NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: Since there have been some serious questions by both Vastiva and Goobergunchia about reasons for staying in the UN and being a proponent of national sovereignty, and I figure there are a fair number of people who just "don't get it" when it comes to why I do what I do with regard to national sovereignty, I thought it would be more efficient just to lay it all out here once and for all rather than throwing it out in pieces that when taken by themselves might not make much sense. My position on national sovereignty is not really based on my RL political ideals and does not stem from just one argument. The reason I find national sovereignty so compelling is that there are many good reasons to support it (in some form or another). I don't go around constantly rambling about the issue just because I'm some sort of political philosopher with an axe to grind. I like balance and practicality, and I believe national sovereignty provides both.

Scope and Action

My position (IC) has in the past been that the United Nations, being an international organization, has as its proper scope of legal authority international law, by which I mean that the UN should address issues of true international importance through practical and effective legislation that shows at least a modicum of respect for the valid cultural, technological, and biological differences of the membership. This is very similar to the position I hold when it comes to the proper scope of national authority, provincial or colonial authority, municipal authority, and individual authority. In my view, each political entity that exists has its own issues to attend to, and it should be attending to those issues rather than the issues of others. In essence, each entity is sovereign over those affairs which are within its proper scope of authority. This position is one that protects each of our freedom to govern while leaving plenty for the UN to do in the interests of whatever international problem there happens to be. There are many, many international issues that can be addressed, and it is my opinion that we've just hit the tip of the iceberg as far as good international law is concerned (and I intend to demonstrate that). The good thing about NationStates is that there are always new and exciting challenges popping up, and we can take advantage of that by making sure to look for them, whether it's by looking at RL international politics and seeing that they deal with a problem that we have here as well, or by noticing an international problem highlighted by a fellow nation's roleplaying and seeing a good way the UN can address this.

Precendent and Resentment

There are also practical benefits to limiting the scope of the UN to international affairs. The first deals with avoiding the setting of a bad precedent, and is both an IC and OOC argument. By interfering in the domestic affairs of UN member states through legislation that overrides their laws governing intranational policy and disrespects their sovereignty, the UN has established a very dangerous precedent. While the majority of UN members agree with most of the domestic policies mandated by the UN at this time, in the future that may change, much as such a change occurred early in the game (according to certain players who were around then). If the political orientation of the majority were to change (and there are signs that it eventually will), then the current majority will have created an unfortunate problem for themselves. If (for example) more authoritarian and capitalistic nations were to gain a majority anytime soon and the national sovereignty movement is not there to prevent it, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would start repealing the current laws and quickly begin passing legislation that screws with the current majority's domestic policies. Why would they do such a horrible thing? Because the majority previously in power fucked them over (or at least that's what they have cause to think). Not only would you have a majority of nations who are resentful of previous acts by this body, but they would have a powerful weapon to use against you, a weapon that you gave them when you enforced your policies on them. They can now legitimately and accurately describe you as a hypocrite and point to previous legislation as a wonderful justification for overriding your national sovereignty and enforcing policies you find horrendous and immoral. Personally, I agree with the sentiment of the majority of the domestic policies put in place by the UN, but I'm not willing to take the risk of causing deep resentment and endangering my own freedom in the future by taking advantage of the UN's power to enforce my domestic policies on others. Admittedly, overriding national sovereignty may seem to be worth the risk if you think you are creating significant benefit by doing so. Unfortunately, there’s not much benefit in that sort of legislation. Most of the nations who were doing what the resolution says they shouldn’t before it passed will just continue to do that thing after it has passed by exploiting loopholes in the text. In the vast majority of cases the very nations you wish to improve by these policies are making them completely ineffective at accomplishing their goals, which in the end means that the policies largely fail miserably to do what they are supposed to do.

Liberty and Diversity
One further benefit to the national sovereignty perspective is that it is by itself very practical when it comes to the various technological, biological, political, economic, and cultural perspectives that occur. The NationStates UN is far more diverse than the RL UN, and (combined with the game mechanics limitation that resolutions must affect all nations) this makes it very difficult for the UN to appropriately address the needs of its members, especially when those members can be sentient dolphins or potatoes, have spacefaring technology or still be unable to make fire, and have cultures that make what would seem like heinous laws to most of us very necessary and appropriate. Essentially, the national sovereignty perspective provides member nations with the freedom to make laws that are commensurate with their circumstances. It provides you, the member, greater freedom to enact those laws. It provides you the player with a chance to be more free to run your country (while still allowing for many important international issues to be addressed by the UN), which is what makes the game fun for most of us.

FAQ and Fiction
The argument that’s often used by those opposed to the sovereignty argument is one that I completely understand and sympathize with. It’s the traditional view that the below portion of the FAQ outlines the purpose of the UN (which they say is to enforce our personal views upon all members or something to that effect). This view, as far as I can tell, has often been supported by established players and used as a final “end of line” argument against the sovereignty perspective. I believed it myself for a long time, having been told of it by those who came before me. As is my custom, I eventually began questioning and re-examining the basic nature of the UN (such as I periodically do with most of my beliefs). As part of the re-examination I started doing a more thorough analysis of the FAQ and eventually arrived at the conclusion that it did not say what I had previously believed it said.

Here is the relevant portion of the FAQ:
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. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)
Pay particular attention to the bolded portion. Let’s first look at a literal interpretation of this phrase. It says that “the UN is [our] chance to mold the rest of the world to [our] vision.” It doesn’t say, “Enforce your policies on others” nor does it specifically assign a purpose to the UN (and you’ll note that nowhere did Max give the UN an explicitly stated purpose even though he had ample means to do so). It simply says that we have a chance to use the UN to take a particular action. When we consider the literary context of this portion of the FAQ, this bolded phrase begins to make more sense. Max wrote the FAQ in a style consistent with his other writing, which is partly tongue-in-cheek, satirical, and cynical (while still being basically informative). The bolded phrase certainly fits this model, as it is certainly satirical and cynical to suggest that the UN is solely for molding the rest of the world to our individual vision (because such an act would be tantamount to tyranny). Interestingly, this satirical and cynical comment by Max turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy when people used it to justify their tyranny over the other nations in the UN. There’s a certain delicious irony in that, which I suspect (based on my limited knowledge) Max would enjoy.

Connectivity and Responsibility
The UN is the only body with the very real power to take actions that can significantly affect every nation in the world. This is an immense power and an immense organization that binds us all together in its common affect upon us through its legislation. The UN is connected to regional politics, regional security, national prestige, international standards, and power over national statistics. Given the incredible power the UN has and its connections to so many aspects of the game, it seems vitally important to ensure that the UN is used responsibly. By this I mean that the UN is of incredible enough significance that it should not be used to further on nation’s domestic policy agenda or even a group of nation’s domestic policy agenda. I also mean that when addressing international matters we should be responsible and acknowledge the complexity and diversity of the membership of the UN. In the long run such stewardship will serve us well and is far less likely to result in the kind of resentment and abuses that have occurred when the UN is using the more traditional anti-sovereignty approach.

...well said. I think. Its approaching 4 am for me.

But I do agree that there is a line the UN cannot cross... and then there is a line where the UN MUST cross.

The problem is, if only a minority of nations are UN members, then they would not recognize any verdict handed down by the UN. :-/

Mind you, I'll follow 'em. :-D

...well said. I think. Its approaching 4 am for me.

But I do agree that there is a line the UN cannot cross... and then there is a line where the UN MUST cross.

The problem is, if only a minority of nations are UN members, then they would not recognize any verdict handed down by the UN. :-/

Mind you, I'll follow 'em. :-D

Thanks. It's approximately 6 am here, and I notice that you must be a very fast reader to get through my little essay so quickly. :)

I'm a fast reader ;) Sometimes I miss something, and I go back, and read it three times, and I'm still finished before anyone else.

Played merry hell back in grade school when we were supposed to read along with the teacher. I'd ignore him and end up about two chapters ahead before a classmate told on me @.@

But yeah, while I'm all for the UN staying out of internal affairs of nations, there is a point where the UN must say, "Hey. What you're doing is wrong, stop it or leave."

Where that point is, is up to the UN - which is, to say, us - meaning its a way for us to regulate ourselves in a fashion where we can go, "Hey, I don't want to do it this way, but the UN makes me."

Conversly, I think the UN should have a standing uniformed police force to act as the core for an international intervention and UN Police force...

I'm a fast reader ;) Sometimes I miss something, and I go back, and read it three times, and I'm still finished before anyone else.

Played merry hell back in grade school when we were supposed to read along with the teacher. I'd ignore him and end up about two chapters ahead before a classmate told on me @.@

Heh. That sounds very much like my own school experiences. The teacher would give us a week to read a novel and I'd be done within an hour. Needless to say the next few days of class for the week were incredibly boring.

But yeah, while I'm all for the UN staying out of internal affairs of nations, there is a point where the UN must say, "Hey. What you're doing is wrong, stop it or leave."

Where that point is, is up to the UN - which is, to say, us - meaning its a way for us to regulate ourselves in a fashion where we can go, "Hey, I don't want to do it this way, but the UN makes me."

Conversly, I think the UN should have a standing uniformed police force to act as the core for an international intervention and UN Police force...

Interesting ideas. The last one's illegal, but being illegal never stopped me from suggesting that something was a good idea. :D

Heh. That sounds very much like my own school experiences. The teacher would give us a week to read a novel and I'd be done within an hour. Needless to say the next few days of class for the week were incredibly boring.
Heh, yup. Always a problem >.<


Interesting ideas. The last one's illegal, but being illegal never stopped me from suggesting that something was a good idea. :D

Well, what makes it illegal? Forgive me, but I'm a total newb when it comes to the UN, so things that may seem obvious are not quite so telling to me ^^;

Personally, should the UN come looking for troops to fill the ranks of UN police, it can come to my nation first and they'd walk away with several police battalions in addition to my best special forces and Regular Infantry, so long as its not a horribly extended campaign.

If something is a good idea, and it is illegal, then we should find out why <-- My first rule of shtuff.

Well, what makes it illegal? Forgive me, but I'm a total newb when it comes to the UN, so things that may seem obvious are not quite so telling to me ^^;

Personally, should the UN come looking for troops to fill the ranks of UN police, it can come to my nation first and they'd walk away with several police battalions in addition to my best special forces and Regular Infantry, so long as its not a horribly extended campaign.

If something is a good idea, and it is illegal, then we should find out why <-- My first rule of shtuff.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

In that thread near the top of the forum is a big list of rules governing the submission of proposals. You should find your reasons there. :)

Greetings.

We of Roathin understand the Hotrodder ambassador's personal stand, and support it wholeheartedly. It has long been our purpose as a member of this esteemed assembly to learn more about the nature of humanity. The NSUN, despite the heterogeneity of race, culture, language, religion and moral stance, has been most helpful in that regard.

We believe in national sovereignty. Yet, we also note that in certain circumstances, such sovereignty must include the right to surrender certain aspects of that sovereignty to federation or confederation, thereby achieving ends which would otherwise be beyond our grasp.

This, in our view, is the only political reason why a state such as ours would join the NSUN. With likeminded allies, we can achieve a greater measure of self-determination and defeat the attempts of others to control the destinies of sovereign states.

I didn't read the entire article (it is incredibly long), but I did read and completely agree with your section on "FAQ and Fiction". I also have found that statements like "Read the Damn FAQ" are exactly as you suggested, "end-of-the-line" statements. It has been my observation that over the past 9 months of seeing this tossed out, that nations that do this aren't engaged in discussions, but just grasping at justifications for their positions, and the statement is just a closing to whatever position they've stated.

However, I think that those that don't throw this phrase out there to end arguments have other ways of doing the same.

In any event, that is a well written position statement, and I'd like to suggest that you name it such ... "Texan Hotrodder Position Statement on Sovereignty" and link to it from the UNSA.

Due to the length of your post - I'll respond to the categories


Scope and Action


While I agree that something like NSoT would limit the scope of the UN to International Law, I do not, necessarily, feel the same thing about Nuclear Armaments an UNSA - as I feel what weapons you use in war are quite important on an international scale - not just between the waring factions, but to the entire world (especially Bio and Nuclear/Radiological weapons - as well as some FT like DLE's Plasma gun, etc - where your using of these weapons produces effects that seep into other countries. Issues like landmines, fuel air bombs and bayonets are more humanitarian in nature - and their consideration as an International issue is questionable at best.... after all - EVERYTHING in war is arguably in-humane - after all, you're killing people. Other areas of this can be shown in Wolfish Convention on POWs, Civilian Rights Post War and that torture one - can't remember its name - that deal with Humanitarian issues that are not directly weapons specific). If you look at the real world, several attempts have been made at humanitarian-related laws regarding war (Landmines and Geneva convention)

I guess to some extent, I'd like to know WHAT you consider an international issue. I'd say the Gun Control, Recreational Drug Use and Gambling categories are definately national or even sub-national issues, but where do you draw the line on others?


Precendent and Resentment


No comment at this time.


Liberty and Diversity


Perhaps - but the majority of the issues of the day are not the international ones, but the various national ones. Things like Same-Sex marriage, Education, Health Care, and Environment are the ones that we hear and discuss in day to day activities. While I'm aware that with exception to the latter, we've already eroded a LOT of these areas, that doesn't mean the debate should stop - as these are also things that we can debate and discuss in real life (and to some extent, have some say in)


FAQ and Fiction


I got that argument the second time I saw it too. I still can't believe the number of people that not only disregard it, but simply ignore it altogether. Anyways, agree with you 100%


Connectivity and Responsibility


Fair enough.

You still missed one issue - you didn't actually say WHY you were in the UN

Hmm. I'm gonna have to think about this.Precendent and ResentmentThis section in particular; I never thought about it that way, so thanks for that. Anyway, I am currently of the feeling that National Sovreignity (NatSov) should not be an overriding concern with the UN, above doing what is right. This is because I'm one of those people who feel that national borders are of no real significance, but thats another story. Looking at this section, I would still argue for minimal NatSov, even if 'capitalist authoritarians' (say) were in the majority, as. Well, I don't quite know how to put it into words, but somehting like I'd still rather have the option to try and do what is right, even if that meant being overrun by resolutions I didn't agree with. I'm of the opinion that a too strong NatSov movement would stagnate the UN, as many of the best debates we have had were on things that could be said to infringe NatSov. I can understand your reasoning, Hotrodders, and even sympathise with it, but I don't agree.

Looking back on this, it might be a bit disjointed, but I'm finding it hard to put into words, Ka?

P.S. For the sake of clarity, I should point out that I RP what I belive in OOCly.

In any event, that is a well written position statement, and I'd like to suggest that you name it such ... "Texan Hotrodder Position Statement on Sovereignty" and link to it from the UNSA.

I did consider doing it up officially in an RP fashion, but there was just too much that was OOC in my opinion. Your idea of linking it to something else is a good one, and I figure I'll link to it in my sig and hopefully flesh it out some more.

While I agree that something like NSoT would limit the scope of the UN to International Law, I do not, necessarily, feel the same thing about Nuclear Armaments an UNSA - as I feel what weapons you use in war are quite important on an international scale - not just between the waring factions, but to the entire world (especially Bio and Nuclear/Radiological weapons - as well as some FT like DLE's Plasma gun, etc - where your using of these weapons produces effects that seep into other countries. Issues like landmines, fuel air bombs and bayonets are more humanitarian in nature - and their consideration as an International issue is questionable at best.... after all - EVERYTHING in war is arguably in-humane - after all, you're killing people. Other areas of this can be shown in Wolfish Convention on POWs, Civilian Rights Post War and that torture one - can't remember its name - that deal with Humanitarian issues that are not directly weapons specific). If you look at the real world, several attempts have been made at humanitarian-related laws regarding war (Landmines and Geneva convention)

1. The only time weapons such as nuclear arms are international is when they are used by one nation on another nation or transferred from one nation to another nation. This leaves a much larger area in which they are a national issue; things like building them, storing them, testing them, and even selling them to someone in your nation are all national issues.

2. Of course war is inhumane. That is it's nature. Unfortunately, the best we can really do with war at this point is try to mitigate some of its excesses while keeping ourselves secure. I wish it were otherwise, both in NS and RL.

I guess to some extent, I'd like to know WHAT you consider an international issue. I'd say the Gun Control, Recreational Drug Use and Gambling categories are definately national or even sub-national issues, but where do you draw the line on others?

Well, the line I draw isn't category-based. Certain categories are almost certain to violate national sovereignty (ie. Gun Control) but would not necessarily do so. Other categories (ie. Human Rights) are likely to violate national sovereignty, but there have been many cases where it has not. Caegories like International Security don't usually violate national sovereignty, but could be used to do so. It depends a lot on how the legislation is worded, really.

To add to this...I don't have a problem with the UN making a statement of principle or a suggestion on domestic issues, but when the UN starts making domestic policies I think it crosses the line and becomes intrusive, generally impractical, and ineffective.

On a related note...there are even some issues that are properly in the scope of the authority of multiple entities (ie. both UN and nation) in which case I would advocate that the two entities make a decision in consultation with each other.

Perhaps - but the majority of the issues of the day are not the international ones, but the various national ones. Things like Same-Sex marriage, Education, Health Care, and Environment are the ones that we hear and discuss in day to day activities.

Really? I hadn't noticed a majority either way. Issues like international trade, the globalisation of economies, the increasing international security risks associated with developing communications technologies, the transportation of hazardous materials across international borders, dumping waste in international waters, state-sponsored terrorism, and so on seem like equally critical issues to me. Just because the average person doesn't talk or think about them much doesn't mean that they're unimportant issues in comparison.

While I'm aware that with exception to the latter, we've already eroded a LOT of these areas, that doesn't mean the debate should stop - as these are also things that we can debate and discuss in real life (and to some extent, have some say in)

You could always use the General forum for those debates. :D

You still missed one issue - you didn't actually say WHY you were in the UN

To clarify...

It's related to the Responsibility business. From an IC standpoint, given the powerful and ubiquitous nature of the UN's effects in our world, it would irresponsible for my nation to just let it ruin itself and many nations in it. Hope that helps. :)

Hmm. I'm gonna have to think about this.This section in particular; I never thought about it that way, so thanks for that.

No problem. I wanted to get people to think. They certainly don't need to agree with me, but I do believe that they should consider the issue thoroughly.

Anyway, I am currently of the feeling that National Sovreignity (NatSov) should not be an overriding concern with the UN, above doing what is right.

Well, to clarify...what I'm essentially arguing is that in the case of the NSUN national sovereignty is "doing what is right". You may not agree, but that's my position. :)

This is because I'm one of those people who feel that national borders are of no real significance, but thats another story.

With respect, that's not another story. That belief is critical to shaping your view on national sovereignty, because if the national borders don't mean anything then the whole concept of national sovereignty takes a big hit.

Well, I don't quite know how to put it into words, but somehting like I'd still rather have the option to try and do what is right, even if that meant being overrun by resolutions I didn't agree with.

Ah. You would like the freedom to make a truly significant difference in the world through UN legislation and are willing to have your other freedoms violated in the interest. If you feel that such a trade-off is necessary then your position is certainly understandable.

I'm of the opinion that a too strong NatSov movement would stagnate the UN, as many of the best debates we have had were on things that could be said to infringe NatSov.

The UN is eventually going to stagnate to some degree with or without the sovereignty movement, and I dare say it already had been stagnating for a while because mostly the same issues kept being addressed over and over and very little new stuff of any consequence was coming out. To be perfectly honest, if the UN gets to a point where it can legitimately say that it has already made good legislation in the areas in can make good legislation, then that's wonderful, not worrying. It means that the UN has succeeded in doing the best that it can do, which is cause for celebration, regardless of how we might feel about having nothing left to write proposals for.

And I have no problem with the UN making suggestions for domestic policies or making statements of principle on those issues as long as the UN isn't actually making the policy. This leaves room for good debate and legislation while avoiding most of the problems associated with anti-sovereignty approaches.

Thanks for responding to this. You brought up some interesting points. :)

1. The only time weapons such as nuclear arms are international is when they are used by one nation on another nation or transferred from one nation to another nation. This leaves a much larger area in which they are a national issue; things like building them, storing them, testing them, and even selling them to someone in your nation are all national issues.

However if someone uses certain WMDs, their use (no matter how many) certainly has a significant impact upon the planet. I would debate whether the sheer danger of their use would mean that proliferation of such weapons is turned into international issues.

2. Of course war is inhumane. That is it's nature. Unfortunately, the best we can really do with war at this point is try to mitigate some of its excesses while keeping ourselves secure. I wish it were otherwise, both in NS and RL.

So would you support certain "humanitarian" war and weapons resolutions. Where would you draw the line on what becomes too much or not.

Well, the line I draw isn't category-based. Certain categories are almost certain to violate national sovereignty (ie. Gun Control) but would not necessarily do so. Other categories (ie. Human Rights) are likely to violate national sovereignty, but there have been many cases where it has not. Caegories like International Security don't usually violate national sovereignty, but could be used to do so. It depends a lot on how the legislation is worded, really.

Apologies - I should clarify. I was not trying to claim it was categorically based - just that those three categories are practically universally national rather than international issues. However, other categories I'd be interested in knowing where you believe the line is drawn between a national and international issue.

[/QUOTE]On a related note...there are even some issues that are properly in the scope of the authority of multiple entities (ie. both UN and nation) in which case I would advocate that the two entities make a decision in consultation with each other.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to ask for an example of such an instance

Really? I hadn't noticed a majority either way. Issues like international trade, the globalisation of economies, the increasing international security risks associated with developing communications technologies, the transportation of hazardous materials across international borders, dumping waste in international waters, state-sponsored terrorism, and so on seem like equally critical issues to me. Just because the average person doesn't talk or think about them much doesn't mean that they're unimportant issues in comparison.

On these boards they are lacking, but if you look at the massive list of proposals, that is the pattern I normally notice.

You could always use the General forum for those debates. :D

You could - I find the general forum itself moves too fast for me to be able to actually use it. On the other hand, the UN forums I can often read through everything I care about in 3 half hour sessions over the majority of the day and then clean up everything else in a hour or so before I go to bed. If I tried doing something similar on the main forums - that entire time might be spent just READING the responses to my post - let alone trying to find it and responding to the general falacies of belief.

To clarify...

It's related to the Responsibility business. From an IC standpoint, given the powerful and ubiquitous nature of the UN's effects in our world, it would irresponsible for my nation to just let it ruin itself and many nations in it. Hope that helps. :)

I had a suspicion this was your answer - considering both my gf and I have used this argument on a variety of scenarios throughout our lives.

With respect, that's not another story. That belief is critical to shaping your view on national sovereignty, because if the national borders don't mean anything then the whole concept of national sovereignty takes a big hit.

Right, I'll start off with my view on national sovereignty, as this might help to clarify what I'll go on to say; though I don't want to hijack yo thread. At a root level, I believe that people should have the choice on how they live their lives, and am in favour of any resolution or legislation that allows that. This results in me being very left wing, as I don't feel that you can have a choice on what hospital to go to, say, if you cannot afford to go to a particular hospital. I'm also in favour of stuff like a ban on smoking in public, which could be seen as an infringement on peoples right to smoke, but is in fact protecting non-smokers right not to breath in someone else's smoke - 'your right to smoke ends where my nose begins' Ka? Now, I extend this to the international stage, leading to my support for fair trade resolutions, and stuff like legalising prostitution etc.

Now I'm getting somewhere (I'm trying to put my own thoughts into words here for the first time as well, so bear with me) - I see NatSov as an impediment to personal choice, on the whole, as many of the NatSov arguments I see are directed against (in the NSUN) resolutions that uphold choice in nations I.E. 'Why should we legalise prostitution because you say so? What we do is nothing to do with you', is an example, though not a quote. Therefore I am prepared to infringe on national sovereignty in order to encourage choice, my infringements are a means to an end. There, I think that’s clear.

Looking at nations, I don't see them as much more than a convenient political or cultural boundary. They were initially created so some big murdering bastard knew that he wasn’t murdering the neighbouring murdering bastards serfs (If you follow me ;) ). I mean, we're all one species underneath, (apart from the aliens, elves etc, but you know what I mean), so why should where we were born have any impact on whether we can get free healthcare, or have the ability to sell ourselves on the street.

On to the actual implications of this in NS. When we joined the NSUN, we acknowleged that the laws of our nation were inferior to the laws of the world, thats the way it works, as we both know. I.E. that we should sometimes put aside our own views, in favour of other peoples views. Kinda like in a democracy.

Personally, I agree with the sentiment of the majority of the domestic policies put in place by the UN, but I'm not willing to take the risk of causing deep resentment and endangering my own freedom in the future by taking advantage of the UN's power to enforce my domestic policies on others.

This, for me, is the most significant part of your argument. You are saying that in order to prevent other nations from imposing their (possibly distateful) views on you, you are willing to refrain from imposing your views on them, by bolstering the NatSov argument. This is an admirable argument but could, I suppose, be construed as - I'm not gonna use my powers to stop them doing that *'distasteful' act* in case they use their powers to stop me doing this *'nice' act*. Not something I am prepared to do. 'For a great evil to occur, all it takes is for one good man to do nothing' (I probably paraphrase).

Ah. You would like the freedom to make a truly significant difference in the world through UN legislation and are willing to have your other freedoms violated in the interest. If you feel that such a trade-off is necessary then your position is certainly understandable.You've got my number alright :) . Hells, if the UN does go all conservative and evil, then I can (to hoist myself by my own petard) 'just leave the damn UN', right? ;)

I'm of the opinion that a too strong NatSov movement would stagnate the UN, as many of the best debates we have had were on things that could be said to infringe NatSov. I'm gonna retract this, in light of me thinking and what you said. You are right, there are still many good issues still to be addressed - take the current one- obvious as hell, but no-one thought of it, and certainly, I agree a little of the fire has gone out of it c.f. when I first joined. And I'll still fight my corner, even if I have to do it the hard way.

Thanks for responding to this. You brought up some interesting points. :) Thank you for making me think; even if it has made me wonder if me an Dubya are in fact on the same side, just at opposite ends. :eek: :eek: - That’s gonna haunt me for weeks

However if someone uses certain WMDs, their use (no matter how many) certainly has a significant impact upon the planet. I would debate whether the sheer danger of their use would mean that proliferation of such weapons is turned into international issues.

Ah, a new twist on the old International Justification argument in which indirect effects on other nations are cited as cause for intervention by the UN. This one of few arguments that I would suggest is subject to a slippery slope effect. Almost any event (even matters of personal choice) could be argued to have significant indirect international consequences.

Let's take for example a man who likes to smoke cigarettes. He lives near a border with another nation, and when he's smoking on his back porch some of the smoke drifts over the border to the homes of several persons in the other nation. The other person coughs several times after breathing in the smoke. According to the International Justification argument this scenario should be subject to international law.

Let's take for example a woman who likes to garden and plant fragrant flowers. She lives near a border with another nation. The smell of the flowers drifts across the border to...I think you can guess where I'm going with this. ;)

There are more examples I could come up with, but it would just get boring.

But let's go another direction just in case. If you are suggesting that only those items which are of more significant and widespread danger are de facto international issues, then I have to wonder on what standard we would determine their significance and widespread danger. I can't see any standards that would be remotely enforceable and remain appropriate, but perhaps you could suggest such a set of standards.

So would you support certain "humanitarian" war and weapons resolutions. Where would you draw the line on what becomes too much or not.

I would support them if they respect national sovereignty by refraining from making domestic policies.

I'd like to ask for an example of such an instance

Do you recall Roathin's proposal to place limits on national claims to sovereignty over areas of three-dimensional space? That was one case in which I think the physical scope of a nation's sovereignty is both a national and international issue.

On these boards they are lacking, but if you look at the massive list of proposals, that is the pattern I normally notice.

From which we can conclude what?

You could - I find the general forum itself moves too fast for me to be able to actually use it. On the other hand, the UN forums I can often read through everything I care about in 3 half hour sessions over the majority of the day and then clean up everything else in a hour or so before I go to bed. If I tried doing something similar on the main forums - that entire time might be spent just READING the responses to my post - let alone trying to find it and responding to the general falacies of belief.

I'm well aware of how General works, having spent a considerable amount of time there myself. If you want to debate the issues and be able to use RL statistics freely, that's the place to go, and I'm sure someone of your intelligence will be able to keep up with the fast pace.

Due to my break being over in about 30 seconds, I'm going to just get this part (grab the rest later)

I'm well aware of how General works, having spent a considerable amount of time there myself. If you want to debate the issues and be able to use RL statistics freely, that's the place to go, and I'm sure someone of your intelligence will be able to keep up with the fast pace.

Intelligence - yes
Time....not really
Patience - even less so (I REALLY hate stupid arguments)

Ah, a new twist on the old International Justification argument in which indirect effects on other nations are cited as cause for intervention by the UN. This one of few arguments that I would suggest is subject to a slippery slope effect. Almost any event (even matters of personal choice) could be argued to have significant indirect international consequences.

Let's take for example a man who likes to smoke cigarettes. He lives near a border with another nation, and when he's smoking on his back porch some of the smoke drifts over the border to the homes of several persons in the other nation. The other person coughs several times after breathing in the smoke. According to the International Justification argument this scenario should be subject to international law.

Let's take for example a woman who likes to garden and plant fragrant flowers. She lives near a border with another nation. The smell of the flowers drifts across the border to...I think you can guess where I'm going with this. ;)

There are more examples I could come up with, but it would just get boring.

But let's go another direction just in case. If you are suggesting that only those items which are of more significant and widespread danger are de facto international issues, then I have to wonder on what standard we would determine their significance and widespread danger. I can't see any standards that would be remotely enforceable and remain appropriate, but perhaps you could suggest such a set of standards.

Generally - I go from center of nation to center of nation when I think about "drift into other nations" (I also apply this to weapon use and other items - but that's beside the point). If you can see a measurable impact from the center of one nation due to a weapon that was used in the center of a neighboring nation, they I would consider that international issue (as it would not be significantly unreasonable that tere is a measurable impact upon nations far beyond). Fragrances I would hardly call measurable more than 10m away normally - for the very powerful scents, I would definately put a cap at 100m. Unless you're working with a nation that's pretty much a "strip nation" (a single, thin strip of land), that works quite nicely IMHO - neglecting, of course, broken up nations.

By that terms - I would actually consider Nuclear and Bio-weapons as well as certain types of chemical weapons (particularly ones deployed at higher elevations that could pollute - amongst other things - air quality or rain water) International issues. I would also consider air-pollution and going at supersonic speeds at low altitudes near your borders International issues - though the latter is slightly different and I wouldn't be able to argue with my above definition.

I suppose, to some extent, I see national projects that can "drift" across a border to become an international issue - while civil issues are less so. Admittedly, that leaves out air-pollution (as much of it comes from cars and factories) - but I actually (in the normal course of events) feel that specific regulations on pollution is up to the nations to decide (a national reduction as a whole might be UN jurisdiction, but how and where they reduce is their issue).

To some extent, I think I both did and didn't answer your question and perhaps compounded your slippery slope concern - but.....knowing where the limit is and being able to tell others where that limit is are two different things....

I would support them if they respect national sovereignty by refraining from making domestic policies.

*nods* fair enough.

Do you recall Roathin's proposal to place limits on national claims to sovereignty over areas of three-dimensional space? That was one case in which I think the physical scope of a nation's sovereignty is both a national and international issue.

Unfortunately - I don't believe I've seen that one - it might be before my time here. Regardless, thank you for the example.

From which we can conclude what?

Their popularity is rather high. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not stating it as an argument, just a fact.

I'm well aware of how General works, having spent a considerable amount of time there myself. If you want to debate the issues and be able to use RL statistics freely, that's the place to go, and I'm sure someone of your intelligence will be able to keep up with the fast pace.

Dealt with....

You still missed one issue - you didn't actually say WHY you were in the UN

We debated long and hard over whether Our nation should join the UN. We finally decided to join since We did not want our people living in a vacuum, not reacting to nor having an impact on other nations. Our greatest concern, however, is that in this rush to "mold the world on your vision", Our nation's culture will be annihilated. It's become painfully obvious that Our nation is pretty far from what the current UN vision seems to be. We joined the sovereignitist movement in order to hopefully expand that vision to embrace cultures "on the fringe" according to the no-doubt-well-meaning-but-perhaps-lacking-in-awareness-and-sensitivity types.

[OOC, we're RP'ing The Eternal Kawaii sort of like an emerging Third World state, having spent centuries in cultural isolation and finding itself adrift in a strange new world. :) Naturally, we're sceptical of this whole "UN" thing, but eager to take our part in the community of nations--if we can survive it.]

Given the bad press surrounding the NSO and the sovereigntist movement of late, I figure this bad boy could use a bump.

You've given me some food for thought.

Most of the time I see the "national sovereignty" argument thrown out as little more than "I don't like the resolution and don't want to comply with it."

I am seriously considering leaving the UN because of the Repeal of Abortion Rights. Perhaps I should stay.

Just to clarify, I ‘m not out to damage the NSO. I’m seeking to supply balance, which is all Hirota ever wanted to do (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426528). I’m fully aware the majority of the NSO are not the facists they might be perceived to be, and that a minority (not necessarily associated with the NSO) is responsible for the bad rep.

Given the bad press surrounding the NSO and the sovereigntist movement of late, I figure this bad boy could use a bump.

OOC: It could indeed. I hadn't seen it before, as its last post before yours was before I entered the game. Texan Hotrodders' arguments cover almost all of my reasons for holding a NatSov poitsion, too...
My other reasons are [1] the section of the rules about UN resolutions which says that they can't ban any ideologies, which I take as meaning "can't make it impossible to run nations under any ideologies" rather than just "can't ban saying that nations follow any ideologies";
and
[2] exasperation with the RL 'European Union'...

You've given me some food for thought.

Most of the time I see the "national sovereignty" argument thrown out as little more than "I don't like the resolution and don't want to comply with it."

I am seriously considering leaving the UN because of the Repeal of Abortion Rights. Perhaps I should stay.

I'm glad to have given you some food for thought. It makes that whole first post thing worth writing.

Texas Hotrodder's PositionHear hear, this is pure gold. In our opinion, NatSov is the primary concern of the UN. It must be preserved, at all costs, and this is exactly the argument i would have used.

--dunerat

Except your position is totally different to TH's

In our opinion, NatSov is the primary concern of the UN.

My position (IC) has in the past been that the United Nations, being an international organization, has as its proper scope of legal authority international law, by which I mean that the UN should address issues of true international importance through practical and effective legislation that shows at least a modicum of respect for the valid cultural, technological, and biological differences of the membership.
Big difference, TH thinks international legislation is what matters, you think national soverignty matters. National soverignty is merely a tool to promote the UN to focus on international legislation, not the end product. Otherwise we could write a resolution which says all nations are free to do whatever they want, repeal everything, and then nothing more needs to happen.

You misread my intent. NatSov is how one defines international law from domestic. Those who do not agree with NatSov would instead say that all laws are international, and therefore the provence of the UN. This is patently false, as TH says.

--dunerat

Hold up there cowboys. My position statement ain't a Bible y'all need to argue over the intended meaning of. If you can't come to a consensus on the intent of the passage, just go ahead and ask me.

I would consider myself moderately natsov, leaning towards fluffy. At the very least, there are more resolutions I would like to repeal than those that I support, and it takes a lot for me to vote *for* a bill that isn't international (as opposed to on a national level).

One of the arguments that always come up against natsov is that the UN is protecting it's citizens against their government, and I can't find anything more absurd.

Even in dictatorships, some portion of the nation put its' leaders into power. In no case was the UN elected by the people. In nearly every case aside from a few a nation is, at the very least, ruled or represented by a person from the nation, of the same culture, and of the same religion as the majority. Our history has shown that no man can stand without at least some degree of approval and support of it's citizens and considering that most of us are democracies, it is an overwhelming about of support.

To say that the UN is protecting the citizens from their government is nearly to say that the UN is protecting the citizens from themselves, which is what they say we're doing when we legislate on our home soils.

Furthermore, as delegates, we not only represent our own home nation, we represent the region, and while some regions are not so diverse, mine is vastly different from nation to nation. How am I to represent so many vastly different nations but to grant them the freedom to govern as they and their people want to govern/be governed?

Thank you to the representative of Texan Hotrodder for shining some positive light on the National Sovereignty Movement.