NationStates Jolt Archive

The UN's decline in international affairs has been apparant for some time now. The UN was created to resolve international issues, but it has begun to resolve issues that do not solve an international problem (any problem between nations), and instead effect intra-national issues (issues that are exclusive within an individual nation that doe not concern international affairs). I am trying to start a political movement to fight agaisnt the UN's violation of individual nation's rights- chiefly civil liberties, political freedoms, education- and to encourage resolving international issues- enviromental, economic, etc. Please contact me if you would like more information. The reason this is so alraming is that the nations in the UN risk becoming part of a super confederacy, rather than an international assembly.

~Fossor~

First off: http://img137.echo.cx/img137/408/thenotthesamecard5gk.jpg

This UN wasn't created with any particular purpose. It just changes the world, one resolution at a time.

Next: even if this was based on the real world, you still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The RL UN has passed a large number of resolutions concerning human rights (eg The Rights of the Child).

And then: how do you figure things like political freedoms aren't part of international politics? If one country has no political or civil freedoms, then the residents may seek asylum in another country. Internal politics causes changes externally.

Such a group already exists. You may want to check them out...

Click Here (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)

The NSUN hasn't just started focusing on intra-national issues, but has been doing that right from the start. You might want to check out the passed resolutions to see what I mean.

As Waterana has suggested, your ideas probably coincide with some of ours, as members of the National Sovereignty Organisation.

I am trying to start a political movement to fight agaisnt the UN's violation of individual nation's rights- chiefly civil liberties, political freedoms, education-I'm all for taking national soverignty into consideration, but I think it is important that "personal soverignty" is also protected, sometimes at the expence of national sov. I call it personal soverignty as is the idea that the best person to decide on certain matters is the individual, and the UN should work to protect the individuals rights to decide.

I'm actually working on a big long post to explain it further - not got very far with it!
and to encourage resolving international issues- enviromental, economic, etc. Please contact me if you would like more information. The reason this is so alraming is that the nations in the UN risk becoming part of a super confederacy, rather than an international assembly.I've thought for a long time that the NSUN acts more like the RL European Union.

And then: how do you figure things like political freedoms aren't part of international politics? If one country has no political or civil freedoms, then the residents may seek asylum in another country. Internal politics causes changes externally.

While I am well aware this is true of opressive nations, what if there is a benevolent dictatorship where the majority of citizens are happy, and the minority of unhappy people are not necessarily mad at the government? Why should a ruler who has made the right decisions have their right to govern taken away because the rest of the world does not agree with their government's style? Is not the health and happiness of citizens the goal of a government? Democracy can lead to a functual government, but it can also lead to mob rule. If a Dictatorship can maintain the health and happpiness of its citizens better than some democracies, why is it any worse than a democracy? It is absurd that the UN can pass legislation demanding that governments have democracy. I ask you this: what is the purpose of this game if every UN nation has to be the same?

Different strokes. . . lol

While I am well aware this is true of opressive nations, what if there is a benevolent dictatorship where the majority of citizens are happy, and the minority of unhappy people are not necessarily mad at the government? Why should a ruler who has made the right decisions have their right to govern taken away because the rest of the world does not agree with their government's style? Is not the health and happiness of citizens the goal of a government? Democracy can lead to a functual government, but it can also lead to mob rule. If a Dictatorship can maintain the health and happpiness of its citizens better than some democracies, why is it any worse than a democracy? It is absurd that the UN can pass legislation demanding that governments have democracy. I ask you this: what is the purpose of this game if every UN nation has to be the same?

Different strokes. . . lol

Those sentiments are exactly why the NatSovOrg was founded. It's a good balance against the one-worlder sentiments of old.

Is not the health and happiness of citizens the goal of a government?

Not necessarily, no.

IC: The NSUN was designed, founded and managed in such a manner as an extra layer of government. It exists as such. We, the members of the UN, can bind its powers and prevent it from using those powers and being an International Government, but that doesn't, necessarily, mean that was its purpose. The purpose of the creation of the UN by Max Barry isn't entirely known, nor was his intent. He merely told us what it was capable of, and what the dangers of that capability were, while hiring UN Gnomes to make sure this capability could be met. Obviously, there is a large portion of the NSUN that believes we should be an International government. There is also a large portion, including a large majority of those who are seen as lead figures within these halls that believe otherwise. While it is a perfectly valid belief and, like International Federalism, comes with its own set of flaws and failings as well as triumphs, to claim either one was the intended purpose of Max Barry would be to rewrite history to suit your own belief. There is certainly the possibility, but that does not make it fact.

Thus, I argue let us not claim what we were intended to be, but what we should be. Let us argue based upon the merits and failures of different systems and how they would affect the individual issue, belief, and situation. Let us argue not based upon what was once thought to be our job, but what is our job - and that is to look at these resolutions and discuss, debate and convince one another on their value and failings, and whether one aspect outweighs another on its value to this body and its members.

i haven't been involved in the UN for long compared to other players but of the proposals being passed recently the vast majority of them i've opposed.

the reason; i strongly believe in national sovereignty. the only one i could support was representation in taxation because it put into words the way governments work in NS.

with the passing of the Global Food Act I believe that we're on the road to an economic power bloc (ooc: like the real life EU).

yet more free trade proposals are being drafted and thought about but is that what we really want from the UN?

what happened to looking after your less better of neighbour? Giving a child a computer won't help them in the long run or even creating a free market where they'll lose out even more than they do already.

We all know the proverb, Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

What poor nations need is practical help to build up their country. Loans won't help them but providing them with clean water will kill a lot of diseases dead and help them to move their country on.

Once they have the basics of life in place they can work their way out of poverty. it may take a generation or even two but they will manage it. then they will be able to become consumers and exporters themselves.

i haven't been involved in the UN for long compared to other players but of the proposals being passed recently the vast majority of them i've opposed.

the reason; i strongly believe in national sovereignty. the only one i could support was representation in taxation because it put into words the way governments work in NS.

with the passing of the Global Food Act I believe that we're on the road to an economic power bloc (ooc: like the real life EU).

yet more free trade proposals are being drafted and thought about but is that what we really want from the UN?

what happened to looking after your less better of neighbour? Giving a child a computer won't help them in the long run or even creating a free market where they'll lose out even more than they do already.

We all know the proverb, Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

What poor nations need is practical help to build up their country. Loans won't help them but providing them with clean water will kill a lot of diseases dead and help them to move their country on.

Done, done, done

Once they have the basics of life in place they can work their way out of poverty. it may take a generation or even two but they will manage it. then they will be able to become consumers and exporters themselves.

Debatable

i am all for national sovereignty (just waiting for my admission into NSO), jut that the thing that gets me atm is the fact that people come in with big grand ideas about restructuring the UN and b**** when people tell them that there are rules and that they cant just 'overthrow' the UN. as i said in another thread: has silly season started already??

i am all for national sovereignty (just waiting for my admission into NSO), jut that the thing that gets me atm is the fact that people come in with big grand ideas about restructuring the UN and b**** when people tell them that there are rules and that they cant just 'overthrow' the UN. as i said in another thread: has silly season started already??

Clearly.

as i said in another thread: has silly season started already??
Actually, it never ended to begin with.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

i haven't been involved in the UN for long compared to other players but of the proposals being passed recently the vast majority of them i've opposed.

the reason; i strongly believe in national sovereignty. the only one i could support was representation in taxation because it put into words the way governments work in NS.

I find myself in a similar situation. However, the solution is not (as some have suggested in a wide range of threads) to overthrow the UN or create some rival organisation. This has already been tried in the form of the NS General Parliament, and it has achieved limited sucess. The way that we can oppose the UN in its current form is to create a strong base of nations who militantly defend national freedom and continue to oppose abusive resolutions and support repeals. It is important to note that several key resolutions have been repealed as of late, and I hope this continues.

I find myself in a similar situation. However, the solution is not (as some have suggested in a wide range of threads) to overthrow the UN or create some rival organisation. This has already been tried in the form of the NS General Parliament, and it has achieved limited sucess. The way that we can oppose the UN in its current form is to create a strong base of nations who militantly defend national freedom and continue to oppose abusive resolutions and support repeals. It is important to note that several key resolutions have been repealed as of late, and I hope this continues.

Or - you know - to resign.

First off: http://img137.echo.cx/img137/408/thenotthesamecard5gk.jpg

This UN wasn't created with any particular purpose. It just changes the world, one resolution at a time.

Next: even if this was based on the real world, you still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The RL UN has passed a large number of resolutions concerning human rights (eg The Rights of the Child).

And then: how do you figure things like political freedoms aren't part of international politics? If one country has no political or civil freedoms, then the residents may seek asylum in another country. Internal politics causes changes externally.

Yes but when NSUN starts takeing libertys with things such as small business's which have no international impact unlike the political issues. I beleive the NSUN has oversteped the boundries. It is just like the gay rights amendment some people like it some dont but it wasnt realy an important issue on the world wide scale.

I would actually say that gay rights does have an important place in world politics - my heartfelt belief is that human rights are far more important than anything like national boundaries.

Though you may have a point with the small business resolution.

Yes but when NSUN starts takeing libertys with things such as small business's which have no international impact unlike the political issues. I beleive the NSUN has oversteped the boundries. It is just like the gay rights amendment some people like it some dont but it wasnt realy an important issue on the world wide scale.

You have a point. Both the small business and IT Education Resolutions have been, I think, grossly exploitive of national independance. These are such trivial issues to the world as a whole that they need to be decided on an individual basis in order to avoid generalizations and bureaucracy.

The way that we can oppose the UN in its current form is to create a strong base of nations who militantly defend national freedom and continue to oppose abusive resolutions and support repeals. It is important to note that several key resolutions have been repealed as of late, and I hope this continues.
If that's how you feel then you may want to look into joining the NSO. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If that's how you feel then you may want to look into joining the NSO. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
[kiddy voice]yay boss, i finally got my membership :):):):):)[/kiddy voice]

Giving a child a computer won't help them in the long run or even creating a free market where they'll lose out even more than they do already.

We all know the proverb, Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.


It's exactly what IT Education is about. humanitarian aid should be about nutrition, health and clothing but also help to create new economic activities