NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve been doing some work onto establishing an alternative argument to national sovereignty for some time now, almost months trying to pin down how to express this argument for a very long time (my earliest known comment on personal sovereignty was here: <http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9277540&postcount=2> - it has since been re-titled, but the sentiment remains the same)

Individual sovereignty vs. National Sovereignty vs. One-worlder

the "untouchable" argument National Sovereignty has used for so long.

For quite some time the UN has had a strong calling for the protection of national sovereignty, so much so that there is an organisation (the NSO, link in my signature at the end) created to promote and protect national sovereignty. On a more ad hoc basis, member states will oppose resolutions simply because it violates national sovereignty, with no awareness that there is an organisation that seeks to protect national sovereignty.

This has been the status quo for sometime, proposal gets made, and nations raise an outcry about national sovereignty being violated, proposal gets watered down. National Sovereignty has been the easiest argument for opposing a resolution, and there is not much that could be argued in the past.

National Sovereignists argue that a resolution unduly infringes on their nations freedoms to decide what is best for their nation. National sovereignty can be used as opposition for almost anything, from matters that are international in nature, to proposals that primarily micromanage member states on a national level.

National sovereignty has been used for a long time as opposition to the one-worlder policy, - that the UN has the power and the obligation to make the world a better place for everyone - by arguing that what may be suitable for one nation, will not be suitable to another. To a degree they are right - most proposals will infringe on national sovereignty

One worlders seek to promote global causes, such as international human rights, but also micromanagement causes, such as the distribution of computers to children. National sovereignists argue against micromanagement as being overly intrusive on national sovereignty, whilst one worlders point out the benefit to the whole of the membership of the UN of collaboration in such matters, and the benefit of sending out a strong united message for the promotion of causes.

Individual sovereignty

Individual sovereignty is the idea of promoting the supremacy of the individual’s freedoms over that of a nation, or the whole of the UN. It takes something from the national sovereignty argument, and applies it to the relationships between state and individual (whilst national sovereignty is about the relationship between the UN and the state). Individual sovereignists argue that the state has no business interfering in the affairs of the individual - that what may be suitable for one individual, will not be suitable to another, and that it is impossible for legislation to be suitable for all citizens or situations.

Individual sovereignists argue that by giving the state ultimate control, it infringes on individual sovereignty, and through legislation in the UN it ensures that the individual has the freedom to choose. It is effectively the same argument on a different scale.

How the UN works for Individual sovereignty & National Sovereignty

By legislating within the UN, Individual sovereignists have the ability to override a nations objections, and places freedom of choice into the hands of the individual. National sovereignists seek for the UN either to refuse to legislate, or to enshrine the supremacy of the state to decide. Whilst some member states will then legislate in the positive, giving the ultimate decision to individuals (with probable conditions set by the state), others will forbid outright, removing the freedom of choice from the individual. Individual sovereignists do not seek to ban individual choices, except when the topic is clearly national or international in scope.

By giving the choice to the individual, the individual has the ultimate choice, by legislating on it at a national level, it either preserves that right (and maintains the status quo), or outlaws it.

A graphical representation is available here: http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7605/nsth...ndividual8m.jpg (http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7605/nstheunthestatetheindividual8m.jpg)

How Individual sovereignty exposes national sovereignty (is it a silver bullet?)

Individual sovereignists argue that by giving the state ultimate control, it infringes on individual sovereignty, and through legislation in the UN it ensures that the individual has the freedom to choose. It is effectively the same argument as employed by National Soverignty on a different scale. Because the same argument can be applied to individual sovereignty, it is difficult for national sovereignists to attack - if one rules out the possibility that the individual should not be controlled by the state, one also undermines the possibility that the state should not be controlled by the UN. There is the possibility of accusing those who trump national sovereignty whilst disregarding the individual sovereignty argument of being hypocritical.

Balance

However, Individual sovereignty does not override the state sovereignty in all cases. The scope in which the nation is often considered paramount is in areas of defence, law and order, public services, foreign relations, and taxation. This list can be extended or shortened depending on the role of the government. Individual sovereignists will argue that the freedom of one’s self is paramount to personal sovereignty, and other freedoms as well. These freedoms need to be balanced against the security of a nation. The majority of personal sovereignists will argue that law and order can override Individual sovereignty as the breaking of law and order by an individual can often harm other individuals, and infringe on their freedoms.

Summary

Individual sovereignty provides a balancing force to national sovereignty. Both should be considered on a case-by-case basis. To totally ignore national sovereignty is to expose nations to lapsing into anarchy, whilst to totally ignore Individual sovereignty is to expose nations into lapsing into police states. Some people find those systems acceptable; most seek a balance between the two.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)
Author of the indigenous peoples resolution
I love individual soverignty

**applause**

I'll just briefly point out that "sovereignty" really is the English language word used when speaking of the authority and power entrusted to a government, and comes from the word "sovereign" (head of that government). The idea that authority or power ultimately comes from an individual is a different English language word:

LIBERTY

On that same National Sovereignty Organization pages, Ausserland and I have been talking a bit about "sovereignty" and how the term has been shifted here on NationStates to apply to individuals as well. Ausserland can correct me (and I hope he does if I get any of this wrong), but there is a term called "popular sovereignty" which dates back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his famous 18th century paper "The Social Contract" (written in French of course).

Interestingly enough Rousseau was writting about the formation of modern democracies and in particular using popular sovereignty to justify taking power away from a sovereign and entrusting it to a government responsible to the people and responsible for caring for those same people. Some of the paper is written about a group working together, and the social contract he speaks of is between people and their government.

It is my understanding that Rousseau was influenced by the writtings of English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who wrote about people giving their rights to governments for a more functional society and then English philosopher John Locke, who wrote that people should be able to change their government (contract) as needed.



That said, there are times that liberty (as it applies to an individual ... governments should still use the "S-word") is very important. The promotion of liberty is often called "liberalism" (which again is associated with the works of Locke).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Personally, I think liberty is a word that is all but forgotten in RL 21st century life and that it should be used when describing the following (as shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia):

"Liberty is generally thought of as a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority"

Another way to put that is to say that liberty is the individual's control over his or her own life.

When UN debates begin to jump into sovereignty arguments, "Sovereign focused governments" are technically correct to draw up another issue: international standing.

Now "international standing" isn't really a real world term, because RL governments actually do make use of "sovereign rights" to delinate political boundaries of the state from the actions of an international organization. However, legal standing is a real-life term:

"In law, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. For example, a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality."

Again, I'm without shame as in the essence of haste, I'm just copying from Wikipedia (but it a well written entry, as it jives with my legal understanding of "standing").

In international organizations, like the UN, members are guided be a Charter. Charters are designed to protect members of the organizations from other members of the organization using it against them *and* to protect the organization safeguarding members (thus preventing them from walking out the door). In NationStates we have no such Charter (which I think is actually a moderate failing in this game's design -- but I play because there also is ZERO enforcement of NS UN decisions -- reference Dodge War, moderators did not intervene when Sophista tested the will of the UN in refusing to implement Law of the Sea, and Frisbeeteria, now a moderator, took the issue to the Dodge Ball court instead of to Max Barry and his squad of moderators).

However, I still am guided by what I call international standing. To me this means that a resolution proponent should be able to put together a fairly direct and logical argument supporting why a particular UN resolution (UN action) is an international issue and of interest to some 30,000 nations (or whatever the total is at ... I've not looked since early Jan.). In essence, if a resolution seeks to make people go potty at 5 PM every day, we all can reason out that not only is that a silly idea, but there is no real reason that standarding this practice via the international community is going to have any benefit vs. allowing nations to find a better way of addressing whatever problem existed to require unified mass global potty time. ;)

Obviously for environmental problems, international standing comes from the fact that environmental problems rarely stop at political boundaries.

The tricky part then is for civil rights (i.e. liberty enhancement) and social justice (again ... liberty of a slightly different nature) proposals. The argument I've used in the past is that citizens of one country do in fact have a vested interest in the quality of life of citizens in another country (for a number of reasons), thus the international standing is ultimately the improving of international relations. Ultimately how strong these arguments promoting that there is an international benefit in a universal / global standardization of liberty really is influenced by a number of factors (including our regional relations and how important that particular liberal value is).

English philosopher John Locke, who wrote that people should be able to change their government (contract) as needed.Actually, Locke said it was the duty of citizens to revolt...

I'll just briefly point out that "sovereignty" really is the English language word used when speaking of the authority and power entrusted to a government, and comes from the word "sovereign" (head of that government).That's not entirely true - Consider a common dictionary for soverignty meaning:
1. the state or quality of being sovereign
2. the status, dominion, rule, or power of a sovereign
3. supreme and independent political authority
4. a sovereign state or governmental unit
Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition

Consider a common dictionary definition for sovereign:
1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : ARBITER
2 : any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom
Webster's online

A limited sphere can be, but is not necessarily a nation. For example, the pope can be considered to be sovereign over a faith (the sphere). On a comparatively microscopic scale a person can be considered sovereign over one's self.

On that same National Sovereignty Organization pages, Ausserland and I have been talking a bit about "sovereignty" and how the term has been shifted here on NationStates to apply to individuals as well.It’s not just on here. Run this (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+soverignty&meta=) search and wikipedia has a similar observation. It does go on to discuss Liberty as you have mentioned.

My ultimate point is that sovereignty is not just restricted to the state, has been used more recently to apply to individuals, but not just in NS, but in RL as well.

Moreover, the title individual sovereignty implies it has more in common with national sovereignty than other terms that can be applied, which is quite apt since individual sovereignty can simply be considered the application of the NatSov argument into the relationship between individual and state.Ausserland can correct me (and I hope he does if I get any of this wrong), but there is a term called "popular sovereignty" which dates back to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his famous 18th century paper "The Social Contract" (written in French of course).

Interestingly enough Rousseau was writting about the formation of modern democracies and in particular using popular sovereignty to justify taking power away from a sovereign and entrusting it to a government responsible to the people and responsible for caring for those same people. Some of the paper is written about a group working together, and the social contract he speaks of is between people and their government.

It is my understanding that Rousseau was influenced by the writtings of English philosopher Thomas Hobbes who wrote about people giving their rights to governments for a more functional society and then English philosopher John Locke, who wrote that people should be able to change their government (contract) as needed.

That said, there are times that liberty (as it applies to an individual ... governments should still use the "S-word") is very important. The promotion of liberty is often called "liberalism" (which again is associated with the works of Locke).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Personally, I think liberty is a word that is all but forgotten in RL 21st century life and that it should be used when describing the following (as shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia):

"Liberty is generally thought of as a condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority"

Another way to put that is to say that liberty is the individual's control over his or her own life. I’ve seen Ausserlands comments on this, which are a little out of my depth – I’m trying to get up to speed on the whole theory (reading wikipedia ironically) – but your definition you have borrowed for liberty is similar to individual sovereignty. My idea is that liberty is merely national sovereignty on a different scale.

I guess compared to Ausserland and a few others I am a mere novice on this matter, but I suspect that what I’ve done is applied some of the ideas that have been highlighted by yourself from RL into NS (possibly totally by accident).

In international organizations, like the UN, members are guided be a Charter. Charters are designed to protect members of the organizations from other members of the organization using it against them *and* to protect the organization safeguarding members (thus preventing them from walking out the door). In NationStates we have no such Charter (which I think is actually a moderate failing in this game's design -- but I play because there also is ZERO enforcement of NS UN decisions -- reference Dodge War, moderators did not intervene when Sophista tested the will of the UN in refusing to implement Law of the Sea, and Frisbeeteria, now a moderator, took the issue to the Dodge Ball court instead of to Max Barry and his squad of moderators).I actually wanted to get a charter passed way back in october 2004 – it took a lot of searching in google to find it on here - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-362840.html I might dust it off once more and see if it would be worth working towards.

EDIT: I just found the full original topic from as far back as April 2004 - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-324868.html The tricky part then is for civil rights (i.e. liberty enhancement) and social justice (again ... liberty of a slightly different nature) proposals. The argument I've used in the past is that citizens of one country do in fact have a vested interest in the quality of life of citizens in another country (for a number of reasons), thus the international standing is ultimately the improving of international relations. Ultimately how strong these arguments promoting that there is an international benefit in a universal / global standardization of liberty really is influenced by a number of factors (including our regional relations and how important that particular liberal value is).So you are saying that it is justifiable in your opinion to sometimes promote civil rights in a nation, overriding the government in question? Because that is exactly what I have sought - a degree of balance.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)
Author of the indigenous peoples resolution
I love individual soverignty

OOC: Interesting.
It seems to me that if recently-proposed resolutions [1] giving people the right to emigrate freely & [2] banning forced exile had both been passed, so that people could choose freely which set of national laws to live under, that might [in the context of NS] have provided a reasonable compromise between National Sovereignty & individual liberty: Do any of you agree?

It would have been a step towards an answer between the two – indeed it would simply be allowing individuals the same rights as nations have towards the UN. The UN cannot legislate a ban on membership (except in rules violations such as multiple nations within the UN of course, but that is more in the realm of game mechanics than legislation), and the UN cannot stop a nation joining or leaving the UN – these can be considered the same as banning forced exile of an individual, or stopping an individual joining or leaving a nation, albeit on a different scale.

That’s a very good example :)

Actually, Locke said it was the duty of citizens to revolt...

Second Treatise of Government for teh win! :cool:

That's not entirely true - Consider a common dictionary for soverignty meaning:
1. the state or quality of being sovereign
2. the status, dominion, rule, or power of a sovereign
3. supreme and independent political authority
4. a sovereign state or governmental unit
Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition

Consider a common dictionary definition for sovereign:
1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : ARBITER
2 : any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom
Webster's online

A limited sphere can be, but is not necessarily a nation. For example, the pope can be considered to be sovereign over a faith (the sphere). On a comparatively microscopic scale a person can be considered sovereign over one's self.


In relation to anything remotely INTERNATIONAL is refers to governments, not individuals.


EDIT: I just found the full original topic from as far back as April 2004 - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-324868.html So you are saying that it is justifiable in your opinion to sometimes promote civil rights in a nation, overriding the government in question? Because that is exactly what I have sought - a degree of balance.


Sure, but I still say there is a good word to describe the rights of the individual ... it is called LIBERTY. The people of France shipped a symbol of that word to the people of the United States years ago.

The concept of individual sovereignty has been established in the political literature with a slightly different meaning from liberty.

The short version: Liberty is inalienable, while sovereignty is not restricted by voluntary removal of liberties.

The long version: My country has 3 individuals. We all decide that we would work much better if nobody is allowed to steal from the others. We sign a treaty (law) claiming that anyone caught stealing will be shot by one of the others. This law is restricting our liberty; specifically, it is enforcing a rule forbidding each individual from taking what is not his. However, we are voluntarily giving up that liberty, because of the benefits of seeing the same rule applied to others. In this sense, our individual sovereignty is untouched, as the commitment is voluntary.

A small distinction, but makes a world of difference between anarchism and libertarianism.

NB: This is a positive description, not a defense/criticism of either concept.

Actually, Locke said it was the duty of citizens to revolt...

Locke also predates the French Revolution and the birth of the modern democracy. It is important to remember that he said it was the duty of citizens to change their government (voting really wasn't feasable under monarchies of the time) when they felt it was necessary.

Billy Idol he was not. :p

The concept of individual sovereignty has been established in the political literature with a slightly different meaning from liberty.

The short version: Liberty is inalienable, while sovereignty is not restricted by voluntary removal of liberties.

The long version: My country has 3 individuals. We all decide that we would work much better if nobody is allowed to steal from the others. We sign a treaty (law) claiming that anyone caught stealing will be shot by one of the others. This law is restricting our liberty; specifically, it is enforcing a rule forbidding each individual from taking what is not his. However, we are voluntarily giving up that liberty, because of the benefits of seeing the same rule applied to others. In this sense, our individual sovereignty is untouched, as the commitment is voluntary.

A small distinction, but makes a world of difference between anarchism and libertarianism.


First, that is a very well writtten distinction! :)

I think this still goes to my point though ... the sovereignty in your long example sounds more like Rousseau's popular sovereignty. The three individuals agreed to form a government and by doing so the 'sovereign' is that agreement / contract in which the rules seek to protect the group.

But what NationStates UN players are doing is claiming that each individual in other people's nations need to be protected from those other "less enlightened" states because they are a state in and of themselves (hence the introduction of an individual or personal sovereign). I've seen the following words recently used to talk about the rights of the individual: personal sovereignty and individiual sovereignty, but I still think these are the wrong terms.


Recently I've said elements of NationStates are broken, but I think the basic idea is very functional: civil / political / economic freedoms can go up or down.

Civil: Human Rights vs. Moral Decency
Political: Furtherment of Democracy vs. Political Stability
Economic: Free Trade vs. Social Justice

These aren't perfect, and Hack will be able to better explain the differences, but in a crude sense there are three main resolution categories that change our respective UN Categories and there they are. The other UN resolution categories tweak other variables.


If players are really wanting to refine how governments represent people, they are essentially talking about NationStates "Political Freedoms" and can move in one of two ways.

I think most of the time we are really just trying to ratchet up or down the civil or economic freedoms, which I equate with liberty (civil or economic).

I've run accross the idea of sovereignty being applied to individuals quite a few times in sociology studies. And, from what I've gathered there is a distinction between individual liberty and individual sovereignty.

When considering the best way to organize a social structure, unless one is genuinely an anarchist who thinks that private and voluntary action can be put on a pedestal above the whole of social space (including basic protections to person, property, and contract), the best social structure cannot be concluded to be the seperation of "individual liberty" from political action. Implementing a structure as this, to many of us, would be like a giant leap back to early human existance.

'James Buchanen' eplaines, however, when one refers to individual sovereignty and its seperation from political action, we are allowing the establishment of political-social institutions, but imply that these institutions be organized so as to minimize political coercion of the individual.

Coercion is defined as being required to do things or to submit to things others do to you, that you do not, or would not, voluntarily agree to do yourself or to have done to you.

A person may give up his or her liberty to steal from others and pay taxes to support the enforcement of laws against theft provided others are subjected to the same general constraints. So long as one's agreement to such political action is voluntary, the individual's "sovereignty" is protected, even though "liberty" is restricted.

So, Individual sovereignty, the voluntary submission to a political social action at the expense of an individual liberty is in fact a RL term and is more relevant when considering most NSUN proposals than individual liberty is.

If you take the concept of individual sovereignty to the extreme, obviously it becomes unworkable, as even a small country cannot be ruled by consensus. It is widely considered to be an "acceptable" limitation to have a majority rule in place. Thus, you could consider a "practical IndSov fanatic" someone who defends a "government by referendum," not unlike the system in place in RL Switzerland. Still, other representative systems (especially those with a libertarian touch) would be at least considered IndSov friendly.

A person may give up his or her liberty to steal from others and pay taxes to support the enforcement of laws against theft provided others are subjected to the same general constraints. So long as one's agreement to such political action is voluntary, the individual's "sovereignty" is protected, even though "liberty" is restricted.

So, Individual sovereignty, the voluntary submission to a political social action at the expense of an individual liberty is in fact a RL term and is more relevant when considering most NSUN proposals than individual liberty is.

I completely disagree.

In terms of NationStates we are national governments seeking to enforce a VOLUNTARY law upon national governments that in some what has an impact on its private citizens.

If players want to protect or restrict sovereignty, then there is a category called "the Furtherment of Democracy" or its opposite "Political Stability" which specifically relates to changes in the contract between a government and people. If instead they want to say "People should be free" they are in fact seeking to increase liberty.


Edit: the reason NS players are only *now* talking about people / individual sovereignty is they simply are cashing in on what they *believe* is an international sounding term for promoting freedom and civil rights in other governments -- and that still is simply promoting liberty.

Game mechanics may make that true, however, when I(and I presume others) read a proposal they consider it as something more personal than if we were truly heads of stateand confined by the parameters set by this game. We are not only our nations representatives, but our citizens aswell. And as real life suggests, citizens rarely give thought to details.

In most resolutions, we are dealing with individual sovereignty, as liberty only directly applies to those that, as you said, give "freedom to the people". All laws passed effect peoples sovereignty rights though, at the expense of liberty.

Attention all nations:
The UN Moral Supremacists are now asking you to list your nation and your password here as they know how to rule your citizens better than you and will from here on out decide your daily issues:

1. Dorksonia - Password: *******
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Actually, Individuals have liberty by electing their leaders. Whereas that cannot be done by abdicating this authority to the United Nations. Let's put a communist leader, military dicatatorship, democratic republic, socialist, and pychotic dictator in a room and come up with an agreement on "human rights" and make that binding on all nations. This leads to a tyranny by the majority of major differing philosophical viewpoints.

Government is best run on the local level, and by giving the United Nations authority to decide on anything but international issues the people are less represented and lose liberty.

Government is best run on the local level
Agreed, to an extent, but many nations have governents an authorities that deny rights and liberty to their citizens/subjects. An external agency such as the UN expressly assisting their claim for liberty is a boon to such people.

Your post is seriously messing up OOC vs IC, in my mind, anyway.

Interesting. My nation has been balancing individual sovereignty with national sovereignty for some time now. And if you want I can tell y'all why UN protections of individual sovereignty are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

Attention all nations:
The UN Moral Supremacists are now asking you to list your nation and your password here as they know how to rule your citizens better than you

No no no. Don't be so childish. Your citizens know how to rule themselves better than you do. And the UN is the best place to give them that opportunity.

Actually, Individuals have liberty by electing their leaders.

Not all individuals

Government is best run on the local level, and by giving the United Nations authority to decide on anything but international issues the people are less represented and lose liberty.

And the most local level is the citizens. So we're in agreement on that. Now, you know, like me, that not every nation follows our great insights, so we have to use the UN as highest level to bring decisions back to the citizens, the most local level.

Agreed, to an extent, but many nations have governents an authorities that deny rights and liberty to their citizens/subjects. An external agency such as the UN expressly assisting their claim for liberty is a boon to such people.

The Sudwerks beer zeppelin is on its way!!!

The Sudwerks beer zeppelin is on its way!!!
Heh. I prefer the term 'liberty' aesthetically, but I'm not really bothered which gets used. I find the discussions interesting but neither I nor Ecopoeia are allied with any of the movements (for want of a better word I can't think of at the mo - damn, language is a problem at the mo!).

Hope you're not hydrogen-fueled, we're gazing at the skies with awe and anticipation.

And the most local level is the citizens. So we're in agreement on that. Now, you know, like me, that not every nation follows our great insights, so we have to use the UN as highest level to bring decisions back to the citizens, the most local level.

Interesting point. However, the UN is furthest removed from knowing the people and their desires. Also the UN is composed of decision makers the local governments nor the people had any say over. When the UN is called to determine "human rights", for example, by a group composed of communists, democracies, psychotic dictators, socialists, etc. then I'm sure my individual nation can better represent my peoples views. Otherwise, the UN becomes the Tyranny by the majority.

And ultimately, your position is arguing for UN sanctioned anarchy on every nation.

Also the UN is composed of decision makers the local governments nor the people had any say over.
On this point... Ecopoeia's UN representatives are elected and plans are afoot to make the nation's vote subject to public referendum (we don't have the technology for this yet though) That's pretty representative. Given the number of dictatorships in the game, I think it's fair to say that plenty of people aren't being represented by their national authorities.

I would agree with the idea that individual sovereignty can override national sovereignty. But I would ask, who is it that is to decide what is in the interest of individual sovereignty? The UN? The Nation? The Individuals?

I say that in a perfect world, the individuals would decide what is in their best interest, protect their own sovereignty, and give up their sovereignty where they're willing--which all would likely happen in a world full of just and democratic and free national governments. In such a perfect world the UN would be largely a moot point--I mean, how would I, as a UN proposal writer, know what's good for Jow Schmoe from Mynation better than he does? Am I psychic?

But not every national government is just and fair and democratic, and some attempt to stifle the ability for their citizens participation in government, and infringe on their individual rights without consent (Or the old revolutionary cry “Taxation without Representation”). That's where I feel the UN has its central duty: to protect the base rights of those who can't protect their own through fair and free democratic government. That's a very specific mandate, and it's not as vulnerable to allowing the political whimsy of the UN micromanage peoples' lives or governments the way a "UN knows best" theory is.

Your citizens know how to rule themselves better than you do. And the UN is the best place to give them that opportunity.I agree with the first statement, but not the second. It's unrealistic to expect the UN to know what's in the best interest of over 30,000 different groups of citizens--moreso than the local, provincial or national governments, which the individuals have direct and meaningful access to, would. Granted, the UN is probably the only body that can protect individual sovereignty of individuals in totalitarian regimes. But I don't think that means the UN's guaranteed to know the peoples’ wills better than national governments.

I think we're saying largely the same things, I acknowledge that national governments can oppress individuals and need to be halted in that--by the UN. I also recognize (not to say that others don't recognize it) that the UN sticking its nose in national politics is oppressing individuals, too: disenfranchising them and taking away their rights to govern themselves.

Heh. I prefer the term 'liberty' aesthetically, but I'm not really bothered which gets used. I find the discussions interesting but neither I nor Ecopoeia are allied with any of the movements (for want of a better word I can't think of at the mo - damn, language is a problem at the mo!).

Hope you're not hydrogen-fueled, we're gazing at the skies with awe and anticipation.

Schmeiser Luftschiffaufbau still constructs some hydrogen filled (the gas lifts the airships, they are steered using fans) airships, though most of the airships coming out of the Schmeiser yards are helium based. The problem is always finding a good trading partner for helium. There is one region in Hawkins canton that is referred to in Mikitivity as the Helium Vola, meaning "Helium Underfoot".

A very interesting discussion and we thank our distinguished colleague from Hirota for starting it. We're not going to attempt to respond to any of the comments already made by our colleagues. We'd probably just end up confusing ourselves and everyone else. Instead, we'll just state Ausserland's views.

We believe that there are many levels of sovereignty, but we lump them together as follows:

Individual sovereignty: A person is free to determine his or her own actions without interference from any "higher" entity.

Popular sovereignty: People collectively determine courses of action for a group to which they belong. In terms of NationStates, the group would most logically be a government. It could be that this would rest at the local, state/province, or national level. In NationStates terms, it would probably equate most closely with the dreaded national sovereignty.

International sovereignty: The course of action is determined by an international body -- in this case, the NSUN.

Now, being dwarves, the people of Ausserland tend to be much more concerned with practicality than philosophy or theory. We mention that because it colors our views on sovereignty.

The basic principle we follow is that which level of sovereignty is appropriate regarding an issue must be determined based on the issue itself. We reject out-of-hand the notion that any particular type of sovereignty is necessarily "better" or has more of a claim to legitimacy than any other.

There are issues that clearly can be handled effectively only at the international level. As examples, we would propose issues dealing with the global environment, international relations, and arms limitation. In these cases, if the issue is to be addressed at all, international sovereignty would have to apply. Other issues, we believe, can and should be dealt with at the national level. And still others should be left to the individual's own choice. As we review NSUN proposals and decide on our position, this is a major influence on our thinking.

In our decisions, we often find ourselves coming down on the side of what can properly described as national sovereignty. The NSUN consists of more than 30,000 nations with widely varying geographic, economic, and socio-cultural environments. We believe that, in many cases, the people of individual nations are far better able to determine courses of action suitable to their needs than is an international body attempting to force-fit a one-size-fits-all course of action on thousands of widely differing nations.

This is in no way an absolutist position, though. We have voted in favor of many NSUN resolutions: those we believed properly and effectively addressed issues best handled at an international level. If we were to take an absolutist national sovereignty position, logic would require us to withdraw from the NSUN. It is rare that an NSUN resolution does not intrude -- to perhaps only a very small degree -- on absolute national sovereignty. Membership in the NSUN obligates us and our colleagues, we believe, to sometimes set aside the parochial interests of our nations in favor of the greater good.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Your citizens know how to rule themselves better than you do. And the UN is the best place to give them that opportunity.
I agree with the first statement, but not the second. It's unrealistic to expect the UN to know what's in the best interest of over 30,000 different groups of citizens--moreso than the local, provincial or national governments, which the individuals have direct and meaningful access to, would. Granted, the UN is probably the only body that can protect individual sovereignty of individuals in totalitarian regimes. But I don't think that means the UN's guaranteed to know the peoples’ wills better than national governments.

I think you meant that you agree with both my statements. After all, I didn't say that the UN knows better; I said that the UN is the best place to give people the opportunity to rule themselves, to do what they know is best for themselves. But that can only be known for each individual person, a government shouldn't interfere in personal matters. The UN doesn't need to know how all those billions of people think - it merely needs to give them the right to think for themselves, make their own choice.

I think you meant that you agree with both my statements. After all, I didn't say that the UN knows better; I said that the UN is the best place to give people the opportunity to rule themselves, to do what they know is best for themselves.Yeah and I don't think I agree with that, if I'm interpreting it correctly. I mean, I think the UN has a fundamental obligation to stop nations who more egregiously oppress their peoples. But I don't think the UN is the best place for individuals to go to have their voice heard in deciding how they will be governed.

So, if you mean "the best place" as in the best legislative body to determine national laws, then I disagree with you. But if you mean, the UN is in the best position to ensure the most fundamental human rights of people, than I guess I agree. The UN does have the most power of any international body and it controls, probably, has the largest membership of any international body. And saying it has the most power to do an action, isn't really saying that it should perform that action or not.

Maybe if I rephrase it to a bowling analogy, it'll help. I think The UN should (a) set rails on the edges of the bowling lane (stopping the most dictatorial and the obvious, or egregious violations), and (b) get out of people's way so they can decide for themselves if their government will be down the left, right or center of the lane.

I mean, it's just as important, to me, that the people get to decide what their government will do domestically as it is that all member nation's peoples' rights are protected (by the UN) in the most fundamental ways (that the UN protect children, for example). I want individuals to be free, and I see that as including their right to vote to give up some of their rights to their government--not the most fundamental ones, of course. I don't know how that correlates with your statements, so I suppose I am mistaken to say I agree with one of your statements and disagree with the other, as I really don't know if I agree with one, both or none.

Yeah and I don't think I agree with that, if I'm interpreting it correctly. I mean, I think the UN has a fundamental obligation to stop nations who more egregiously oppress their peoples. But I don't think the UN is the best place for individuals to go to have their voice heard in deciding how they will be governed.


I agree.

There is a category called "the Futherment of Democracy" and it isn't by accident that my government is a founding member of the International Democratic Union.

For a number of reasons, UN proposal authors are drawn to the human rights and free trade categories, which I believe most of us would agree result in game driven increases in two of our three freedom categories:

Civil: Human Rights vs. Moral Decency
Political: The Furtherment of Democracy vs. Political Stability
Economic: Free Trade vs. Social Justice

However, what is happening is that the justification and debates for many human rights category resolutions turn into questions about one *individual* stating that he doesn't trust another *individual* and thus wants the right mandated ... and while that is fine, the justification is that some governments aren't really representative of their people's will. We often debate about political freedoms and representation for very specific issues, but we are avoiding the larger issues. And in so doing, we actually are simply replacing one level of non-representative government with another. :(


The end result is players are effectively ignoring that by promoting democracy instead of individual ideals, that we can empower people to make their own choices ... but the reason "The Furtherment of Democracy" is relatively inactive is using it really is tossing a glove to would be dictators and bearing in for the real fight. It is hard to say, "I think your entire society isn't really giving a full range of choices to your citizens." Very hard. I don't want to be the one to say that! :/

We can and will continue to bicker about economic systems, religion, and reproduction (abortion and marriage), but I think by encouraging solid (roleplayed) connections, will eventually be better equipped to use bi-lateral relationships in order to foster democratic changes.

Just wanted to thank Mik and PC for making some very helpful comments in this discussion.

I would just like to point out that this is the United Nations, not the United Individuals.

Interesting point. However, the UN is furthest removed from knowing the people and their desires.

Irrelevant. I'm not saying the UN should say what people should do. It should say what they're allowed to do, and leave the choice on whether to do it to the people.

Also the UN is composed of decision makers the local governments nor the people had any say over.

Not all, but the opinions expressed here are from representatives of national governments, who are likely to be chosen by the people. If they aren't, well, the better it is that the UN can grant freedom to their people.

When the UN is called to determine "human rights", for example, by a group composed of communists, democracies, psychotic dictators, socialists, etc. then I'm sure my individual nation can better represent my peoples views. Otherwise, the UN becomes the Tyranny by the majority.

The UN *is* Tyranny by Majority. You know that at the point of joining. It's just that everybody tries to get that majority on their side. And that's the whole fun of the UN, the different view on issues and trying to find something that works. But it should always work for the people who live in our virtual nations. There are nearly 4 billion Groot Gouwenaren who all have their own vision. So I try to give them freedom to make their own choices. They can make the best decision. We facilitate.

And that's why your argument is wrong. Sure, your nation can represent your people's views. But which people's view are you representing? It's impossible to represent 100% of your people with only one point of view. To take abortion as example, because that's what has inspired all the discussions on this point: there are millions of Groot Gouwenaren who are against abortion. But my government's choice to let people themselves decide is what I bring forward, because that view doesn't mean the people against have to have abortions. They simply have to accept that some people have good reasons to have an abortion. Just like people have to accept that other people travel by polluting cars instead of bicycles, or where ugly clothes, or live together without getting married. There will always be a part of all those people who are against, but that doesn't mean a freedom should be taken away for everybody.

And ultimately, your position is arguing for UN sanctioned anarchy on every nation.

No, because Anarchy provides no limit on personal freedom, and allows it to extend to a point where other people's freedom is endangered.

Yeah and I don't think I agree with that, if I'm interpreting it correctly. I mean, I think the UN has a fundamental obligation to stop nations who more egregiously oppress their peoples. But I don't think the UN is the best place for individuals to go to have their voice heard in deciding how they will be governed.

So, if you mean "the best place" as in the best legislative body to determine national laws, then I disagree with you. But if you mean, the UN is in the best position to ensure the most fundamental human rights of people, than I guess I agree.

That's what I meant. The UN has the power to ensure basic rights for people, and it should use that power. It also has the power to decide that all men should from now on use pink lipstick and wear a tutu, and that's what the UN shouldn't do because it's micromanaging people's lives.

Maybe if I rephrase it to a bowling analogy, it'll help. I think The UN should (a) set rails on the edges of the bowling lane (stopping the most dictatorial and the obvious, or egregious violations), and (b) get out of people's way so they can decide for themselves if their government will be down the left, right or center of the lane.

I agree with you here. People should be free to decide whether they want to be oppressed, even. People can give away their freedoms, but then it's *their own choice*.

Quote:
And ultimately, your position is arguing for UN sanctioned anarchy on every nation.


No, because Anarchy provides no limit on personal freedom, and allows it to extend to a point where other people's freedom is endangered.

So what you're saying is that everyone should have the choice to do whatever they choose as long as another person is not affected by that choice? And that if another person is affected by another's choice then it's the United Nations that should make sure all peoples everywhere have the fundamental right to do whatever they please as long as it does not affect another? Just wanting to clarify before going on and responding to a wrong assumption.

So what you're saying is that everyone should have the choice to do whatever they choose as long as another person is not affected by that choice? And that if another person is affected by another's choice then it's the United Nations that should make sure all peoples everywhere have the fundamental right to do whatever they please as long as it does not affect another? Just wanting to clarify before going on and responding to a wrong assumption.

The first question made sense. The second question falls apart completely.

The first question does have a number of definition problems but as a vague idea it is fairly reasonable. In practice it is hard to find any example that doesn't impact some other person.

The second question is bizzare. If the fist question doesn't apply, does the UN have a requirement to ensure that the first question, whcih doesn't apply, be enforced in those cases where it does apply? :confused:

I'm going to assume it's just poor wording. The best assumption is to simply assume that you wanted to ask if the UN has the duty to enforce this to all its members. (NSUN cannot do anything to non members so "everywhere" is out of the NSUN jurisdiction.)

My opinion is "no." It is not a case of "should" but "can." And yes the NSUN can if it wants to, but who really wants to?

Ok, let me rephrase now that I'm more awake. I cannot directly respond to the above post because I could not understand you in your not understanding me :)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

1. Everybody (every individual within U.N. nations across the NationStates globe - or is it flat?) has the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect somebody else.

2. To ensure this, you believe the United Nations should pass laws wherever the individual's rights in any U.N. Nation are being violated. Realizing that the UN is not able to do anything about personal liberties of people in non-UN nations.

Correct me if I'm wrong in understanding this position.

A couple of thoughts...

Perhaps individual suzerainty or autonomy would be more appropriate, since sovereignty suggests a degree of independence that is unfeasible in all but the most extreme of anarchies.

In RL, I don't care for national sovereignty and would happily use the UN as a tool to force nations to ban the death penalty, allow abortion in rape and life endangerment cases, etc, etc. In NS, the nation is an entity with more integrity and national sovereignty is conceptually more justifiable in my eyes, hence Ecopoeia's more moderate approach. I've never seen the game as being about 'winning'. If, say, a death penalty ban is so unconscionable for many players that they will simply leave the UN, then this is counter-productive and bad for the game itself, I suspect. In this regard, it's interesting to see how the 'liberal' nations respond to the current (gentle) rightwards swing in the UN. In the past, many 'conservatives' have simply resigned. Will we see an equivalent response if trends continue? I suspect not, as it seems to me that the right have generally ever been a fan of the concept of an 'international community', which is why, perhaps, the sovereigntist movement has a conservative skew.

Here endeth the ramble.

(remaining IC, even though this is an OOC thread)

I think NatSov is seen as the domain of the right because the UN has traditionally been the domain of the left, and nothing more.

I think we should end all this, by passing Ator People's Global Emigration Rights. Then, everyone would have the right to leave countries they didn't like, thus negating human rights considerations.

(remaining IC, even though this is an OOC thread)

I think NatSov is seen as the domain of the right because the UN has traditionally been the domain of the left, and nothing more.

I think we should end all this, by passing Ator People's Global Emigration Rights. Then, everyone would have the right to leave countries they didn't like, thus negating human rights considerations.

We agree on Global Emigration Rights.

But that would not negate human rights considerations. You clearly have very little understand of the concept of a basic human right. An inalienable right and why it is wrong to violate it.

Ok, let me rephrase now that I'm more awake. I cannot directly respond to the above post because I could not understand you in your not understanding me :)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

1. Everybody (every individual within U.N. nations across the NationStates globe - or is it flat?) has the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect somebody else.

2. To ensure this, you believe the United Nations should pass laws wherever the individual's rights in any U.N. Nation are being violated. Realizing that the UN is not able to do anything about personal liberties of people in non-UN nations.

Correct me if I'm wrong in understanding this position.

You should read On Liberty (http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html), by John Stuart Mill.

We agree on Global Emigration Rights.

But that would not negate human rights considerations. You clearly have very little understand of the concept of a basic human right. An inalienable right and why it is wrong to violate it.
And you clearly don't understand basic national rights: the right to make our puppets dance.

Just wanted to thank Mik and PC for making some very helpful comments in this discussion.

I would just like to point out that this is the United Nations, not the United Individuals.

How droll.:rolleyes:

Lets face it the UN is the legislative body of NationStates. We have little control over our nations via issues. To truly address an issue as we may wish it to be addressed requires the UN.

Here, little more is being suggested than the UN enforce basic standards of human rights and dignity. You can call this liberty. You can call this individual autonomy. You can call this individual sovereignty. The label is not important. The substance of are minimal standards of human rights in the UN nations is important.

And you clearly don't understand basic national rights: the right to make our puppets dance.

I'm not surprised that is how you view nationbuilding, but its not impressive.

As does the RL UN, the NS UN has a role in seeing to it that you do not overly oppress your people.

As does the RL UN, the NS UN has a role in seeing to it that you do not overly oppress your people.Actually, no it doesn't. The NS UN has no charter, no mandate, no nothin' aside from the rules and restrictions on Proposals.

Actually, no it doesn't. The NS UN has no charter, no mandate, no nothin' aside from the rules and restrictions on Proposals.

Meh. The NS UN is free therefore to do what it likes within the restrictions on Proposals. Thus, the NS UN may have a role in seeing to it that you do not overly oppress your people.

In fact, the current NS UN has The Universal Bill of Rights

EDIT: Actually the NS UN also has a due process clause. That arguably makes bans on abortion illegal -- just as the RL US due process clause does.

Concession accepted.

'Due Process' - is that another one of those dumbass resolutions that assumes we all use the US legal system?

EDIT: Yes. Yes it is. Repeal!

Actually the NS UN also has a due process clause. That arguably makes bans on abortion illegal -- just as the RL US due process clause does.

It does? News to me.

Oh, and I've already had some very early discussions with another nation looking to repeal that bloody awful resolution. I have more pressing matters to attend to at the moment, but you can bet I'll be going after Due Process eventually.

1. Everybody (every individual within U.N. nations across the NationStates globe - or is it flat?) has the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect somebody else.

As long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of others, yes.

2. To ensure this, you believe the United Nations should pass laws wherever the individual's rights in any U.N. Nation are being violated. Realizing that the UN is not able to do anything about personal liberties of people in non-UN nations.

Correct. The UN has the power to protect the individual from too much government influence and should use its power as such.

OOC: More forum amusement, coming up.

How droll.:rolleyes:

Lets face it the UN is the legislative body of NationStates. We have little control over our nations via issues. To truly address an issue as we may wish it to be addressed requires the UN.

Ahahahaha! Are you kidding? I have a much greater affect on my nation's stats via daily issues than the UN ever will. And I have complete control over my nation's policies via roleplay. I can address policy issues in my nation far more effectively than the UN can, given my greater knowledge of my nation's characteristics and needs. What the UN is good for is bringing international attention to an issue. That's about it. Considering that the affect of a passed resolution on a nation's stats is minimal, there's no enforcement mechanism for making sure a nation's roleplay is in line with the terms of a resolution, and it's relatively easy to roleplay getting around the vast majority of resolutions, international attention and cooperation is about all you can accomplish with the UN. Personally, I ain't about to waste my time trying to guarantee human rights when the plain truth is that I can't, regardless of my feelings about national sovereignty.

Now if by the bolded statement you mean that to address an issue as I may wish it to be addressed means that I want to make myself feel better by demanding that other folks run their countries the way I do, you're dead wrong. Controlling other folk's nations ain't my business, just like controlling other individuals ain't my business. I'm here to get some international cooperation going and promote my ideas rather than forcing them on others.

Here, little more is being suggested than the UN enforce basic standards of human rights and dignity. You can call this liberty. You can call this individual autonomy. You can call this individual sovereignty. The label is not important. The substance of are minimal standards of human rights in the UN nations is important.

*brushes tear away from cheek* That was beautiful. Thank you for enlightening me. :rolleyes:

Here, little more is being suggested than the UN enforce basic standards of human rights and dignity. You can call this liberty. You can call this individual autonomy. You can call this individual sovereignty. The label is not important. The substance of are minimal standards of human rights in the UN nations is important. I agree - I think we are splitting hairs here about what “this” should be called.

I mainly called it individual sovereignty to imply parallels between the relationship between a nation and the UN, and the individual and the UN – I’m not qualified to make some sort of grand statement beyond that, or to discuss different labels and how they apply here. It appears I’ve created an extended debate on this and I would be well out of my depth to start wading further into that discussion. I certainly need to read the posts over the last 5 days before I would want to even attempt to try.

OOC: I think individual sovereignty or whatever you want to call it is easier to illustrate here since in RL, we are the individuals. Would you want your government poking it’s nose into your affairs? If you would not, then you want your “individual sovereignty” protected from your government. I imagine that’s why it’s easy for national sovereignty to get a grip in NS – in RL we don’t like being told by our equals what to do.

IC: I’ll just repeat it would be nice to have a UN charter, if one could be agreed. In fact, I might just create a topic for that now.

Actually I think I might gravedig the original back up.

The UN has the power to protect the individual from too much government influence and should use its power as such.

The basic purpose of every level of government is to protect rights. I think many of us disagree about which rights have what priority, and how to protect, but surely we can agree that protecting individual rights is the very purpose of any governing body?

Ok, the average user on the UN forums will not gravedig to discuss a dead topic more than once a year unless it's an official topic or a proposal they're working on themselves. Really, it almost never happens.

In the past month, alone you have gravedug the defining topics on both NatSov and IndSov and you stand as the only person in the history of the UN to do so, yet both concepts get a lot of discussion.

Why?

Because we discuss it all the time in many other threads. We have monthly threads that are split from major proposal debates because we are debating yet another aspect of IndSov and NatSov. Hirota almost never gets a chance to be on anymore.

I would've hoped that reasonability would've worked before but I guess you are incapable of using common sense when applying our unwritten rules. Let's put it this way for sheer simplicity so that you don't end up pissing us off - don't gravedig.

And seriously, you gravedig to make a post that isn't even about the main theme of the thread? If you had some great insight (which probably can't be accomplished in a paragraph or less), I wouldn't be posting with frustration.

Ok, the average user on the UN forums will not gravedig to discuss a dead topic more than once a year unless it's an official topic or a proposal they're working on themselves. Really, it almost never happens.

In the past month, alone you have gravedug the defining topics on both NatSov and IndSov and you stand as the only person in the history of the UN to do so, yet both concepts get a lot of discussion.

Why?

Because we discuss it all the time in many other threads. We have monthly threads that are split from major proposal debates because we are debating yet another aspect of IndSov and NatSov. Hirota almost never gets a chance to be on anymore.

I would've hoped that reasonability would've worked before but I guess you are incapable of using common sense when applying our unwritten rules. Let's put it this way for sheer simplicity so that you don't end up pissing us off - don't gravedig.

And seriously, you gravedig to make a post that isn't even about the main theme of the thread? If you had some great insight (which probably can't be accomplished in a paragraph or less), I wouldn't be posting with frustration.

OT rant:

Dag nabit. I thought my violation was that I was grave digging... off topic. That is what everyone complained about last time. Are you saying I'm off topic? People seem to try hard to narrowly define topics if I'm posting :)

If someone has a 365 day old thread in their sig, I follow the link. This topic right here seems very pertinent right now.

If the rule is don't post in threads over 365 days old... fine. When people have explained to me, "you are violating the rules of this community" I stop violating the rules mentioned. I really have been rereading every rules sticky I have been pointed to, no matter how many pages of rules there are.

Instead of doing what I just did, would you rather I started a new post, on a very similar theme to this, and just provided links to this thread? It wouldn't notify people that are subscribed to this thread, which is probably a good thing.

I don't understand the basic philosophy of these forums. I don't know why threads get closed at all. I don't know why people complain when someone is a little off topic. If someone is a little off topic and people don't like it, why don't they post a reply that is more on topic, and bring the conversation back on topic? I get dinged for going off topic... on dying threads. I stop posting.... and the thread dies. If the rule is all threads I post in must die.... fine :) I really will change my behavior to respond to the rules of the community.

IC On topic: At no point should we stop discussing the importance of national sovereignty in these halls. At no point should we stop discussing individual sovereignty.

There is no perfect law. Every UN law written either treads some on individual and national sovereignty... or it is toothles and accomplishes nothing. You can't have it both ways.

This is not to say that the UN should not write law, far from it. However someone needs to put forth the national sovereignty argument against every resolution. I often don't see anyone else stepping forward to do it. Even if I agree with a resolution... if no one takes the Nat Sov position our countries intellectual honesty requieres us to make the argument.

The same goes for individual sovereignty.

OT Rant: P.S. our delegation cannot be the "average delegation." Many UN members are hopelessly backward. They agree with archaic IP laws, written so small island nation A could prevent the cotton gin from being used by the rest of the world. It's intellectual protectionism. Our anti terrorism law is written by large states who fear small states will strike back at them in ways they can't stop no matter how large their army is. The harm large nations do with their armies is incalcuably greater then the harm individual citizens of small nations do.

You are quite right sir, we are not taking the "average" position, nor do we care to.

1) This is an OOC thread. That was your first mistake

2) If a thread dies after you post on it, it might be because no one cares about what you're saying. There could be many reasons for this - they don't care about the subject, they don't think there's any point debating with you, they think that you will completely miss the point, because they scurry off to a private off-site community where they see that everyone else already agrees with them or they have you on ignore because they're just sick of you.

Could be all of the above. Regardless, when you see threads die after you post on it, it's generally an indication that it isn't a subject you should continue on about because no one wants to discuss it - whatever their reason might be.

3) Actually, the seperate thread idea ISN'T a bad thing. What's stopping you from making your own threads?

4) There are rules about gravedigging

Gravedigging: Posting a reply on a long disused thread; bumping threads that aren't used anymore. Adding legitimate new material is permitted, and the acceptable age varies from forum to forum. Adding a book report in Jennifer Government is acceptable after months of inactivity, but bumping a week-old topic in General may not be.

Contrast to what I've said earlier

And seriously, you gravedig to make a post that isn't even about the main theme of the thread? If you had some great insight (which probably can't be accomplished in a paragraph or less), I wouldn't be posting with frustration.

The acceptable age on a forum such as this which is active is more or less a week to a month. Old drafts may be bumped by the author(s) at an infinite length of time and official threads (ala: ones that Hack makes regarding rules) generally have a few more immunities based upon "legitimate new material" that is pertinent to the discussion.

5) Theory threads like this and TH's NatSov thread....they should stay down. They're linked in people's signatures because they are the defining thread of some principle beliefs. If you want to make a thread about YOUR principle beliefs, feel free. If you want to ask a question about why something works the way it works, make your own thread. Actually, it's even better that you make your own thread because to make a good question/argument, you'd need to go through a bit of the thought process so we aren't just giving it blank looks

6) The core of the rules is a concept of common sense. Unfortunately, you seem to lack that and have a completely different concept of what common sense is so arguing that is nothing but pointless. BTW, considering that 95% of the community disagrees with you on your concept of common sense, I'd say it is fair to claim you lack common sense.

I wouldn't feed him.

1) This is an OOC thread. That was your first mistake


OOC: My style is your problem now? I always reply IC when possible. Why leave character when you don't have to?


2) If a thread dies after you post on it, it might be because no one cares about what you're saying. There could be many reasons for this - they don't care about the subject, they don't think there's any point debating with you, they think that you will completely miss the point, because they scurry off to a private off-site community where they see that everyone else already agrees with them or they have you on ignore because they're just sick of you.


Thank you for pointing out the sometimes my threads die because people don't want to listen to me. Threads also die because I several people attack me OOC when I post IC in a roleplay thread. Lay off.



Could be all of the above. Regardless, when you see threads die after you post on it, it's generally an indication that it isn't a subject you should continue on about because no one wants to discuss it - whatever their reason might be.


It also happens because people kill threads they don't like. I don't mind if you kill my thread because you don't like me. Other people suppot the same issues I do. They are repeatedly shouted down, their threads murdered etc.


3) Actually, the seperate thread idea ISN'T a bad thing. What's stopping you from making your own threads?


I don't make many threads on the UN forum :) It's not the most civil place.


4) There are rules about gravedigging



Contrast to what I've said earlier



The acceptable age on a forum such as this which is active is more or less a week to a month. Old drafts may be bumped by the author(s) at an infinite length of time and official threads (ala: ones that Hack makes regarding rules) generally have a few more immunities based upon "legitimate new material" that is pertinent to the discussion.


Then I suggest people stop putting year old threads in sigs, stopped linked to them, etc. I have not found any year old threads someone didn't lead me to. Why are people putting threads in sigs they don't want people to respond to?


5) Theory threads like this and TH's NatSov thread....they should stay down. They're linked in people's signatures because they are the defining thread of some principle beliefs. If you want to make a thread about YOUR principle beliefs, feel free. If you want to ask a question about why something works the way it works, make your own thread. Actually, it's even better that you make your own thread because to make a good question/argument, you'd need to go through a bit of the thought process so we aren't just giving it blank looks

6) The core of the rules is a concept of common sense. Unfortunately, you seem to lack that and have a completely different concept of what common sense is so arguing that is nothing but pointless. BTW, considering that 95% of the community disagrees with you on your concept of common sense, I'd say it is fair to claim you lack common sense.

Dude, who doesn't want to dicsuss their defining beliefs?

OOC: I will stop gravedigging :) I will only link to old threads.

IC: Common sense is a bloody illusion. It's called "common sense" because it can't be explained. Saying it's "common sense" is a weak argument, made when one can't explain something better.

OOC: Perhaps I do lack common sense :) I don't want the views of 95% of the people here, but I am happy to discuss their views. I can admit I may be a fool, my sig used to be wisefool. It's not hard to get me to change my behavior. You explain how a community works, if no one objects, I stop violating whatever rule I'm violating.

My problem is, I know my distinguished colleagues are gaming the system. The rules are being forced in particularly ways for particular reasons. Does anyone claim the mods are impartial?

I wouldn't feed him.

Loutish troll, why are you here?

Tell you what. I shouldn't have posted this here. I'm, reposting it in it's own thread :)

Ugh. Enough already. Let the theory threads lie. You're allowed to make new threads. Look for the pretty button that looks like this: http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/newthread.gif

As for OOC/IC, there are lines of demarcation that you seem to ignore. I've seen you be clearly OOC in IC threads and now you're being IC in a clearly OOC thread. I'm sure you know the definitions, so why not use them appropriately?