We're not so jaded - or so utterly Statist - as to think that just because the law can be used as a club against others, it should be. And - in its own way - trying to force others to accept your ideology through U.N. Mandates is as aggressive as invading their country and toppling their government. It merely accomplishes the task of conquest by more .... gentlemanly ... methods.

So, for the record, we'll explain the principle of National Sovereignty to you (even though we could find you cites in that self-same info-pak, had you bothered to read them):

The purpose of the N.S.U.N. is to address those issues of an international nature. Constitutionally speaking, this is its scope of legislation. Trade, currency arbitrage, the conduct of war, the use of international waters and airspace, diplomatic immunity, extradition - these and more topics legitimately fall under the purview of the United Nations. They are handled by a single body in majority-rule fashion because, absent such handling, they would have to be handled through an impossible number of bilateral agreements.

What is not within the proper scope of N.S.U.N. interest are matters that the Members could handle on their own. The acid test is to ask oneself: "Is this an issue that an individual member could address without the cooperation of other countries?" If it is (and teen pregnancy certainly fits the bill), then the N.S.U.N. has no business taking it up.

Now, quite apart from what Man and Astroman suggests, we weren't born yesterday. The N.S.U.N. has in fact addressed matters that are beyond its scope, and done so on multiple occasions. In other words, the body has abused its powers and acted like a bunch of damned fools. Does this justify future usurpation of the natural authority of its Members for foolish ends? Not at all. We could wake up and see that this is not good for either the N.S.U.N. or the world, and change our ways.

Now, the more gullible observers out there might wonder, "But why is it wrong to try to force everybody else in the world to do things my way, if I know that I'm right?" The simplest answer is that it will, if it becomes the order of the day, result in the eventual reduction of the N.S.U.N. into a small community of like-minded nations (Man and Astroman's "bunch of left-wing, free-love, commie-wannabes" [sic]).

So what's wrong with that? Two things:
To the extent that this means that N.S.U.N. Resolutions would have a much-diminished legislative scope, it would make it harder for the N.S.U.N. to amount to anything - at least through its normal mode of operation. What good is it to legislate reductions in effluent emissions if you're only a small fraction of the known world? We've already faced this problem in several debates, wherein resolutions that would be most effective if they were universally applied are no longer quite so attractive when they're only going to ever affect 20-25% of the planet.


To the extent that the N.S.U.N. evolves into a block of like-minded nations, it will create large counter-blocks of nations that oppose the prevailing ideology of the N.S.U.N. This will eventually impel the N.S.U.N. to transform itself into a military alliance (we've already seen this with TPP), which will then in turn trigger the formation of one or more anti-N.S.U.N. coalitions. While it's true that the N.S.U.N. can't go to war, its Members certainly can, and likewise while its true that a nation can't go to way with the N.S.U.N., it (and its allies) could certainly go to war with one or more Members of the N.S.U.N.It doesn't take a genius to see that the N.S.U.N. can be most effective if its membership is as broad (and large) as possible. What the N.S.U.N. should be doing is trying to get as many nations as possible to join its ranks. As more do so, its resolutions become more effective and its influence in the world increases.

But here's the rub: the N.S.U.N. can only be truly universal if it is run in such a way as to incorporate as many ideologies and governmental forms as possible. That can't happen if it is always meddling in the internal affairs of its Members. Thus National Sovereignty, at its heart, is a philosophy of governance aimed at making the N.S.U.N. as inclusive - and therefore as effective - as possible.

The cry that nations that don't like the will of the N.S.U.N.'s majority should learn to deal with it or quit is a shortsighted strategy of marginalisation. We would do far better to leave as much as possible to our Members and focus on dealing with problems that can only be addressed collectively, because the only solutions possible for them are collective, international solutions.

It is best not to think too much about it, considering the stakes.Yes. Your 3% defence spending inspires much fear.

Our most likely response would have been to make compliance with the resolution impossible for everyoneReally? You responce appeared to be to consider war. Something that you have been doing a nice job of trying to gloss over.

which would have required making sure that the technology described in the resolution did not exist any more by the time the gavel fell on the vote.Oh, this is quite amusing. Tell me, young one, will you be invading us too? We happen to have the technological know-how to do the proscribed surgeries.

However, it's nice to see you declare war on, oh, 40% of the known world. I mean, that's only 60,000-some nations. I'm sure you'll get real far with that plan.

We're actually quite surprised that people don't see the problem with this for a nation with beliefs like ours.The Robotic Musicians have never voiced support for this inane Proposal. We've simply voiced horror at your bloodthirsty, barbaric ways.

Suppose the resolution required that we euthanize everyone above the age of 80, or that we engage in mandatory female genital mutilation (come to think of it...). Would you expect us to wait for the resolution to take effect and the first of our citizens to be harmed before acting?Actually, I'd expect the second to be removed from consideration as it is a violation of the Hackian Laws, or whatever they're supposed to be called. The former would probably be illegal too, now that I think about it.

Semantics aside, I would expect the UN to never let such pap reach general vote, and would certainly expect it to be voted down if it somehow made queue. Should all the Delegates be drunk or on vacation, and such a thing somehow passed, I would expect nations to find loopholes. Loophole finding is old hat in the UN. And while you're dodging the spirit of the law and following the letter (thus appeasing the Gnomes), you could set about Repealing it.

Notice how I didn't mention going to war in there?

And don't tell us that belief in bodily integrity is just a peculiar idea that we have. It's the basis for abortion rights, for laws prohibiting marital rape, and half a dozen other liberal concepts.I wouldn't dream of it. Tell me, where does going to war fit into your "liberal concepts" of "bodily integrity"?

Usually, it's conservatives like RL Judge Robert Bork who find the principle laughable."Royally Large"? "Red Limo"? "Rigelian Layer-cake"?

At any rate, your straw man is ignored.

"Abandon every hope, ye who enter?" We're not so jaded - or so utterly Statist - as to think that just because the law can be used as a club against others, it should be.Hm... what's the phrase? Ah, yes: Tough cookies.

The purpose of the UN is to use it as a club. The Info-Pak says so, the Proposal Laws say so too. Now it would be nice if Proposals were only set forth that improved the lives of everyone, but somebody would still bitch about national sovereignty. Hell, you could make that argument about every existing Resolution and every one that will ever exist. I have seen people do it. One genius went through and filed a Repeal of each and every single Resolution on those grounds. Every time something comes up to vote, someone makes that arguement.

Face it: the national sovereignty arguement is just another way of saying "I don't wanna do this."

And - in its own way - trying to force others to accept your ideology through U.N. Mandates is as aggressive as invading their country and toppling their government.Name one, one, Resolution that doesn't force someone's ideology down your throat. Again, when you agree with the Resolution, you don't complain. It's only when you don't (and can't think of a better arguement) that you trot out sovereignty.

It merely accomplishes the task of conquest by more .... gentlemanly ... methods.It also generates rather less corpses. And, again, you did this over a draft. Instead of debating like a civilised creature, you chose to act like some tin-pot dictatorship ruled by proto-human savages.

So, for the record, we'll explain the principle of National Sovereignty to you (even though we could find you cites in that self-same info-pak, had you bothered to read them):Oh, spare yourself. I've been reading the same stuff for ages on here.

The purpose of the N.S.U.N. is to address those issues of an international nature. Constitutionally speaking, this is its scope of legislation.The UN has no constitution. Nowhere in the Proposal Laws does it mandate that issues be global only.

What is not within the proper scope of N.S.U.N. interest are matters that the Members could handle on their own. The acid test is to ask oneself: "Is this an issue that an individual member could address without the cooperation of other countries?" Making stuff up again.

Now, quite apart from what Man and Astroman suggests, we weren't born yesterday.Act like a petulant child, be treated as one.

The N.S.U.N. has in fact addressed matters that are beyond its scope, and done so on multiple occasions. In other words, the body has abused its powers and acted like a bunch of damned fools.So Repeal the bloody things. Or would you prefer to wage war with the authors?

(Man and Astroman's "bunch of left-wing, free-love, commie-wannabes" [sic]).I'll have you know that that is a perfectly acceptable spelling.

What good is it to legislate reductions in effluent emissions if you're only a small fraction of the known world?About as good as any environmental Resolution. And yet member nations are allowed to make them, and large percentages vote for them.

You know, when everyone around you seems to be wrong, it might not be them.

We've already faced this problem in several debates, wherein resolutions that would be most effective if they were universally applied are no longer quite so attractive when they're only going to ever affect 20-25% of the planet.With that lens, they're all worthless. You outlawed slavery and child labor? Yay. Pity the other 100,000 or so nations might not have. Once you walk down this road, you make the whole thing an exercise in futility.

To the extent that the N.S.U.N. evolves into a block of like-minded nations, it will create large counter-blocks of nations that oppose the prevailing ideology of the N.S.U.N.Still waiting for this to happen, personally. Where's the large block of conservative, anti-environment UN nations? They still haven't materialized.

This will eventually impel the N.S.U.N. to transform itself into a military alliance (we've already seen this with TPP),A stunning leap of "logic", there.

which will then in turn trigger the formation of one or more anti-N.S.U.N. coalitions....which amass a good 10 or 20 members and last a month before their members get bored and wander off. Do you have any idea how many "anti-UN" associations I've seen in my time here?

While it's true that the N.S.U.N. can't go to war, its Members certainly can, and likewise while its true that a nation can't go to way with the N.S.U.N., it (and its allies) could certainly go to war with one or more Members of the N.S.U.N.Or, the UN could just go to war with itself, which seems to be your nation's prefered method of debating.

But here's the rub: the N.S.U.N. can only be truly universal if it is run in such a way as to incorporate as many ideologies and governmental forms as possible.Oh, I can't resist using a cliche here: "Those who try to please everyone; please noone."

That can't happen if it is always meddling in the internal affairs of its Members....which it does with every Resolution.

Thus National Sovereignty, at its heart, is a philosophy of governance aimed at making the N.S.U.N. as inclusive - and therefore as effective - as possible.Ya know... the Texan Hotrodders are far more persuasive when they try this. Perhaps they could tutor you...

~Chancellor Birdstuff

Why is this discussion continuing? The proposal in question has already been dealt with and the author has moved on to other projects.

Why is this discussion continuing? The proposal in question has already been dealt with and the author has moved on to other projects.
"role-playing"

~Raises an eyebrow, obviously wondering if the people involved are crazier than the typical DLE delegate~

Ooooooh kay. Moving on to serious UN business...

OOC: I figured as much. The question was IC.

The purpose of the UN is to use it as a club. The Info-Pak says so, the Proposal Laws say so too. Now it would be nice if Proposals were only set forth that improved the lives of everyone, but somebody would still bitch about national sovereignty. Hell, you could make that argument about every existing Resolution and every one that will ever exist. I have seen people do it. One genius went through and filed a Repeal of each and every single Resolution on those grounds. Every time something comes up to vote, someone makes that arguement.

Face it: the national sovereignty arguement is just another way of saying "I don't wanna do this."

I disagree. I do believe it is used by some as a way of saying "I don't wanna do this", but I also believe there are legitimate national sovereignty arguments--such as whether nudity should be mandatory in all member nations or requiring all member states to rid their nations of pin-striped corn-husker hedgehogs. These are national issues, and do not deserve the UN floor, except perhaps in an advisory role (that the UN advise member nations on rodents or nudity legislation).

Just because some abuse the national sovereignty argument doesn't mean the knee-jerk "all nat'l sov arguments are bogus" is valid. There are appropriate places for it, including, again, nudity and hedgehog decisions. Sovereigntists and non-sovereigntists just disagree on where that appropriateness ends.

Name one, one, Resolution that doesn't force someone's ideology down your throat. Again, when you agree with the Resolution, you don't complain. It's only when you don't (and can't think of a better arguement) that you trot out sovereignty.

All communication produces an ideological framework--an implied code of common concepts (by saying "nice day to day" I arouse the pragmatic conventions concerning days and their niceness--which sets up an ideological framework towards that subject), thus the presence of such a framework in all resolutions is neither here nor there--as it's a given, given their status as communication. What Allemande has unfortunately neglected in explaining (not anything against Allemande ;)) is that national sovereigntists are interested in limiting undue ideological tampering. Say, for example, a resolution were passed that said "the right/left are wrong and should be shot". This is not an opinion which has consensus. It is a radical ideology. As can be seen in the US Senate (in RL--with the filibuster issues), it's more than just a simple majority that makes good government (compromise and more absolute consensus is needed).

All communication connotes ideology. Everyone draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable ideology (mainstream and radical) differently. That Sovereigntists disagree with non-sovereigntists on this is hardly any reason to say “all sovereingtists use the argument out of convenience”. That’s simply an over-simplification. There are those who say that out of convenience, but it is not every sovereigntist--and none of those that actually believe in national sovereingty.

The UN has no constitution. Nowhere in the Proposal Laws does it mandate that issues be global only.

So you wouldn't mind if I enforced my economic model on your nation? Oh, well I'd best get cracking at enforcing my national ideas on an international scale...

...which amass a good 10 or 20 members and last a month before their members get bored and wander off. Do you have any idea how many "anti-UN" associations I've seen in my time here?

I fear you're forgetting about Gatesville, which is the largest player created region in the game. And it's been around a lot longer than a month.

...which it does with every Resolution.

Again, the question is not whether it affects UN nations (even though Allemande hasn't been as clear in this--which is okay, Allemande ;)), if sovereigntists weren't interested in effects on their nation they wouldn't be in the UN. Sovereigntists are against undue effects of member nations.

Sovereigntists are large fans of democracy and federalism, which is to say, sovereigntists want to empower the people with control over government. Sovereingtists cherish the idea that people, the individual, should get as much say in his or here daily life as possible--a daily life he or she, and local or provincial government has the most information of. Sovereigntists believe in the freedom of choice--liberty. The UN encompasses tens of trillions of people into one decision. It cannot possibly--with any degree of jurisdiction or understanding of the situation--tell a small village of fifty they shouldn't build plows in such and such a way, or that they must start a fire, or conduct government, in such and such a way. Likewise, a group with over 37,000 members at present time is hardly able to understand my nation's (or any of its provinces' or communities') problems well enough to rule one way or another.

The higher up in government a simple majority is achieved, the more diluted its ability to represent individuals becomes. Thus only more universal, consensus supported issues should be handled by the highest level of government in Nationstates: the UN. We all feel there are places the UN shouldn't determine convention or law (such as which side of the road driver's should use). It's just that sovereigntists argue that this extends to other domestic affairs that the UN has little or no information about in its member nations, and thus is unable to make and informed decision. Sovereingtists want representation--as do non-sovereigntists--sovereigntists just have a different definition of what is undue or uninformed government micromanaging of peoples' and communities' lives and activities and what degree of representation is unalienable to every human being.


Ya know... the Texan Hotrodders are far more persuasive when they try this. Perhaps they could tutor you...
Allemande has a good idea of why most sovereigntists feel the way they do (and, even, what they do feel about UN legislation), even though the nuance which fully validates national sovereignty has been left unexpressed.

For arguments pro and con, see the revised and very much expanded version of this little essay...National Sovereignty and the NationStates United Nations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4).

But on to the matter at hand...

Yeehaw! My little hobby-horse is getting ridden again in this thread. The representative from Powerhungry Chipmunks already addressed most of what I was going to say (not in quite the way I would have put it, but what the hell), so I'll just move on to the one thing that did concern me beyond that after a quick note.

Thanks to Chancellor Birdstuff for the compliment that I am "much more persuasive". Much appreciated.

OOC: The rest of this will be OOC out of necessity.

Note this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426762), particularly the discussion between myself and DLE about the part of the FAQ you quoted, Man or Astroman.

I was disputing the interpretation that the relevant portion of the FAQ gives us the purpose of the UN (something I will continue to do until Max comes out and says, "Yes, I meant to tell you the purpose of the UN through that possible implication in that part of the FAQ rather than using my brilliant writing ability to draw up a short charter or mission statement").

I prefer to explain the FAQ in similar terms to what DLE once suggested to me, that the FAQ is merely a half-serious and somewhat cynical question-and-answer session (in line with the style of Jennifer Government), not a formal exposition of the UN from which we can expect serious and lengthy analysis. It was never meant to be a charter or mission statement (though it is possible that Max slipped it in there just to screw with us), and taking it as such seems a lot like taking the Bible as a cookbook. In both cases, you draw conclusions from the text that simply don't match what it's trying to do. It reminds me of people who take Egyptian love poetry and try to draw a theological statement out of it.

I won't quote any of 'Man or Astroman's stuff because I for the most part agree with him. Nor will I quote Powerhungry Chipmunks, because he used lots of long words which I can't be bothered to sort through right now; I'll just skim through, decide he's mostly targeting national sovreignty and move on.

Why is this discussion continuing? The proposal in question has already been dealt with and the author has moved on to other projects

Half right... The proposal has been dealt with, but I remain, mostly to find the massive, gaping flaws in the logic Allemande uses for most of his arguments. I'm funny like that.

Thank you for that statement. What makes this "proto-proposal" qualitatively different is that it requires that we violate the bodily integrity of our children starting on the very day it takes effect. We probably wouldn't have reacted as we did if there had been a clause like "starting one year from the date of the passage of this resolution".

I did state, fairly clearly in fact (to the point of encouraging changes) that the wording hadn't been considered, and that if you had any changes or additions you should post. Post, not go to war. They're similar phrases I know...

It is best not to think too much about it, considering the stakes. Our most likely response would have been to make compliance with the resolution impossible for everyone, which would have required making sure that the technology described in the resolution did not exist any more by the time the gavel fell on the vote.

What I find really, truly amusing is that noone who has posted against you bar me has even supported the idea. Everyone doesn't like it. But for the most part people have noticed that you are acting arrogantly, childishly and aggressively, and your attempt to declare war simply tipped things over the edge. Every post you've made since seems to have aggravated matters as you've tried to ignore your stupidity and make light of it whilst still foolishly attempting to make me out as a powerhungry overlord of humanity. Maybe if you admitted your mistakes and withdrew quietly you could avoid showing people how warmongering you are... or perhaps not.

And don't tell us that belief in bodily integrity is just a peculiar idea that we have. It's the basis for abortion rights, for laws prohibiting marital rape, and half a dozen other liberal concepts. Usually, it's conservatives like RL Judge Robert Bork who find the principle laughable.

Because of course there's a fine line between submitting a draft proposal and raping your wife. Please... shh. My last proposal was a (somewhat misguided) attempt to strengthen rape laws universally; I'm not someone who disregards bodily integrity willy nilly. When I see no logical flaw in it however, I'll suggest it. And I'll withdraw if someone *else* finds a flaw in it. As I did.

which would have required making sure that the technology described in the resolution did not exist any more by the time the gavel fell on the vote.

GOOD IDEA! LET'S DECLARE WAR ON EVERYONE WHO HAS ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY!!!... or recognise that that comprises a very large proportion of the world. Then realise how stupid the idea is. And stop talking without thinking. [I apologise if this counts as flaming... it's difficult. Let me know, mods, and I'll delete it if nescessary.]

We're actually quite surprised that people don't see the problem with this for a nation with beliefs like ours. Suppose the resolution required that we euthanize everyone above the age of 80, or that we engage in mandatory female genital mutilation (come to think of it...). Would you expect us to wait for the resolution to take effect and the first of our citizens to be harmed before acting?

If you would start reading what people actually *said* before replying, you would know that everyone sees a problem with it. The difference is that a) they can tell the difference between a draft and a proposal, and b) they don't declare war on nations because they haven't recieved a birthday card from them. They noted the flaws, posted to show them, and where possible offered solutions or difference options. You may consider bombing a country a good way to end teenage pregnancy in that nation... I prefer to offer proposals, just to see if they'll work.

What is not within the proper scope of N.S.U.N. interest are matters that the Members could handle on their own. The acid test is to ask oneself: "Is this an issue that an individual member could address without the cooperation of other countries?" If it is (and teen pregnancy certainly fits the bill), then the N.S.U.N. has no business taking it up.

Perhaps... but I would note this didn't stop other resolutions... *most* resolutions could be dealt with by individual nations (examples - resolutions 6 (end slavery), 7 (sexual freedom), 12 (gay rights), 13 (mandatory recycling), 14 (child labour) and a WHOLE LOAD of other resolutions I can't be bothered to quote.). The idea isn't to only deal with truly international problems... it is to deal with things that we, as a community of nations, consider unacceptable or correct. This is the nature of the UN, and as you can see by the earliness of the above resolutions, it has been so from the very beginning.

Now, the more gullible observers out there might wonder, "But why is it wrong to try to force everybody else in the world to do things my way, if I know that I'm right?"

Call me crazy, but I could swear that earlier on you were trying to declare war in the interests of wiping out dictatorships? I believe that qualifies you as gullible. Your own words, not mine.

But here's the rub: the N.S.U.N. can only be truly universal if it is run in such a way as to incorporate as many ideologies and governmental forms as possible.

*ACCORDING TO YOUR POSTS YOU WANT TO WIPE OUT DICTATORSHIP!!!*
Do they have the word 'hypocrite' in your national language?

The cry that nations that don't like the will of the N.S.U.N.'s majority should learn to deal with it or quit is a shortsighted strategy of marginalisation.

*points to Allemandes post - 'We're not yet ready to quit, and you can't do anything to throw us out. Deal with it.' - and begins to smack his head against a brick wall*

Please Allemande... stop making yourself out to be foolish. From what you've posted so far in this thread, that is what you appear to be... I have only word of mouth to consider that *maybe* you *might* just have your heart in the wrong place. Very unlikely...

Oh, and I'm very pleased that this thread has turned into a heated debate about national sovreignty... makes me more famous ^_- [JOKE! BEFORE PEOPLE TRY TO QUOTE THAT TO TURN ME INTO A MEGALOMANIAC!]

I will continue to do until Max comes out and says, "Yes, I meant to tell you the purpose of the UN through that possible implication in that part of the FAQ rather than using my brilliant writing ability to draw up a short charter or mission statement").Actually, I took that particular quip as typically Max-like satire.

But then, I thought Machievelli's The Prince was satire, too.

ACCORDING TO YOUR POSTS YOU WANT TO WIPE OUT DICTATORSHIP!!!*We never said that. Some of our best allies are dictatorships (or were - Neztrok is gone now, disintegrated into civil disorder). It was just your dictatorship that we considered toppling. Considered and, as you may recall, chose not to. After all, you're still in power, right?

I think you're more offended by the fact that we voted on it in one of the two chambers of our National Assembly than anything else. Even if it was rejected by almost a 2:1 margin. Apparently talk isn't that cheap after all.

And, for the record, you still haven't stated in no uncertain terms that the procedure can be performed using universally accessible medical supplies and equipment readily found in an major hospital, that it has no lasting side effects that would require any treatment or materials known only to Yiplonia, and that you've studied the entire process (from initial sterilisation through reversal) to the point where you can vouch for the safety and reliability of the whole thing, end-to-end. You could still do that now, but I doubt you will.

We may deal with dictators - we may even have dictators as allies - but we generally don't trust them. Too much unchecked power makes a man or woman's head swell up like a balloon. It doesn't take too much imagination to see that the scheme you proposed could be exploited by a sufficiently unscrupulous strongman in any number of ways. You can protest your innocence all you want, but so would any evil genius, in a pinch.

As for whether or not we were a little too hasty in rattling sabres, well, perhaps. But these are our children you were proposing to mutilate, after all. We prize our offspring quite a lot. Especially after three cups of coffee.

As for your assertion that everyone was opposed to your trial balloon, that is simply not true. The first few responses (the ones leading up to ours) were favourable; moreover, we disagree with Man or Astroman about the chances of this passing. It could easily be marketed to those "commie-wannabes" as a sure-fire way of providing horny teens 100% reliable birth control, as well as promoting sexual self-discovery. You even alluded to this as a side-effect of your proposal (that spending on fighting STD's would have to increase). Any really clever evil genius could figure out how to market your proposal in a way that would win it approval.

At this point, since Man and Astroman asserts that he has equivalent technology and that he could furnish it to the world in the face of any "quarantine" we might impose on you to keep the proposal from ever being implemented, there's no point in considering military action now. That - and that fact that you've withdrawn the proposal - returns the situation to normal.

And, for the record, you still haven't stated in no uncertain terms that the procedure can be performed using universally accessible medical supplies and equipment readily found in an major hospital

*sigh* apparently my two earlier statements weren't enough for you... very well, in the interests of peace between nations, I give you the official statement my minister for medicine offered to me - "All the supplies and equipment nescessary for the surgery of male and/or female reversible sterilisation and its reverse operation are freely available to all nations, are found in the majority of UN member-states' major hospitals, are relatively easy to produce, and that if any member-state wishes access to the technology required to produce said supplies or equipment it will be freely granted to them. Additionally, all technology required for the operation itself, and sustaining procedures, will be freely granted if requested. Please note all technological offerings are given by the Director of Knowledge, Jeremy Blatterson-Smythe-Wilson, who currently resides on campus at the University of Piplonia.". If you require more than this, let me know and I'll ask him to draft a further release. Oh, and spying a further small-print spy - yes, the man giving the statement and J. Blatterson-Smythe-Wilson are authorised to do as they have promised.

and that you've studied the entire process (from initial sterilisation through reversal) to the point where you can vouch for the safety and reliability of the whole thing, end-to-end. You could still do that now, but I doubt you will.

This has been done to the standards of Yiplonia... I have little doubt that your standards are 'higher', but that doesn't matter. The draft has been withdrawn. And yes, my scientists will still freely dispense the technology stated regardless of the proposal being withdrawn... they feel that this is the only right thing to do in the circum stances.

We may deal with dictators - we may even have dictators as allies - but we generally don't trust them. Too much unchecked power makes a man or woman's head swell up like a balloon. It doesn't take too much imagination to see that the scheme you proposed could be exploited by a sufficiently unscrupulous strongman in any number of ways. You can protest your innocence all you want, but so would any evil genius, in a pinch.

So... after moving me from where I should rightfully stand, i.e. at the head of a small nation, peacefully minding my own buisness in a dictatorly way, to being a megalomaniacal dictator hell-bent on ruling the world, you're now moving me still further to the role of an evil genius? Please, stop. This is coming dangerously close to flaming... I admit some of my statements have been harsh, but at least I haven't created pure fiction and attempted to brand anybody with it.

As for whether or not we were a little too hasty in rattling sabres, well, perhaps. But these are our children you were proposing to mutilate, after all. We prize our offspring quite a lot. Especially after three cups of coffee.

We Yiplonians value pie above many things... it is a national tradition. But we wouldn't go to war over it... even should the UN (Somehow disregarding rules about stupidity in proposals and so on) ban pie-eating or manufacture, we would simply withdraw from the UN rather than even *considering* war. The closest we have come to war is when I and my closest ministers and friends got drunk and debated calling a regional meeting so that we could park them underneath my balcony and urinate on them. And we didn't do that in the end.

As for your assertion that everyone was opposed to your trial balloon, that is simply not true. The first few responses (the ones leading up to ours) were favourable;

No no, I said that all the responses *against you* had been against my proposal also... and although I can't be bothered to check, I think all of the early favourable responses highlighted some fault or other. Either way... you misquote me.

Any really clever evil genius could figure out how to market your proposal in a way that would win it approval.

So, either I'm not clever, or I'm not an evil genius. Make your own decision - mine is both.

At this point, since Man and Astroman asserts that he has equivalent technology and that he could furnish it to the world in the face of any "quarantine" we might impose on you to keep the proposal from ever being implemented, there's no point in considering military action now.

If you had bothered asking then you would have discovered that I had distributed the requisite technology to all of my regions nations already, as we had unilaterally decided to run a small-scale trial of the procedure. This decision was made in the early stages of this thread, when I didn't see any holes in the idea. The scheme has since been scrapped; the technology has not been withdrawn or returned by any of the nations which required it (only two as it happens). I realise my region isn't a big one, but it would still have caused you to rethink your rash wishes for military action.

That - and that fact that you've withdrawn the proposal - returns the situation to normal.

If we were a proud nation, we would require an apology of some sort for your warmongering actions. As it is, we make no such request.

Oh... and one of my citizens (who shall remain nameless for legal reasons) has produced a pie as a peace offering... I thought that it was a rather warm gesture (in Yiplonia, the exchange of pies is a welcome, greeting or gesture of friendship). It will be delivered to you as soon as possible, and we hope that you will honour our customs with a return gesture (although of course, we do not demand it).

Ho hum.

I know that the proposal of the proposal is dead, but I just thought I'd bring a few real-world examples (under the assumption that this is emulated in a few in-game nations) to drill a few hard questions into it.

1) Canada, my home country, has a different age of consent for each province - set by the province, for the province. Theoretically, one could go from a province with a high age of consent and get the reverse operation done before returning to his/her original province. While people have noted cross-border issues, this would be even more significant because...well... it's that much more difficult to determine "province of residence"
2) Your proposal states that it wishes to deal with both unwanted and teen pregnancies. The province of Alberta in Canada (with one of if not THE lowest age of consent in the industrialized world) has an age of consent of 14 - which means you aren't really dealing with any of the "teen" years (though it certainly would deal with issues like the guiness world record of youngest parents - 7,8,Chinese)
3) (Again, Alberta), the rules regarding 14-16 year olds are not really a "general" consent, but they are allowed to consent to sex with anyone within 2 years of age. How would this resolution consider such scenarios of "limited" consent.

To the representative of the Forgotten Lands, I am sorry but we forgot all about you.

We hope we have not forgotten the subject of this debate, but it appears the primary concern is not age of consent, so much as an international body legislating government approval for procreation.

In other words, it has nothing to do with what you physically do to your children, so long as they are modified in such a way as to prevent unwanted breeding, that being unwanted as defined by the international majority.

In ancient times, our people made rules, enforced by religious institutions that defined parental readiness and we frowned on any of that “Fun Stuff” that was not oriented around procreation. Children were seen as the purpose for most of our actions, the greatest blessing. Because this was the goal, it seemed logical that those physical adjustments necessary for procreation, should be used to evaluate, what a suitable age should be. This set the age, for males at thirteen and females at twelve. Reasonable when much of your country, can not live past thirty and the most complex tasks the average person need engage in is carpentry.

Later, when civilization advanced, we re-evaluated these rules. You see, people lived longer, had more complex jobs and needed greater education to raise their children. We then made the age for marriage sixteen, then later eighteen and finally, eighteen for women and about twenty three for men. Five years seemed reasonable to get their finances and education on the ground and their roots set. Yes, I know we still have a double standard but we have found it best for mothers to have children when they are still fairly healthy. Medical science has advanced, but it is still better to do this the old fashioned way. Clones are only good for foot soldiering cannon fodder and even their aim stinks.

The point being, this is a religious and cultural issue, but also based on certain reasoning. Things work well in some ways and badly other ways. The Horde multiplies very quickly, they start breeding almost as soon as they can walk, but they are also all stupid as bricks and live like animals. Not because they are biologically different than humans, but because they are culturally cripples who revel in ignorance and spite.

We do not however, draw any parallel between “Regulating Procreation” and say, “The Institution of Marriage”; which for us is voluntary. Just as we would frown on Government Controlled Marriage, we would frown on Government Doctors taking the knife to our progeny. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is a blatant violation of our religious and cultural freedoms, not to mention creepy.

The closest we have come to war is when I and my closest ministers and friends got drunk and debated calling a regional meeting so that we could park them underneath my balcony and urinate on them. And we didn't do that in the end.Aha! Then you at least considered it formally! ;)

For some, it's liquor, for others, caffeine. C'est la guerre.

Oh... and one of my citizens (who shall remain nameless for legal reasons) has produced a pie as a peace offering... I thought that it was a rather warm gesture (in Yiplonia, the exchange of pies is a welcome, greeting or gesture of friendship). It will be delivered to you as soon as possible, and we hope that you will honour our customs with a return gesture (although of course, we do not demand it).Would you prefer a case of pilsner or a platter full of tarts, prepared by one of our finest gourment chefs (he's actually a member of our military [holding the rank of Colonel], but that doesn't mean he's not five-star)?

Netzrok became our ally after a gift of taquitos, but that doesn't sound like your style...

OOC: And it seems there is a new Strong Personality of the UN Forum! Previous winners of this have included Knootoss, Mikitivity, Powerhungry Chipmunks, Vastiva and DemonLordEnigma. Joining this small, yet well known group, is... Allemande!

Please note: no offence is meant by this. It is just a comment on certain types of argumentative personalities found in this forum. Also, apologies for the obcenely large type earlier, that's what happens when you hit "submit" instead of "preview". Edit: nearly forgot Vastiva!

I know that the proposal of the proposal is dead, but I just thought I'd bring a few real-world examples (under the assumption that this is emulated in a few in-game nations) to drill a few hard questions into it.

Yeru Shalayim is right, what you pointed out isn't the main part of the proposal... but nevertheless, you did highlight some interesting ways of getting around the proposal with loopholes, far more satisfactorily than eliminating the age of consent laws (theoretically). However, remember that mostly the proposal would be aimed at stopping the *unwanted* pregnancies - yes a 12 year old could move to such a province and have his or her parts rendered functionable once more, but if they want to and can prove that they have the basic knowledge required, we wouldn't have a problem with it. The 'age of consent' limit was mostly put in to make it easier for an age limit to be set on the task without stating an age which could conflict with the laws of some province or other; I considered drafting a 'nations can make their own age of testing' but I realised that this could aid nations in taking more control over their citizens than was meant in the spirit of the proposal (e.g. some loon or other setting an age limit of 90 on the paper unless they first qualified for a government liscence, which would be gained via a cash gift to the government). All the same, thank you for your contributions.

Would you prefer a case of pilsner or a platter full of tarts, prepared by one of our finest gourment chefs (he's actually a member of our military [holding the rank of Colonel], but that doesn't mean he's not five-star)?

Whatever is traditional to your people would be most appreciated, but of course all gifts would be gratefully recieved. Just don't expect us not to put it in a pastry shell. [Kindredalia sent my Minister for Public Relations a plasma screen television last year as a thank-you for his statements in defence of his recent drinking-binge... I had to explain to him how pastry doesn't allow for maximal televisual enjoyment]

OOC: And it seems there is a new Strong Personality of the UN Forum! Previous winners of this have included Knootoss, Mikitivity, Powerhungry Chipmunks and DemonLordEnigma. Joining this small, yet well known group, is... Allemande!

OOC: a-HEM?!

in character: a-HEM?!

Both - just kidding ^_-