NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, Im looking for some support to repeal the old "Citizen Rule Required" resolution, its just not practical or applicable for dictatorships and such.

and before you say it, yes! I know there are two, Im not a duchebag who doesnt search through before wiriting proposals! :headbang: Im pretty sure we posted those at almost the same time because I did look through...

Just please support the less stupid of the two (currently on page 6, but moving up), thannk you!!! :)

Description: UN Resolution #8: Citizen Rule Required (Category: The Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNISING that each Nations' form of government is determined by their stances on certain issues and depends on past and future legislation, and that the ability to determine government type is a given right of any Nation's leadership, be it even to designate a Nation a dictatorship;

EMPHASISING that the "Citizen Rule Required" resolution is a dated document which does not consider said power and right of Nations;

EMBARASSED at the ambiguity and meaninglessness of the "Citizen Rule Required" resolution, giving citizens "some say and control over the way they are governed."

NOTING that it may be the choice of the leadership of any given nation exactly how much political power is alloted to it's citizens;

FURTHER NOTING WITH REGRET that there are Nations which allow their citizens little or no governmental decision making power, however, they exist and the "Citizen Rule Required" resoution cannot and does not apply to them, therefore essentially denying their existence;

PROPOSES the repeal of "Citizen Rule Required" and

SUGGESTS the future proposal of a resolution to promote some standard of individual political power for citizens of Nations which choose a style of governing which allows this.


Thanks again! ;)

No, in a fragile world, democracy deserves protection and support from the democratic institutions of the U.N.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live people-ruled Compadria!

No, in a fragile world, democracy deserves protection and support from the democratic institutions of the U.N.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live people-ruled Compadria!

That is an ignorant idealistic viewpoint - we cant deny the existence of dictatorships, I dont like them anymore than you! As long as they exist, legislation like this has no juristiction over them. Like I said at the end, I suggest further legilsation to promote individual governmental freedoms where possible.

That is an ignorant idealistic viewpoint - we cant deny the existence of dictatorships, I dont like them anymore than you! As long as they exist, legislation like this has no juristiction over them. Like I said at the end, I suggest further legilsation to promote individual governmental freedoms where possible.

I dispute that this is ignorant: We are not denying the existence of dictatorships, only pushing that we retain a means to try and force them to accept majority rule. Individual governmental freedoms, will not have the effect of a grand strategy; that is why we shouldn't repeal this legislation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Kirisubo supports this repeal.

we may well be classed as a dictatorship but our system of government works for us. Crime is virtually unknown, our people work hard and they're a lot safer than most people in 'democratic' countries.

the way a nation is governed is up to the country in question not the UN or anybody else.

I dispute that this is ignorant: We are not denying the existence of dictatorships, only pushing that we retain a means to try and force them to accept majority rule. Individual governmental freedoms, will not have the effect of a grand strategy; that is why we shouldn't repeal this legislation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I see what you are saying about "retain[ing] a means to try and force them to accept majority rule" however if you'll refer back to the original resolution and review the wording it really isnt doing that - its making a statement that is not true and that is impossible to enforce:

"require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen "

Two other things:

how is it creating "international peace?"

and the grammar is horrendous.

Like I said twice, the repeal would have a follow-up proposal, perhaps with a section detailing that nations not complying would be severed from trade ties...The intent of "Citizen Rule Required" is admirable but the execution is impossible and we are trying to upholding a higher standard in UN proposals/resolutions these days, are we not?

All I'm saying is that it needs to be re-written and re-worked in more detail for better functionality and to maintain the obviously positive intent - do you see what I mean?

(lets make clear that I am all for the giving citizens more power thing)

The united nations is formed in the ideals of preserving peace and equality. Why allow dictators to participate arent they the enemy of our democratic dreams???? I say no to repealing!!! The people are the say they shoudl govern all that is the ways of the TGS and will always be.

All UN laws are automatically enforced and a country cannot ignore it, all countries WITHIN THE UN must indeed already have this in effect. Ergo, as it is already in effect, it is certainly not unrealistic.

It may be unrealistic to force all countries to have nuclear weapons, but if I wrote a resolution that mandated such then all countries would indeed have to have nuclear weapons.
No matter how unrealistic it would be

OK everyone seems to be having a really hard time grasping that the purpose of the repeal is to rewrite it in a better more functional fashion! Read the frikken thing before you post, it was written but a second grader! Its so ambiguous it hardly means anything, I mean come on. What is "some say?!"

Im so tired of repeating myself - WE ARE TRYING TO ADHERE TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF UN PROPOSALS/RESOLUTIONS and this is one that just needs to be better! Specific, thourough, no loopholes, intelligent presentation, are these things of no importance anymore?

I'll repeat myself on another point - I support the good intent of Citizen Rule Required! All I'm trying to do is make it less retarted.

All UN laws are automatically enforced and a country cannot ignore it, all countries WITHIN THE UN must indeed already have this in effect. Ergo, as it is already in effect, it is certainly not unrealistic.

It may be unrealistic to force all countries to have nuclear weapons, but if I wrote a resolution that mandated such then all countries would indeed have to have nuclear weapons.
No matter how unrealistic it would be

The only problem with that is by definition you cant be a dictatorship and have citizens with governmental power. Its like passing a resolution that says "no democracy ever." There are still democratic nations in nationstates, its just a part of the game's infrastructure.

No

Due to the fact that idealogical bans are illegal, the resolution cannot be any more stringent about requirements of populace say in government than is stated in this resolution. As such, a repeal would be pointless as a better resolution would simply be impossible.

The Adnarian Democratic Republic oppose to this repeal.Pressure on them can convince them to abort the dictatorship.Albert Einstein said that the state created for the human,and not the human for the state!
Robert Jones,
Foreign Minister,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria

It may be unrealistic to force all countries to have nuclear weapons, but if I wrote a resolution that mandated such then all countries would indeed have to have nuclear weapons.
No matter how unrealistic it would be
Ah, but to do so would violate UN resolution #109 Nuclear Armaments which specifically states that is the individual nation's right to choose for themselves whether or not to possess nuclear weapons.

Anyway, to get back on topic, we support this repeal not due to the fact that we're currently classified as a dictatorship (Father Knows Best State to be specific) but because first off it does contradict the rule about idealogical bans, and secondly it violates national soverignty.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I see what you are saying about "retain[ing] a means to try and force them to accept majority rule" however if you'll refer back to the original resolution and review the wording it really isnt doing that - its making a statement that is not true and that is impossible to enforce:

"require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen "

Two other things:

how is it creating "international peace?"

and the grammar is horrendous.

Like I said twice, the repeal would have a follow-up proposal, perhaps with a section detailing that nations not complying would be severed from trade ties...The intent of "Citizen Rule Required" is admirable but the execution is impossible and we are trying to upholding a higher standard in UN proposals/resolutions these days, are we not?

All I'm saying is that it needs to be re-written and re-worked in more detail for better functionality and to maintain the obviously positive intent - do you see what I mean?

(lets make clear that I am all for the giving citizens more power thing)

The reason I stated that it would spread international peace, is that if governments are required in incorporate a degree of democratic process into their political systems, then they will become more responsive to the views of their citizens. Usually, as a general rule, the average citizen of a nation does not like war nor wishes to participate in it, hence will pressurise the government not to go to war. Though this doesn't always prevent military action, it often makes some governments reconsider their actions and even the possibility of this is, however slight, is a means that the resolution furthers the cause of international peace.

Oh and my grammar is not 'horrendous' you pompous so-and-so, anyway, what relevance does this have with the topic eh? :gundge: :mad:

Besides:

it was written but a second grader

All I'm trying to do is make it less retarted.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

how is it creating "international peace?"

OoC: How many example's can you think of when two democracy's went to war?
I can only think of two, neither of which were real wars.
1941: Britain declares war on Finland, because they are at war with the USSR, but Britain doesn't actually fight them
1972: Britain declares war with Iceland; but doesn't really fight them. I think we may have shot a few holes in a couple of fishing nets, though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_peace#The_democratic_peace_theory (Wikipedia link about this sought of thing)

You may be interested to note the section below...

how is it creating "international peace?"

OoC: How many example's can you think of when two democracy's went to war?
OOC: Wasn't Hitler democratically elected?

OoC: That's a common misconception. Hitler did indeed have some seats in the Wiemar parliament, but he was only a small party in a coalition; basically due to events in Germany, and the fact that the Chancellor was appointed by the president, he was appointed chancellor. When the President died, Hitler used emergency powers to abolish all political parties bar the nazis, and merge the role of Chancellor and President into one role of "Fuhrer". I can't remember the exact circumstances, but the answer is no.
It would be a bit if the Queen appointed the very small Respect party MP George Galloway PM for some reason or another, then he abolished the other parties, and proclaimed himself monarch and PM when the queen died

Garbage Bag Johnny supports this repeal even though you misspelled the word douchebag.