NationStates Jolt Archive

I am considering proposing a ban on all fast food outlets which do not give their customers a healthy alternative. I think this would battle obesity and improve health in all nations...

Leave your comments for me and so i can put a proposal together...

I HAVE DECIDED NOT TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS IDEA AS IT WILL NOT GET AS MUCH SUPPORT AS FIRST THOUGHT...

I think it is a good idea. But people will still pick the unhealthy food.

You Might want to specify on it. Don't just pose the idea, spell it out.

Deeply Concerend: Of the fast-food industry's lack of healthy coices

Calling upon: The industry to make alternatives


like that. Or just a really detailed paragraph.

Go for it. This may be truly worthy of dealing with.

You could either force alternatives, or make the fast food heathier.
Either way I woukld vote for it. :gundge:

Go for it. This may be truly worthy of dealing with.
Why do I get the feeling, despite my admittedly short time in the NSUN, that when DLE says 'dealing with' she means 'mercilessly pointing out any and every flaw in the arguments and premises of the proposal before glassing its originator and any other supporters'?

DLE have you ever considered changing your motto to "Caveat rogator"?

I am considering proposing a ban on all fast food outlets which do not give their customers a healthy alternative.

Regulating the menus of fast food "restaurants" seems a particularly ineffective way of dealing with this. Yes, if people are in a group and some want a salad, some want a burger, then they could all go to MacDonalds and the healthy ones wouldn't be "forced" to choose a burger. But this will have just about no impact on the choices of the people who wanted to eat unhealthy food, and is especially unlikely to affect children's consumption of fast food - which is probably the most pressing concern (given that children are less capable of making informed nutritional decisions). In fact, it might raise it since parents who want to eat something healthy are more likely to relent to their kids' nagging and take them to eat fast food.

If you want to deal with health problems relating to this stuff, it would be better to try and directly impact people's decisions or deal with the content of the food. I'd be in favour of forcing fast food suppliers to clearly advertise the potential health effects of their products (much as the RL tobacco industry has to, at least in Europe). This would ensure that adults are making informed decisions (past making sure they're informed, I don't like to interfere with adults' personal choices) and hopefully discourage a lot of parents from feeding the stuff to their kids. I might also support restrictions of advertising targeted at children.

Why do I get the feeling, despite my admittedly short time in the NSUN, that when DLE says 'dealing with' she means 'mercilessly pointing out any and every flaw in the arguments and premises of the proposal before glassing its originator and any other supporters'?

Not at all. If I didn't think it was worth it, I wouldn't say so. I'm overly blunt to be that evil.

DLE have you ever considered changing your motto to "Caveat rogator"?

Yes, but I like my current one better.

Yes, but I like my current one better.

Granted, 'Meh' does have a certain ring to it.... [/hijack]

I think a comprehensive labelling policy and a complete ban on advertising is the way to go. Also, one idea I particularly like is making fast-food manufacturers/retailers pay (via a tax or directly) for advertising that promotes healthy food and healthy eating - this is a very effective way of raising awareness that there are other options than junk food, while at the same time punishing the ff industry for the crap they virtually force down our throats.

How you will get this idea past the ns sovereignty/individual rights mafia I have no idea, but good luck.

How you will get this idea past the ns sovereignty/individual rights mafia I have no idea, but good luck.

As I see it, comprehensive labelling and warnings can only serve to further the rights of individuals to make their own personal decisions, because it allows them to be fully informed before making a decision.

Advertising is less straightforward, because there are issues of freedom of expression and the right of adults to be trusted with their own decisions. Hence I don't believe in restricting advertising to adults (although I wouldn't mind mandating that adverts must carry warnings too, and I'd like to see tight regulation of any claims made by those selling potentially harmful products, to ensure that they are fully factual), but children are less well-placed to consider critically the claims of marketers, which is why I suggested attacking adverts designed to appeal to children.

What you say makes sense... Although I personally think not all adults are quite as capable of making rational decisions about their health as they should be (due to factors such as addiction), it is certainly true that children are even more at risk of targeted advertising. How about adding 'Think of the children' to the proposal [j/k!!!]

I think it should go even further than that. I think all foods sold in restaurants and grocery stores should have nutritional regulations that they must meet. Perhaps all food products sold should be required to be fortified with nutrients that are essential to good health. This would make sure that even junk foods would offer something beneficial to the person consuming them.

I think it should go even further than that. I think all foods sold in restaurants and grocery stores should have nutritional regulations that they must meet. Perhaps all food products sold should be required to be fortified with nutrients that are essential to good health. This would make sure that even junk foods would offer something beneficial to the person consuming them.
It doesn't taste good when you do that.

I agree with the "Restrict Marketing directed at Children" and the "Give warnings about the food to Adults."

The People's Republic of Coquetvia believes that the best thing to come out of this debate thus far is banning advertising from restaurants/fast food outlets aimed directly at children.

Any proposal focusing on this as the main issue will be likely to gain whole-hearted support from the People's Republic of Coquetvia.

It doesn't taste good when you do that.

I agree with the "Restrict Marketing directed at Children" and the "Give warnings about the food to Adults."

Food can easily be fortified without greatly affecting the flavor of the food. And after a while people would get used to the slight change in taste.

Whatever happened to natural selection? Namely, why is it that a person can't choose to self-destruct if it's not directly harming another (above background levels of 'harm', that is)? I'm in favor of mandating information to be disseminated, neutral on the advertising toward children (maybe voluntary regulations?), and not too keen on forcing 'healthy' foods on people who don't want to eat them - that goes triple for cramming everything with artificial additives, which could actually lead to an overload of some vitamins and minerals, especially the fat-soluble ones.

If obesity becomes an epidemic like it has before it could greatly harm the strength and health of a nation. Obese people use up more resources than healthy people, and they tend to be less productive. I don't think we should just let people go to waste and as a result hurt the country they are living in.

And by making all foods fortified I don't mean putting lots of nutirents in the food. I mean that foods should at least have a minimal nutritional value and less of the bad stuff that doesn't do anything good for your health.

I would also like to add that the only foods that would be required to be fortified would be those sold in stores and restaurants. If people want to produce their own food they can put whatever they want in to it.

And I do think that there should be more regulations on junk food advertising aimed at children.

DLE have you ever considered changing your motto to "Caveat rogator"?

Translation for the lazy, please.

We would point out a few things... such as "In Vastiva - as in most of the arctic regions - caloric requirement increase dramatically. During the sunlit "summer", working outdoors can require as many as 5000 calories per day. During winter, dietary requirements exceeding 8000 per day are not unknown."

Fast food is therefore a lifesaver in some locations and conditions, and this should be respected. It's not the food - it's the abuse of food which is the problem.



Alright, who didn't expect me to speak up on this one???

Krioval, this is humanity we're talking about. The fittest people are the ones who die in wars. Abusing your body and being on the slow spiral to an early grave are survival traits.

Now, keep that in mind while looking at this. Part of the issue is to lengthen average human lifespan. The other part is to have more people qualified to send to their untimely deaths if the need arises.

With that said, I do agree with you on that issue. If people want to die that badly, let them.

I am considering proposing a ban on all fast food outlets which do not give their customers a healthy alternative.

All fast food outlets already do give their customers a healthy alternative; not eating there.

The good people of Trans-Russia are capable of making their own dietary decisions, as long as nutritional information is provided.

Mandating accurate nutritional information would be acceptable, but any further would not.

Advertising to children is irrelevant, in Trans-Russia; the adults oversee a child's diet.

Food can easily be fortified without greatly affecting the flavor of the food. And after a while people would get used to the slight change in taste.Haute cuisine is important to the culture of Allemande. We are concerned that any attempt to regulate "fast food" will destroy the ability of business establishments to serve food whose principal value lies in its epicurean experience. A "slight" change of taste makes all the difference between a successful dining experience and a disaster.

It would be tragic if, in an attempt to ban "junk" food, we were to make Beef Wellington, creme brouillet, sushi, and other culinary delights a thing of the past.

Certainly, there are healthy epicurean delights. But culinary joy is not so much about nutrition as it is about entertainment. Sometimes a diner just wants, well, what he or she wants.

Let's not destroy dishes and taste delights that have been a mainstay of human civilization for hundreds of years.

Translation for the lazy, please.
Caveat rogator = xz flcx widrxsz

What?

Oh, you want a translation into English. Silly me!
= Proposer beware.

I have decided this idea will NOT work and am no longer considering putting it up for proposal... :mp5:

Why give up now just when you've got people interested? That's like putting delicious food in front of someone and then whipping it away when they're just about to take a bite...

So get some text up there for the proposal, and we can help you make sure it has a chance of passing!

How you will get this idea past the ns sovereignty/individual rights mafia I have no idea, but good luck.

We're a mafia now? Cool. :)

We're a mafia now? Cool. :)
I guess this means we get to, make people an offer they can't refuse.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia would again like to emphasise it's encouragement for a proposal limiting fast food advertising directed at children.

As far as the people's Republic of Coquetvia is concerned, whatever and adult decides to eat is up to the adult - but children are impressionable.

Advertising aimed at children has much more chance of causing a 'fast food addiction' among children that can last for the rest of their lives.

Additionally, children are more often than not unable to realise that this food is quite often not good for them, and would be unlikely to care in anycase, as the food tastes good. That always appears to be a child's main culinary concern.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia humbly suggests that a nation put forward a proposal imposing some form of limitation on 'fast food' advertising aimed at young children.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia would do whatever is necessary to support such a proposal...

If such a proposal is to be produced, I would expand it. Urge nations to pass appropriate legislation to prevent the marketing of unhealthy food or recreational drugs (including tobacco and alcohol) to children. It needs to be an "urges" rather than a "mandates" because I think it's best to allow local solutions - plus a literal interpretation of a mandated blanket ban could result in some fairly stupid things, like banning adults from voicing their satisfaction when consuming anything unhealthy in front of kids.

WTH?????????????????????


I cannot believe you are even thinking of this. Stop for one second and ask yourself this question..."Is this going to be a problem for EVERY nation?" If your answer is no, consider it a national issue, and move on.

This is not a universal issue. Some nations don't even have fast food. SOme nations have natural food that comes fast. This is, at worst, a planetary issue. Please note.....that doesn't make it universal. The region of Northwind is its own planet, with it's own fast food issues. Our problem is not that it isn't healthy enough, it's not fast enough. A few nanoseconds is the difference between food and the next problem dealt with....

Please....Stop forcing your regional/national issues ONTO MY COUNTRY. I AM NOT A CITIZEN of yours....Please stop treating me like it.

i have no major poit to say but! go for it, force hethy food!!! will be good for everybody

Please....Stop forcing your regional/national issues ONTO MY COUNTRY. I AM NOT A CITIZEN of yours....Please stop treating me like it.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia would like to remind the representative for Darkumbria that they are a member of the United Nations, meaning that they should follow all the rules of the United Nations.

As a member, you are entitled to speak against and vote against potential resoultions. You are also entitled to leave the United Nations at any point.

No individual or country is forcing this concept upon your country. This has not been passed as a resolution, therefore it is not legally binding upon any N.S.U.N nation.

And if this ever does become legally binding, no individual or country is forcing your country to remain in the N.S.U.N.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia hopess that the representative for Darkumbria does not respond like this to all proposals that the Darkumbrian nation dosen't consider "universal" - it could be bad for your health.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia would like to remind the representative for Darkumbria that they are a member of the United Nations, meaning that they should follow all the rules of the United Nations.


Thank you for reminding me, OH wise one. I had forgotten for a second. I also, apparently, forgot that I was allowed to have a country of my own, instead of a puppet state run by the UN.


As a member, you are entitled to speak against and vote against potential resoultions. You are also entitled to leave the United Nations at any point.


What, exactly, was doing here?? No idea what you are talking about.


No individual or country is forcing this concept upon your country. This has not been passed as a resolution, therefore it is not legally binding upon any N.S.U.N nation.

And if this ever does become legally binding, no individual or country is forcing your country to remain in the N.S.U.N.


Yeah, and? I, once again, fail to see your point.

The thing I do see is that this body, continually and dare I say...almost religiously, puts forth proposal after proposal that has nothing to do with international problems, universal issues, or anything of the sort. More often than not, the proposals we see are "Save the dolphins", Sewage problems, and other nonesense.

What's a dolphin? I don't have these in my region of the universe. Hence....It's not an international issue. Fast Food??? What is slow food? If your country has a problem with the nutritional content of your food, how is that my problem? I don't import food from your country. Hence, its not an international issue.

Don't expect me to sit back and question nothing. I am not your puppet state, nor will I be.


The People's Republic of Coquetvia hopess that the representative for Darkumbria does not respond like this to all proposals that the Darkumbrian nation dosen't consider "universal" - it could be bad for your health.

Is that some sort of veiled threat?

The Darkumbrian delegate would like to remind the People's Republic of Coquetvia that I am allowed to speak my mind and do not have to agree with anything that this august body puts to a vote, period.

Darkumbria, there are many of us who feel that the NSUN should not restrict itself only to dealing with international issues, so simply complaining that various things are not international issues has no impact on us. For instance, _Myopia_ tends to follow a philosophy which only tolerates the existence of the nation state insofar as it is good for providing and protecting the rights and freedoms we believe that people ought to have. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, states are not due respect, or rights like national sovereignty - the only thing justifying their existence is the fulfilment of the duties we believe they have a responsibility to complete, and we will do our utmost to ensure that all governments do fulfil these duties. At present, the best method available of doing this is UN legislation, so we actively support intrusive UN meddling in domestic issues if it is practical (i.e. the issue can actually be handled on this level given the limits on the detail of resolutions) and fits our ideology.

Myopia, if you would like to give up your national sovereignty, that is your business, not mine. However, I do not subscribe to that belief. Moreover, I understand that I am in the minority. However, that doesn't change my beliefs, nor does it change how viamently I fight against the encrochment of the UN on my nation.

I respect your views, however misguided I feel they are. I would never tell you that you have to change, so why are telling me to? Am I going to stop fighting for my nation's sovereignty? No, I won't give up that fight. By retreating from that battle, I will allow the UN to become ruler of my nation, and hence my involvement in the decisions of my government will cease to be an issue, I won't be able too.

Myopia, if you would like to give up your national sovereignty, that is your business, not mine.

That's the smartest thing I've read on these forums (the UN ones) all day. Nobody's denying that national sovereignty within the UN is practically nonexistent; nobody's denying that upon admission into the United Nations body your sacrificing a large chunk of your nation's freedom, if not all of it. That doesn't mean we as UN members have to accept it and tolerate it. There's always room for change; the only reason nations like Myopia and Coconutvia accept the inability to control their own country's politics is because their radically left-wing agenda has been answered. Their views are the one's dictating UN doctrine as it stands. Suppose the UN was largely conservative...would Myopia be so willing to acknowledge their lack of freedom?

The People's Republic of Cocoapuffsvia would like to remind the representative for Darkumbria that they are a member of the United Nations, meaning that they should follow all the rules of the United Nations.

The Sunshine Republic of Florida Oranges would like to remind you that Darkumbria is very aware of the UN rules, and has yet to break any. We would advise you that any future statements you make have some sort of relevance or meaning. The above is pointlessly obvious and makes you sound overbearingly smarmy.

As a member, you are entitled to speak against and vote against potential resoultions. You are also entitled to leave the United Nations at any point.

I'd actually like to thank you for this one. Highly enlightening.

No individual or country is forcing this concept upon your country. This has not been passed as a resolution, therefore it is not legally binding upon any N.S.U.N nation.

And Darkumbria hasn't acted as such. He's merely trying to understand why someone would support a proposal that would decide what people in his nation are allowed to eat.

And if this ever does become legally binding, no individual or country is forcing your country to remain in the N.S.U.N.

This isn't even worthy of a response.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia hopess that the representative for Darkumbria does not respond like this to all proposals that the Darkumbrian nation dosen't consider "universal" - it could be bad for your health.

The Sunshine Republic of Florida Oranges hopes your people enjoy having an international organization decide what they may eat and what they may not eat. They must deeply admire your administration.

Thank you for reminding me, OH wise one. I had forgotten for a second. I also, apparently, forgot that I was allowed to have a country of my own, instead of a puppet state run by the UN.

The thing I do see is that this body, continually and dare I say...almost religiously, puts forth proposal after proposal that has nothing to do with international problems, universal issues, or anything of the sort. More often than not, the proposals we see are "Save the dolphins", Sewage problems, and other nonesense.

What's a dolphin? I don't have these in my region of the universe. Hence....It's not an international issue. Fast Food??? What is slow food? If your country has a problem with the nutritional content of your food, how is that my problem? I don't import food from your country. Hence, its not an international issue.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia sees it neccessary to defend itself on a couple of counts here.

Firstly, I am fully aware that I was stating the obvious. That was the intention of the post. It is obvious that if you don't like the N.S.U.N, you don't have to be a part of it.

Everyone knows this, it's not like I had actually thought you didn't know.

Secondly, as stated by Myopia, not everyone in the N.S.U.N thinks that all the issues raised should be international, or universal, all the time.

Some of the nations in the N.S.U.N actually believe in some form of moderation of national issues by the N.S.U.N. On some counts, I agree. On others, I don't.

As I pointed out, and you were more than happy to reaffirm, it is each nation's choice.

The only problem I really had with your original post was that it seemed like a bit of an overreaction to a proposal. But, you are entitled to your reaction.

Is that some sort of veiled threat?

The Darkumbrian delegate would like to remind the People's Republic of Coquetvia that I am allowed to speak my mind and do not have to agree with anything that this august body puts to a vote, period.

No, it is not some sort of veiled threat. It was meant to be a joke to lighten the mood, but it was obviously missed. Sorry.

And yes, you are allowed to speak your mind. That's what I said. You also don't have to agree with anything that gets put to vote. I didn't ask you to. I disagree with most things that get to vote, and I didn't agree with this either. I said that I thought the advertising to children part of the issue should be addressed - I don't care about the health level or speed of "fast food".

There's always room for change; the only reason nations like Myopia and Coconutvia accept the inability to control their own country's politics is because their radically left-wing agenda has been answered. Their views are the one's dictating UN doctrine as it stands.

Firstly, I understand that you disagree with me here, but delibrately misspelling my name here, and then again later, is unneccessary. Why do this?

My country is not radically left-wing either. I disagree with a number of the UN proposals that have been passed - most recently some of the disarmament ones - and I also thought that the dolphin resolution was a joke. I never supported it, just like I never supported this resolution.

The only reason I said anything about Darkumbria's post was that I thought he was over-reacting. Remember, I did say he was entitled to speak and vote against anything he wanted.

The Sunshine Republic of Florida Oranges would like to remind you that Darkumbria is very aware of the UN rules, and has yet to break any. We would advise you that any future statements you make have some sort of relevance or meaning. The above is pointlessly obvious and makes you sound overbearingly smarmy.

As stated above, that part of my post was designed to state the obvious. I knew that Darkumbria was aware of the UN rules, and I never accused him of breaking any. Just the same way that I am aware of the UN rules, and I haven't broken any.

The statement may have not had any relevance or meaning to you, Florida Oranges, but I found it necessary to include it in my post. Therefore, it had a relevance for me. Further one, you describe part of my post as "highly enlightening". I thank you for your false praise, but again must state that there is no need to patronise me, nor is there a need to attack what is again another delibrately obvious statement.

And Darkumbria hasn't acted as such. He's merely trying to understand why someone would support a proposal that would decide what people in his nation are allowed to eat.

I didn't support this proposal. The only thing even close to this proposal that I do support is regulations on advertising to children, which was not up for vote.

There are always going to be N.S.U.N members who support things that other nations do not approve of. In many cases, some nations support resolutions far worse than this. So if a country has a strong objection to this, it would no doubt have a stronger reaction to more fundamentally wrong proposals than this, such as the one supporting Soylent Green, or the forced sterilization of children when they are born to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Darkumbria appeared to be overreacting to a proposal, and my post was an attempt to discuss the situation with him. I acknowledge it may not have been the best post on my part. But they can't all be the best post, and I certainly wasn't expecting such a violent backlash against my post, which both Darkumbria and yourself have stated (to which I have agreed) states the obvious.

The Sunshine Republic of Florida Oranges hopes your people enjoy having an international organization decide what they may eat and what they may not eat. They must deeply admire your administration.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Talk about unneccessary things to say!

My nation does not support the proposal, only one of the issues raised that is loosely connected to this proposal. I would not support this proposal, and I do not support having an international organization telling my citizens what they can and can't eat.

Advertising aimed at children was what I suppoorted. Not this proposal.

I do, however, support that the idea was raised in the forums so it could be discussed. If you look through the proposals list, you will see that the overwhlming majority of them have no chance of passing as a proposal, and that the overwhelming majority of these proposals are poorly-written and ineffectual. The more discussion that takes place in these forums about proposals, including this one, the better. More discussion will only increase the overall quality of proposals.

To conclude, as much as my nation has enjoyed this difference in opinion, we are by nature a peaceful people. So I'll end the post on a note we all agree on.

The "Save the Dolphins" proposal needs to go, and the People's Republic of Coquetvia is more than happy to collaborate with Darkumbria and Florida Oranges on the repeal process for this abysmal resolution, if both countries so wish. Feel free to contact me about this issue if you wish.

The People's Republic of Coquetvia sees it neccessary to defend itself on a couple of counts here.

Firstly, I am fully aware that I was stating the obvious. That was the intention of the post. It is obvious that if you don't like the N.S.U.N, you don't have to be a part of it.

Everyone knows this, it's not like I had actually thought you didn't know.

Secondly, as stated by Myopia, not everyone in the N.S.U.N thinks that all the issues raised should be international, or universal, all the time.

Some of the nations in the N.S.U.N actually believe in some form of moderation of national issues by the N.S.U.N. On some counts, I agree. On others, I don't.

As I pointed out, and you were more than happy to reaffirm, it is each nation's choice.

The only problem I really had with your original post was that it seemed like a bit of an overreaction to a proposal. But, you are entitled to your reaction.

I'm unhappy??? Really, I had no idea.

OOC: Look...If I weren't having fun, I'd find something else to do. Read up on my nation, man. :) I'm an evil, overbearing bast*** of a leader. Completely opposite of my true character, and a blast to play. I'd be more ticked off at you guys if I played my liberal, Democratic voting self. This way, I play a character everyone can hate, and I get the fun of not having to care about anything...I'm supposed to evil, who cares what you guys think...It's, obviously, wrong...I didn't think of it first.


No, it is not some sort of veiled threat. It was meant to be a joke to lighten the mood, but it was obviously missed. Sorry.

Darn, I was hoping. ;)


Darkumbria appeared to be overreacting to a proposal, and my post was an attempt to discuss the situation with him. I acknowledge it may not have been the best post on my part. But they can't all be the best post, and I certainly wasn't expecting such a violent backlash against my post, which both Darkumbria and yourself have stated (to which I have agreed) states the obvious.

See above a few...Psst... Hint: Look at the OOC. ;)


The "Save the Dolphins" proposal needs to go, and the People's Republic of Coquetvia is more than happy to collaborate with Darkumbria and Florida Oranges on the repeal process for this abysmal resolution, if both countries so wish. Feel free to contact me about this issue if you wish.

That sounds like fun. :) Send me a telegram and we can discuss the matter. ;)


Fact is that the delegate saw fit to remove the proposal. I commend him for that decision.

Myopia, if you would like to give up your national sovereignty, that is your business, not mine. However, I do not subscribe to that belief. Moreover, I understand that I am in the minority. However, that doesn't change my beliefs, nor does it change how viamently I fight against the encrochment of the UN on my nation.

I respect your views, however misguided I feel they are. I would never tell you that you have to change, so why are telling me to?

As I explained above, _Myopia_'s policy is one of concern for the rights and freedoms of people everywhere. This government would never demand that you change your opinions, but feels that it has a duty to exercise whatever power it has in the UN to ensure that as many governments as possible use their power appropriately.

the only reason nations like Myopia and Coconutvia accept the inability to control their own country's politics is because their radically left-wing agenda has been answered. Their views are the one's dictating UN doctrine as it stands. Suppose the UN was largely conservative...would Myopia be so willing to acknowledge their lack of freedom?

There is an awful lot of UN legislation that _Myopia_ is unhappy with, though you are correct in saying that in general, the UN has acted closer to our principles than many others'. If the UN was largely conservative, we would have to consider whether what influence we could exert in what we consider to be the interests of the people of other UN nations would be enough to justify subjecting ourselves to conservative policies. We might end up compromising by establishing a puppet nation consisting solely of a UN affairs office, so that we could maintain a voice in the UN without forcing any of our citizens to tolerate life under its conservative resolutions. As it stands, the bad legislation that the UN passes is either minor enough or easily enough dodged that it is worthwhile remaining in the UN to (OOC: as Max puts it) mould the rest of the world to our vision.

OOC: I remain in the UN, and would continue to do so if it was largely conservative, because this is the only part of the game I have any real interest in. I'm not really interested in the internal politics of my nation, because I play NS almost exclusively as a UN diplomacy game. And I find it more enjoyable to play as a nation aggressively pushing its ideology on the rest of the world - the conflict between nations like mine, nations wanting to push opposing ideals and nations wanting to maintain their sovereignty is good fun. To an extent, it also reflects my RL views, as I would say that no government, with or without the mandate of the majority of its citizens, has the right to infringe on the rights and freedoms I believe people deserve.

Back IC

We would like to highlight that we do not support the imposition of restrictions on what people can choose to eat, nor impositions on the menus of fast food restaurants. That's because we don't believe it is right for a government to interfere in citizens' personal choices like that.