NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution is so bad I HAD to repeal it.


The United Nations,

COMMENDING the democratic intentions of Resolution #8, “Citizen Rule Required,”

NOTING that not all U.N. nations wish to be democratic,

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #8, “Citizen Rule Required,” claims that citizen rule promotes “international peace,” which is not always true,

UNDERSTANDING that Resolution #8 fails to define which position the declaration for "citizen rule" applies to, making the resolution vague and ineffectual,

CONSIDERING that Resolution #8 does not adequately define “rouge nations,” nor how citizen rule deters said “rouge nations,”

ALSO CONSIDERING that Resolution #8 condemns certain governments, such as anarchies and dictatorships,

UPHOLDING that it is outside the mandate of this body to condemn specific political systems,

BELIEVING that member nations should decide on their own form of government at local, regional, and national levels,

REPEALS Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required.”

Co-Authored by: Jey


Original text:

This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.



This has been discussed here before; what do you think now?

We favour a repeal of this resolution; we don't think it's for the UN to be promoting particular systems of government, and we don't buy the postulated correlation between democracy and degree of rougosity.

As the co-author, I support. The UN should not be supporting one type of government over another; this proposal demonstrates opposition to anarchy and autocracies.

Also, Gruen, check what I posted about this on unog.

As the co-author, I support. The UN should not be supporting one type of government over another; this proposal demonstrates opposition to anarchy and autocracies.
I fail to see how the original resolution demonstrates opposition to anarchies such as The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra. The original resolution does not call for democracy, but for 'self rule'. We believe the systems of government (or lack thereof) in our Leaian and Solenscree regions meet this criterion.

I fail to see how the original resolution demonstrates opposition to anarchies such as The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra. The original resolution does not call for democracy, but for 'self rule'. We believe the systems of government (or lack thereof) in our Leaian and Solenscree regions meet this criterion.

If there is no government whatsoever (as in a true anarchy), then citizens have no say in the way they are governed...as they aren't governed.

If there is no government whatsoever (as in a true anarchy), then citizens have no say in the way they are governed...as they aren't governed.

One could argue that each individual is governed by himself.

There are some of us Dictators who would not mind this one being overturned at all.

Approved. Another badly written, vague resolution that should be wiped out.

Yes, this resolution is poorly written and vague; and although Dancing Bananaland supports democracy it accepts that some nations have doen well with their various other forms of government, and beleive the outright repressal of these forms of government is immoral. We, the DBL Delegates, fully support this repeal.

One could argue that each individual is governed by himself.
Indeed, as the Solenscree do. Looking at it a different way, we've chosen not to have a government, so we have therefore have had a say in how we are governed. (The Leaians on the other hand have a pseudo-anarchistic purely administrative government.)

Opposed. Despite the horrid wording and everything, I like the essence of it.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Thanks everyone, congrats Dankism.

Congrats.

I agree with Forgottenlands. Opposed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

I agree with Forgottenlands. Opposed.
That is because you would prefer that a democratic majority vote away the rights of individuals, than that benevolent dictatorships keep such rights sacrosanct. Disgusting.

Given the current state of repeals these days I will be against this repeal. After all, I'm getting tired of being on the loosing side. :p

We will likely support repeal - there are far more effective methods for undermining authoritarian states.

Mathie Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

That is because you would prefer that a democratic majority vote away the rights of individuals, than that benevolent dictatorships keep such rights sacrosanct. Disgusting.

Ok stats time :

From the A UN Category Survey (Official) taken in May of 2003
http://www.nationstates.net/page=nationstats/pin=32337743/_weblab=/target=nationstats/_IP=82.227.95.182
And from:
Categories of Government Types and Freedoms
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8029726&postcount=1

Here are the results
:
% of nations who have:
-High personal freedom among those who have high political freedom = 28,8%
-High personal freedom among those who have low political freedom = 6,8%


-Low personal freedom among those who have high political freedom = 3,2%
-Low personal freedom among those who have low political freedom = 40,0%



Here is the full sheet:
http://test256.free.fr/freedom.jpg

--completely missing the point--
All of which goes to show benevolent dictatorships are possible.

Why should they be undermined?

All of which goes to show benevolent dictatorships are possible.

Why should they be undermined?


Yes benevolent dictatorships are possible.
But the odds for a nation to have low personal freedom, are 5 times more important when political freedom is low, than when political freedom is high.

Yes benevolent dictatorships are possible.
But the odds for a nation to have low personal freedom, are 5 times more important when political freedom is low, than when political freedom is high.
Two things:

1. There are still some benevolent autocracies who could be undermined by having democracy thrust upon them - even they may be a very tiny minority, shouldn't we still consider them?
2. Gambling on correlations is dangerous. Obviously, this is a big sample, but that still doesn't rule out the possibility of coincidences, or more probably, other mitigating factors - such as

and I hate to do this but

OOC: the way the game treats freedom of speech/expression/press.

Yes benevolent dictatorships are possible.
But the odds for a nation to have low personal freedom, are 5 times more important when political freedom is low, than when political freedom is high.
It doesn't matter; the UN has no right to oppress certain types of governments sinply because those types of government sometimes suppress personal freedoms.

It's like a government saying they will wiretap all their citizens, because a few are comitting crimes.

Two things:

1. There are still some benevolent autocracies who could be undermined by having democracy thrust upon them - even they may be a very tiny minority, shouldn't we still consider them?

"Citizen Rule Required", along to #128 "Representation in Taxation"
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=127

1.FIRMLY ENCOURAGES member nations to allow citizens the highest degrees of representation regarding the taxes incurred upon them,

and #99 "Discrimination Accord"
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=98

2. The right to participate in government,


does just introduce some elements of democracy, they are not going very far.

2. Gambling on correlations is dangerous. Obviously, this is a big sample, but that still doesn't rule out the possibility of coincidences, or more probably, other mitigating factors - such as

The gap is too much huge, I never hoped it will be so wide when I decided to calculate it:) ... stunning...

and I hate to do this but

OOC: the way the game treats freedom of speech/expression/press.

OOC: I made these stats by curiosity, this is 100% roleplay, as NS freeedom levels calculation may be debated

OOC: I just don't like this resolution because...welll...I just feel it infringes too much on a player's right to have a personalized country, but still be in the UN.

Love and esterel,

Regardless of those resolutions, my previous statements still stand. The UN still can't infringe on a nation's rights to run itself because some nations may suppress freedoms. See above post.

It doesn't matter; the UN has no right to oppress certain types of governments sinply because those types of government sometimes suppress personal freedoms.

It's like a government saying they will wiretap all their citizens, because a few are comitting crimes.


Not sometimes, 40% of the times;) ; Do you know any nation where 40 % of people commit crimes? apart maybe in OMGTKK, I have to admit, any numbers?

Love and esterel,

Regardless of those resolutions, my previous statements still stand. The UN still can't infringe on a nation's rights to run itself because some nations may suppress freedoms. See above post.

And what about governments infringing on people right to run their own life, when these people don't bother anyone else?

Not sometimes, 40% of the times ; Do you know any nation where 40 % of people commit crimes? apart in OMGTKK, I have to admit.

What about the other 60%? Why should they be comdemned by the UN because of the harms the other 40% commit? Hell, 40% isn't even a majority.

That is because you would prefer that a democratic majority vote away the rights of individuals, than that benevolent dictatorships keep such rights sacrosanct. Disgusting.

Agreed. And I trust our Kennyite friends will respond appropriately to the slander directed at the Federal Republic.

That is because you would prefer that a democratic majority vote away the rights of individuals, than that benevolent dictatorships keep such rights sacrosanct. Disgusting.

The end does not justify the means. Individuals draw legitimacy for their rights from society and if society feels that they cannot ascribe legitimacy to those rights, then so be it, for good or bad. I'm not saying I agree with widespread repression, just that I'd rather it was done democratically if it had to be done at all.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The end does not justify the means. Individuals draw legitimacy for their rights from society and if society feels that they cannot ascribe legitimacy to those rights, then so be it, for good or bad. I'm not saying I agree with widespread repression, just that I'd rather it was done democratically if it had to be done at all.
That is comically sick.

That is comically sick.
But in a (functioning) democracy, at most 50% of the population can be brutally oppressed (unless they like being oppressed, of course). Dictatorial oppression can go much further.

It is not for the UN to dictate what sort of government its member states should have.
To suggest that a democracy is somehow the best form of government shows a certain amount of naivety. It was the opinion of Plato that democracy was the third worst form of government. Tyranny was the very worst, and aristocracy and oligarchy were better. In any case, it is a historical reality that there have been as many good monarchies as bad ones.
Who came up with that resolution in the first place?

--Rooty

It was the opinion of Plato that democracy was the third worst form of government. Tyranny was the very worst, and aristocracy and oligarchy were better.
Ah Plato, through whose mind absolute truth is revealed... Seriously though: saying 'it was the opinion of Plato' does not constitute a logical argument.

This is the first time the UN pulled my interests in posting...

How do we Rogue nations really threaten all nations? :(...I feel so hated now...

You don't threaten Cluichstan. And those who do get invaded.

You don't threaten Cluichstan. And those who do get invaded.
OOC: I just finished re-reading the Anti-Terrorism Act debate. Amazing how little things have changed...

You don't threaten Cluichstan. And those who do get invaded.Apart from those with bigger nations ;)

Apart from those with bigger nations ;)

We just nuke the snot out of them. ;)

Ah Plato, through whose mind absolute truth is revealed... Seriously though: saying 'it was the opinion of Plato' does not constitute a logical argument.

Are you an idiot?
Pointing out one possible philosophical idea on a given subject most certainly constitutes an argument. That's what one does when debating: cite an example that supports a position. Instead of standing there telling me it doesn't, why don't you provide an opposing opinion or debate WHY Plato might have been wrong? There are certainly reasons.

--Rooty

Are you an idiot?
Pointing out one possible philosophical idea on a given subject most certainly constitutes an argument. That's what one does when debating: cite an example that supports a position. Instead of standing there telling me it doesn't, why don't you provide an opposing opinion or debate WHY Plato might have been wrong? There are certainly reasons.

--Rooty
No, it doesn't. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

It certainly doesn't when you don't actually explain why Plato thought that. You just presented your interpretation of his opinion as fact, and left it at that.

That is comically sick.

A dictatorship is by definition a state where a change of opinion by one man or a small cabal affects the policy of a whole nation. In a democracy, the legislation usually requires the tacit approval of a majority prior to imposition, approval which can withdrawn if disagreement develops. Thus, oppression ultimately can be halted at any time. With a dictatorship, no means exists to readily correct abuse of power, so the situation is altogether more precarious and risky. Today's benevolent dictator can turn psychotic with the drop of a hat and no redress is going to be possible under the circumstances.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

It certainly doesn't when you don't actually explain why Plato thought that. You just presented your interpretation of his opinion as fact, and left it at that.

<blinks twice>
I did no such thing.
<tosses kid a copy of the Republic>
I take it this isn't required reading in school anymore?

--Rooty

<blinks twice>
I did no such thing.
<tosses kid a copy of the Republic>
I take it this isn't required reading in school anymore?

--Rooty
OOC: never has been, least not round my way.

<blinks twice>
I did no such thing.
<tosses kid a copy of the Republic>
I take it this isn't required reading in school anymore?
Nope, but I read it anyway. You shouldn't assume however that most people here are familiar with it. Taking just the content of your posts, your point seems to be that it's naïve to assume democracy is the best, with the supporting argument that Plato thought it was the third worse. I do know why he thought that (though I disagree with him), but most people here won't. Quoting someone's opinion without reference to their argument is, as Gruenberg pointed out, the fallacy of Appeal To Authority.

We are in full support of this proposal. The fact that it says that Local, Regional and National levels is of no consequence is laughable. This implies that all citizens have equal say at all levels. This is would drown out any voice of dissent and create a Tyranny of the Majority.

Ok stats time :
<SNIP>

Here is the full sheet:
http://test256.free.fr/freedom.jpg

By this argument, wouldn't it also then be logical to require governments to heavily limit free enterprise? Iron Fist Consumerists and Corporate Police States both are more prelevent than Iron Fist Socialists.

Card thought...

http://www.stygiansounds.com/plato.jpg

;)

&lt;blinks twice&gt;
I did no such thing.
&lt;tosses kid a copy of the Republic&gt;
I take it this isn't required reading in school anymore?

--Rooty
I've read it, thanks.

Good argument: Democracy is bad because blah. Plato said "blah", and this is true/good/whatever, because blah.

Bad argument: Plato said blah.

An interesting comment by Caleb McCarry, US transition co-ordinator for Cuba, appointed by the US administration:

"We are providing support for a process of transition that helps Cubans recover their sovereignty and hold free and fair elections."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4899414.stm

I personnaly agree; a different concept of sovereignty?

OOC: I just finished re-reading the Anti-Terrorism Act debate. Amazing how little things have changed...[OOC: Apparently you didn't read it thoroughly enough: I was the one making wild threats of invasion against everybody! :p]

An interesting comment by Caleb McCarry, US transition co-ordinator for Cuba, appointed by the US administration:

"We are providing support for a process of transition that helps Cubans recover their sovereignty and hold free and fair elections."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4899414.stm

I personnaly agree; a different concept of sovereignty?
must ... resist ... temptation ... to ... rant

Kenny, you're right - you were the military aggressor, Cluich just shouted at everyone. *snigger*

must ... resist ... temptation ... to ... rant

Kenny, you're right - you were the military aggressor, Cluich just shouted at everyone. *snigger*

Indeed. It was difficult to get the voice of reason heard over the chorus of ignorance. ;)

Besides, Cluichstan prefers covert action to direct military confrontation, though we are more than capable of the latter.

Bad argument: Plato said blah.

Which is not what I said, if you'll bother to go back and read.
Stop being combative.

--Rooty

Which is not what I said, if you'll bother to go back and read.
Stop being combative.

--Rooty

No one's being combative sir, but I have to agree with Gruenberg on this point.

It is not for the UN to dictate what sort of government its member states should have.
To suggest that a democracy is somehow the best form of government shows a certain amount of naivety. It was the opinion of Plato that democracy was the third worst form of government. Tyranny was the very worst, and aristocracy and oligarchy were better. In any case, it is a historical reality that there have been as many good monarchies as bad ones.
Who came up with that resolution in the first place?

--Rooty

Which is pretty much Plato says blah.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

MUST RESIST GETTING INTO THIS STUPID ARGUMENT.
MUST RESIST.
MUST.

Oh well having failed that. I would hate to stir the waters on this silly little debate, but isn't the general concept of what we would call a "democracy" in essence what Plato would call a "republic?" But hey the thought of language evolving over time. Well that's Greek to me as well. :p

I am in full support of this repeal. I will defend this repeal. I may get childish, rude, snarky, sarcastic, or belligerent in defense of this repeal. The previous situation will get worse every time I feel forced to repeat my reason for such defense of this repeal. My reason is simple. My reason is this:

WHAT RIGHT DOES THE UN HAVE TO TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY OWN GOVERNMENT?

For every time I holler NATSOV during this debate, I will strangle a puppy and force feed the puppy to a vegan white rhino, causing the rhino to choke and die.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

For every time I holler NATSOV during this debate, I will strangle a puppy and force feed the puppy to a vegan white rhino, causing the rhino to choke and die.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

OOC: This just made me spit soda everywhere. :D

OOC: Aren't rhinos vegan by default?

OOC: Aren't rhinos vegan by default?

OOC: Don't let silly things like facts get in the way of teh funnay. :p

OOC: Don't let silly things like facts get in the way of teh funnay. :p

OOC: Fair point, I must engage the humour part of my brain more often.

OOC: Aren't rhinos vegan by default?
OOC: Doesn't that just make it easier to find vegan white rhinos?

I am in full support of this repeal. I will defend this repeal. I may get childish, rude, snarky, sarcastic, or belligerent in defense of this repeal. The previous situation will get worse every time I feel forced to repeat my reason for such defense of this repeal. My reason is simple. My reason is this:

WHAT RIGHT DOES THE UN HAVE TO TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY OWN GOVERNMENT?

(snip)

While I do hate to rain on the national sovereignty parade (OK, that's a lie - I actually enjoy it quite a bit), considering that the mandate of the United Nations ends exactly where its members decide it ends, the UN has *every* right to tell nations how to run things. Of course, the Secretary-General has indicated that outright bans on certain forms of government are not acceptable, but a requirement that citizens be granted political rights is hardly the constraining yoke that most national sovereigntists make it out to be.

If one does not like a given resolution, by all means work to repeal it, but let's not pretend that the UN membership lacks rights to effect changes within its ranks.

Krioval speaks true, though I fear this will be of scant consolation the white rhinos, vegan or otherwise.

While I do hate to rain on the national sovereignty parade (OK, that's a lie - I actually enjoy it quite a bit), considering that the mandate of the United Nations ends exactly where its members decide it ends, the UN has *every* right to tell nations how to run things. Of course, the Secretary-General has indicated that outright bans on certain forms of government are not acceptable, but a requirement that citizens be granted political rights is hardly the constraining yoke that most national sovereigntists make it out to be.

If one does not like a given resolution, by all means work to repeal it, but let's not pretend that the UN membership lacks rights to effect changes within its ranks.

We are willing to grant our citizens rights. However, as a dictatorial monarchy, they bugger up the works politically. Our Benevolent Master works towards our interests in that he understands that when the nation does well, so does he. By being forced to allow the average citizen any kind of a say into the government, it muddies the waters, as the average citizen might not understand the intricacies of the big picture to the same degree that He does.

As for the UN rights within its ranks. As an international organization intended to bring about international peace, trade, harmony, or whatever else, I (and I believe many NSO members would agree) am fully willing to accord the UN full rights to deal with and legislate on international matters. The role my citizenry play in the government of Kivisto does not fall under this purview.

Now where did I put that bloody rhino?

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

I fully understand that we can grant citizens a couple of titular positions that don't actually do anything, or something else equally as meaningless, so that it wouldn't interfere with the actual running of the country. If we look at things that way, then the original resolution is useless and should be lifted from the books as it adds nothing to the character of the UN Nations in any way. Any legislation that meaningless isn't worth the time to read, let alone the paper taken up to write it down.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Rouge nations? I'm sure there's a few out there that this piece claptrap legislation wound cover.

We are willing to grant our citizens rights. However, as a dictatorial monarchy, they bugger up the works politically. Our Benevolent Master works towards our interests in that he understands that when the nation does well, so does he. By being forced to allow the average citizen any kind of a say into the government, it muddies the waters, as the average citizen might not understand the intricacies of the big picture to the same degree that He does.

As for the UN rights within its ranks. As an international organization intended to bring about international peace, trade, harmony, or whatever else, I (and I believe many NSO members would agree) am fully willing to accord the UN full rights to deal with and legislate on international matters. The role my citizenry play in the government of Kivisto does not fall under this purview.

The views of the NSO, while possibly valid, are the views of the NSO. They are not the founding principles of the NSUN, however, which is far more broad. Plenty of resolutions deal specifically with national interests, and I would hazard to speculate that if all of those were repealed, many people would stand to lose a great deal of personal liberty as a result.

I could just as easily say that the entire point of view of the NSUN is to bring governments to heel when it comes to individual freedoms - to constrain national legislatures, executives, and judiciaries in order to ensure that people have a basic level of privacy and healthcare, for example. Krioval would further argue that nearly anything could be classified as a "national issue" - environmental resolutions that deal with deforestation, for instance, say that an individual nation cannot raze its own forests at will. The converse is also true. I could say that taxation policies in a given nation may have effects on my economy, and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the UN.

Ultimately, these sorts of back-and-forth debates on the mandate of the UN are going to fall back on personal opinion (fine - it underlies most aspects of legislation). It does tend to get messy when someone says:

I may get childish, rude, snarky, sarcastic, or belligerent in defense of this repeal.

For this representative, getting into the above is about as fun as being buggered by a drunken paladin on the eve of the Festival of Sefaro the Destroyer. Some may look forward to such things (see: other paladins), but should something go wrong...well...

Ambassador Yoshi Takahara
Republic of Krioval

OOC: Actually, I don't mind snarky or sarcastic. I feel that it would be hypocritical of me to do so. As for the others, "Meh." Good luck with the repeal. I'm planning to abstain.

All that for an abstention!?

OOC:MUST RESIST GETTING INTO THIS STUPID ARGUMENT.
MUST RESIST.
MUST.

Oh well having failed that. I would hate to stir the waters on this silly little debate, but isn't the general concept of what we would call a "democracy" in essence what Plato would call a "republic?"
Not really. What Plato called the Republic, as I understand it, would nowadays be somewhere between absolute oligarchy and mediaeval feudalism. Letting the people decide for themselves, even through representatives, was Plato's idea of chaos incarnate.
Interestingly, his teacher, Socrates, quite liked Athenian-style democracy.

OOC:

I thought Socrates rather disliked democracy. I realise that one must take everything Wiki says with a grain of salt, but I do seem to remember something like this from my Phi101 class:

"It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world that only the wise man can understand" making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. According to Plato's account, Socrates was in no way subtle about his particular beliefs on government. He openly objected to the democracy that ran Athens during his adult life. It was not only Athenian democracy: Socrates objected to any form of government that did not conform to his ideal of a perfect republic led by philosophers (Solomon 49), and Athenian government was far from that."

OOC: Well, Socrates never saw himself as wise. But let us end this rather bizarre OOC debate now, lest it turn into another nautical mile clash.

In response to Krioval:

With the way that you have argued your case for the UN's rights (or at least the case you made, be it your view or not), I am willing to accept that the purpose of the UN is open to a certain amount of interpretation with arguments that could be made at any number of points that could move the lines we use to delineate jurisdiction twixt international and national affairs. Probably why I haven't become an actual member of the NSO.

Further accepting, and, somewhat regretfully, agreeing that it does, to a degree, come down to a matter of individual opinion on a great many matters, since it is true that, barring complete isolationism, the activities of one nation can, in all likelihood, have impact on the socio-political or economic structure of other nations with which they deal.

That being said, and reinforcing that I was aware of such legislation when I joined the UN and the repercussions of such, while the UN can't enforce or ban any particular governmental style, The Citizen Rule Required Act is tantamount to antithesis to a true dictatorship or monarchy, where either a single individual with appointed advisors or a small ruling class makes all of the decisions and the citizenry have no say at all.

The current legislation is what keeps Kivisto as a Constitutional Monarchy. We feel it would be false advertising to label ourselves as a Dominion as long as those we hold 'dominion' over have a hand in their own political fate.

I fully realize that there are many that do not agree with such sentiments. They feel that the people should have a say in their own lives, and I aknowledge and allow their right to exist within societies that allow that. Myself, as a citizen of Kivisto, am much happier knowing that the big decisions are being made by The Master. He does know what is best for us (here in Kivisto) and the interference of the populace has, and will do nought but fog the clarity of The Master's vision. We simply ask for the same aknowledgement of our right to be ruled as we wish.

The UN and its esteemed members may be able to work out a great many matters of extreme import, but it is arrogant to assume that enforcing the participation of the populace in government across the board is the best possible choice.

For a single case situation (forgive me Kenny, if I overstep my bounds), the people of OMGTKK are renowned for being uneducated and frankly quite stupid. These people perhaps should not have a hand in running any government. Realistically, if the rumours are to be believed, they shouldn't be allowed to dress themselves without assistance.

Something of this nature really should be dealt with on a case by case (read: nation by nation) basis instead of using a blanket enforcement.

My apologies, but I must go buy some more puppies. The first rhino used up my immediate supply.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

I thought Socrates rather disliked democracy.

Correct. It was the second worst form, exceeded only by outright tyranny.
There are, in fact, many reasons to dislike democracy. We call these reasons "stupid people who screw everything up." ;-) In any case, there have been many successful non-democratic societies in the past. It is extremely myopic to suggest that democracy can be the only successful sort of society based on the fact that the majority of successful nations today happen to be democratic.
Someone above posted that the UN has the right to dictate how nations run themselves and what sort of governments they have. You are misinformed. The real UN is, in fact, quite limited in it's power. By and large, their function is bureaucratic. They make proposals, hold endless meetings and conferences on issues, send in peace keeper troops, and put sanctions and embargos against nations for different things. They are not capable of determining what is or is not a legal war (UN apologists notwithstanding), and they are certainly not capable of forcing a nation to accept particular standards, especially if that nation is powerful. You have to keep in mind that there is a dramatic difference between what the UN was theoretically intended to be and what it has practically become.

--Rooty

NSUN does not equal RL UN, we have the power.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

NSUN does not equal RL UN, we have the power.

<snort>
Not really.
I mean, are you honestly going to go through and boot out ALL nations that don't have some form of democratic government? You would lose more than half the UN.

--Rooty

We don't boot out, we just modify their governments in line with the resolution (well by we I mean the U.N. Gnomes). Anyways, plenty of autocratic governments have survived this resolution, so I don't think the dictators of the NSUN are suffering unduly.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

We don't boot out, we just modify their governments in line with the resolution (well by we I mean the U.N. Gnomes). Anyways, plenty of autocratic governments have survived this resolution, so I don't think the dictators of the NSUN are suffering unduly.

How can there be dictators if you are forcing all governments to be democratic? I mean, read what you wrote: "we just modify their governments..." So, you are proposing that everyone be forced into allowing their citizens to choose, but you don't give actual people a choice on how they want to do things?

--Rooty

How can there be dictators if you are forcing all governments to be democratic? I mean, read what you wrote: "we just modify their governments..." So, you are proposing that everyone be forced into allowing their citizens to choose, but you don't give actual people a choice on how they want to do things?

--Rooty

No, the resolution has several areas where a country can offer a pretence of democracy and get away with it, without the actual motives or operation of the mechanisms of 'democracy'.

This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.

So they could give self-rule on areas of little influence and with little power for the civillian chosen institutions (like the zemstvo and early duma's of 19th century Russia). They could rig the vote in favour of the ruling party or only offer the choice of approving state approved or backed candidates. There's no specification therefore no actual way of implementing a truly democratic system or enforcing its implementation using the resolution. It's fluff, but harmless fluff. I can't really see a need to repeal it when there are more pressing issues at hand.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The views of the NSO, while possibly valid, are the views of the NSO. They are not the founding principles of the NSUN, however, which is far more broad. Plenty of resolutions deal specifically with national interests, and I would hazard to speculate that if all of those were repealed, many people would stand to lose a great deal of personal liberty as a result.

I could just as easily say that the entire point of view of the NSUN is to bring governments to heel when it comes to individual freedoms - to constrain national legislatures, executives, and judiciaries in order to ensure that people have a basic level of privacy and healthcare, for example. Krioval would further argue that nearly anything could be classified as a "national issue" - environmental resolutions that deal with deforestation, for instance, say that an individual nation cannot raze its own forests at will.Yes, yes, you best gets your anti-NatSov licks in while it's still in vogue. The moronic fluffy/IntFeds majority is back, and with a vengeance, after having spent a long, dark winter in exile, so the urge to tell us, "We're all so much better than you" is hard to resist. Even when arguing with a non-NSO member, and planning to abstain on a NatSov-friendly repeal. ;)

For a single case situation (forgive me Kenny, if I overstep my bounds), the people of OMGTKK are renowned for being uneducated and frankly quite stupid. These people perhaps should not have a hand in running any government. Realistically, if the rumours are to be believed, they shouldn't be allowed to dress themselves without assistance.You think Kennyites are dumb, you should meet the Kriovalian ambassador (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9963242&postcount=46) to OMGTKK.

But in all seriousness, regarding the bit about Kennyites not having a hand in running any government, anyone who has dealt with our president would be inclined to agree -- and immediately change his opinion once he meets our VP.

[Suddenly realizes the president may see the transcript of this debate later on.]

Damn it! Madame Chairwoman, I move that last remark be stricken from the record!

We don't boot out, we just modify their governments in line with the resolution (well by we I mean the U.N. Gnomes).Ah, so Compadrians are UN Gnomes, huh? We should have expected as much, seeing as how Mr. Otterby is only too enthusiastic to allow the NSUN to legislate and supercede national governments on seemingly any issue, no matter how trivial.

Besides, the gnomes serve no practical purpose; they only exist so that we may shoot them (we gotta entertain ourselves somehow in our Antarctic wilderness hideaway). We find Mr. Otterby's attempts to use them to Godmode other nations in extremely poor taste.

As to the matter at hand, this bill seems to have been borne out of a simple-minded belief that democracy is some magic wand that would solve all of society's problems. Democracy is not an end, and by no means does it accomplish anything for societal betterment by itself (and anyone beholding the situations in RL Palestine and Iran would have to agree). It is through respect for the rule of law and basic human rights, accountable government, and proper checks and balances (to avoid governmental excess) that a people may reap the benefits of a free society. The standing resolution does nothing to that end.

We therefore support a repeal of Resolution #(whatever): Citizen Rule Required.

Ah, so Compadrians are UN Gnomes, huh? We should have expected as much, seeing as how Mr. Otterby is only too enthusiastic to allow the NSUN to legislate and supercede national governments on seemingly any issue, no matter how trivial.

Damn! You have discovered our evil subterfuge. Prepare to be invaded!

Besides, the gnomes serve no practical purpose; they only exist so that we may shoot them (we gotta entertain ourselves somehow in our Antarctic wilderness hideaway). We find Mr. Otterby's attempts to use them to Godmode other nations in extremely poor taste.

Well I've got to build an empire somehow and the Gnomes were so handy.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

No, the resolution has several areas where a country can offer a pretence of democracy and get away with it, without the actual motives or operation of the mechanisms of 'democracy'.

Completely defying the actual intent of the proposal. That doesn't really bother me, but follow along for a moment.

So they could give self-rule on areas of little influence and with little power for the civillian chosen institutions (like the zemstvo and early duma's of 19th century Russia). They could rig the vote in favour of the ruling party or only offer the choice of approving state approved or backed candidates. There's no specification therefore no actual way of implementing a truly democratic system or enforcing its implementation using the resolution. It's fluff, but harmless fluff. I can't really see a need to repeal it when there are more pressing issues at hand.

So, by your own admission, this is a piece of useless claptrap that's essentially doing nothing but take up space on the books that could be better put to use for the "more pressing issues at hand".

Is it just me, or is this staring to sound like my arguments in support of the landmine repeal. If, as you say, it does nothing, then why defend it at all? Why not help get it off the books to make room for something more worthwhile?

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Is it just me, or is this staring to sound like my arguments in support of the landmine repeal. If, as you say, it does nothing, then why defend it at all? Why not help get it off the books to make room for something more worthwhile?

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg


Its not just you, mate. I'm getting feelings of deja vu.

So, by your own admission, this is a piece of useless claptrap that's essentially doing nothing but take up space on the books that could be better put to use for the "more pressing issues at hand".

Is it just me, or is this staring to sound like my arguments in support of the landmine repeal. If, as you say, it does nothing, then why defend it at all? Why not help get it off the books to make room for something more worthwhile?

I don't have a set policy on redundant resolutions, it all depends whether I think it would be worth repealing, whether something could be improved by repeal or whether the repeal of a resolution would result in a more unsatisfactory outcome than if we let it lie.

I felt that the landmines one, whilst rather weak, was unlikely to be replaced by anything better given the phrasing of the repeal and the hostile atmosphere towards weapons control being expressed by many of the prime movers of the U.N. fora. On the other hand, with this resolution it's so weak that it wouldn't even be worth the effort to repeal and yet still serves as a nice, if somewhat misguided monument to an attempt to instill democratic values in member nations (even if in practice it can be subverted with ease). Therefore I don't particularly object to the repeal, I just don't see it as necessary or even particularly desirable.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well said, Len.

Her Holiness Aristhia has instructed me to vote against this, should it come to the floor (as looks increasingly likely). The resolution in question has been fully accepted into Darsomiri politics, and she is concerned that any possible replacement would not be so conducive to good relations with the United Nations.

Johannes
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia

Well said, Len.

Thanks Lata*

*Or whichever Ecopoeia delegate posted that message.

Forgive the fact that this is rough. I wrote it in about 5 minutes and it's still better laid out and has roughly the same loopholes as Citizen Rule Required. (That was actually the hard part)


Enforcing Unquestioned Leaders
Category : Political Stability
Strength : Strong

The United Nations

ACCEPTING That the many forms of government all have their advantages and disadvantages

REALIZING That a leader with a long standing relationship with their people would be best capable of knowing and serving their needs

FURTHER RECOGNIZING That the continual change of leadership can potentially create unstable political situations

REGRETTING That such instabilities could cause undue socio-economic turmoil and potential civil unrest

Hereby

MANDATES That every UN member nation must have a single unelected leader of government

DECLARES That said leader may only be removed from office in the event of their death

REQUIRES In the instance of the death of said leader that said leader be immediately replaced with another unelected leader of government.

Out of curiousity, would this be met with the same level of apathy as is currently being displayed in this debate?

Actually, that legislation is actually worse on dictatorships than the current resolution:

MANDATES That every UN member nation must have a single unelected leader of governmentThe current resolution doesn't specify "government," so as long as someone is elected, to a governmental organization or otherwise, that nation complies.

Bill Hathaway
Random Member of the Dankist Congregation to the UN

Actually, that legislation is actually worse on dictatorships than the current resolution:

The current resolution doesn't specify "government," so as long as someone is elected, to a governmental organization or otherwise, that nation complies.

Bill Hathaway
Random Member of the Dankist Congregation to the UN

The Dictator would be the "single unelected leader of government". There need be no change in their heirarchy at all.

The idea is that, if non-democratic nations be forced to nod at democracy, then non-dictatorships be forced to nod at dictatorialism.

[half-serious] Someone doesn't mean some person. Thus...
Welcome to The Beltway, led by Scotty the Bald Eagle! [/half-serious]

The Dictator would be the "single unelected leader of government". There need be no change in their heirarchy at all.

The idea is that, if non-democratic nations be forced to nod at democracy, then non-dictatorships be forced to nod at dictatorialism.Please forgive that fool Bill, he did not properly read your proposal. However, I believe that your proposal is still inherently flawed; in mentioning "government," you alienate countries without a government (anarchies), such as the Democratic States of Dankism.

I would not approve of your proceeding legislation, Kivisto.

Ronald Simons
Random Member of the Dankist Congregation to the UN

[half-serious] Someone doesn't mean some person. Thus...
Welcome to The Beltway, led by Scotty the Bald Eagle! [/half-serious]


That's one of the loopholes I had to try to leave in to make it comparable to Citizen Rule Required. A nod at the legislation is all that would be necessary. It wouldn't really do anything, but it would put a tiny bit of a dictator in every UN nation.

Please forgive that fool Bill, he did not properly read your proposal. However, I believe that your proposal is still inherently flawed; in mentioning "government," you alienate countries without a government (anarchies), such as the Democratic States of Dankism.

Any more than forcing some kind of democracy into a system that defies the sense of a true democracy?

I would not approve of your proceeding legislation, Kivisto.

And hence my point is proven. Thank you.

MANDATES That every UN member nation must have a single unelected leader of government
Ah, but where's the way around for biarchies, Triumvirates, oligarchies or nations like Darsomir, with no real central government?

Enforcing Unquestioned Leaders
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong

The United Nations

ACCEPTING That the many forms of government all have their advantages and disadvantages

REALIZING That a leader with a long standing relationship with their people would be best capable of knowing and serving their needs

FURTHER RECOGNIZING That the continual change of leadership can potentially create unstable political situations

REGRETTING That such instabilities could cause undue socio-economic turmoil and potential civil unrest

Hereby

MANDATES That every UN member nation must have a single unelected leader of government

DECLARES That said leader may only be removed from office in the event of their death

REQUIRES In the instance of the death of said leader that said leader be immediately replaced with another unelected leader of government.The Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico, the (megalomaniacal) president of the Federal Republic, demands that the Kivistan delegate submit without delay this most worthy proposal for ensuring the stability of member governments. He feels that his accession to indefinite tenure in office, as mandated by the United Nations, would dramatically improve domestic security and quell political turmoil within the Federal Republic. After all, if the people were secure in the knowledge that their leader could not be replaced, they would be less likely to attempt to subvert the government through acts of defiance, disorder, violence, "dissent," and "civil disobedience." The Destructor also feels that should he attempt a transition from elected president to unquestioned Master of the Republic without the consent of the United Nations, there would be much outrage, discord and resulting civil unrest -- but that with a UN proposal mandating as such, such a transition would be quick and painless. Sure, there would be riots; there always are in our humble abode. But the righties could not possibly object when their leader cannot be questioned or replaced, and the UN-fellating lefties would have to accept it, seeing as how it would be the will of the international community, should this resolution pass.

What's more, this bill would finally bring Compadria and others into the Halls of Relevant Nations, by compelling them to toss out their tired old fluffy "democratic" traditions and herald in governors of consequence who would truly advance their nations beyond the putrid snakepit of socialism, defend them against foreign influence, and rise to address the ongoing threats of international terror and rogue states.

Out of curiousity, would this be met with the same level of apathy as is currently being displayed in this debate?Oh, I see. You were just trying to make a point ... (sighs) ... and a perfectly valid one.

The Destructor is sorely disappointed.

What's more, this bill would finally bring Compadria and others into the Halls of Relevant Nations, by compelling them to toss out their tired old fluffy "democratic" traditions and herald in governors of consequence who would truly advance their nations beyond the putrid snakepit of socialism, defend them against foreign influence, and rise to address the ongoing threats of international terror and rogue states.


Catcalls and jeers, mixed in with phrases such as "yeah right Riley, when were you appointed to judge what 'relevance' is" and "reactionary git" are heard from the Compadrian delegation at this slur on their nation's pride. "Keep this up ambassador and you'll get cursed by our otters", Otterby called out.

Kivisto, I have recently received word from the Governor of Caratia himself that, should your proposal become United Nations law, Caratia would be forced to consider withdrawing from the United Nations

Caratia does, however, fully support the original proposal.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Forgive the fact that this is rough. I wrote it in about 5 minutes and it's still better laid out and has roughly the same loopholes as Citizen Rule Required. (That was actually the hard part)

Originally Posted by Kivisto
Enforcing Unquestioned Leaders
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong

The United Nations

ACCEPTING That the many forms of government all have their advantages and disadvantages

REALIZING That a leader with a long standing relationship with their people would be best capable of knowing and serving their needs

FURTHER RECOGNIZING That the continual change of leadership can potentially create unstable political situations

REGRETTING That such instabilities could cause undue socio-economic turmoil and potential civil unrest

Hereby

MANDATES That every UN member nation must have a single unelected leader of government

DECLARES That said leader may only be removed from office in the event of their death

REQUIRES In the instance of the death of said leader that said leader be immediately replaced with another unelected leader of government.


Out of curiousity, would this be met with the same level of apathy as is currently being displayed in this debate?


My Emperor, would practacally order me to support it...*cell phone plays Hooray for Captain Spaulding*...Hello...*sits up straighter*...Yes Sire!...*hangs up* Nay, my Emperor, the Benevolent Captian Spaulding I, He who's Name must be obeyed, Beloved by children everywhere, Long may he reign, ecetery, excetery has ordered me to support this great piece of legislation, good sir.

I freely admit that I support the UN encouraging national governments to be accountable to their citizens. The Kivistan proposal would meet with my vehement opposition because I hold that the UN would be wrong to encourage the concentration of political power in the hands of one individual.

Encouraging the democratic option is a statement of principle, making it valid in and of itself. It enforces nothing, thereby not impinging unduly on nations such as Kivisto. The UN adopts position whereby it makes clear its support for or opposition to national economic systems; why should it not do the same for political systems?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The UN adopts position whereby it makes clear its support for or opposition to national economic systems; why should it not do the same for political systems?
I wasn't aware the UN had expressed particular preferences for national economic systems; in fact, doing so would be of dubious legality. And so I quite agree: the same principle should apply for political systems.

It has passed legislation of a 'social democratic' nature in the past. It now enthusiastically spreads the gospel of free trade. Though international in focus, much of this legislation has direct effects on domestic policy.

I don't think legality is an issue so long as the UN merely encourages.

MV

It has passed legislation of a 'social democratic' nature in the past. It now enthusiastically spreads the gospel of free trade. Though international in focus, much of this legislation has direct effects on domestic policy.

I don't think legality is an issue so long as the UN merely encourages.
Ah. So by "national" you in fact meant..."international". Free trade is international, as indeed is the formation of international workers' federations and cesspits of anarchist agitators.

Encouraging democracy is a purely domestic concern; encouraging free trade is a purely international concern.

Ah. So by "national" you in fact meant..."international". Free trade is international, as indeed is the formation of international workers' federations

Encouraging democracy is a purely domestic concern; encouraging free trade is a purely international concern.
No, some economic measures have been national, e.g. provisions for education and healthcare. With respect to free trade, recent measures still obligate member states to open up their markets, ergo a domestic impact. However, the 'social democracy' resolutions are the cornerstone of my argument here.

cesspits of anarchist agitators, eh? good idea...

MV

Ah, but where's the way around for biarchies, Triumvirates, oligarchies or nations like Darsomir, with no real central government?


The same place the loophole is for those of us trying to be true dictatorships... Nowhere.

.

Oh, I see. You were just trying to make a point ... (sighs) ... and a perfectly valid one.

The Destructor is sorely disappointed.


It doesn't have to be just a point. I already half considering submitting this on sheer principle of the thing.

Kivisto, I have recently received word from the Governor of Caratia himself that, should your proposal become United Nations law, Caratia would be forced to consider withdrawing from the United Nations

Caratia does, however, fully support the original proposal.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Further proving the lopsided view taken by many that democracy is the only way to go. Willing to support the enforcement of any type of democracy becomes sheer hypocricy when not willing to even consider the flip side of the coin with the same strength.

My Emperor, would practacally order me to support it...*cell phone plays Hooray for Captain Spaulding*...Hello...*sits up straighter*...Yes Sire!...*hangs up* Nay, my Emperor, the Benevolent Captian Spaulding I, He who's Name must be obeyed, Beloved by children everywhere, Long may he reign, ecetery, excetery has ordered me to support this great piece of legislation, good sir.

I begin to think that this point might be better served if I were to submit it. Even if it doesn't make it to quorum, it might be worth the debate with The Benevolent Captain Spaulding I on board.

I freely admit that I support the UN encouraging national governments to be accountable to their citizens. The Kivistan proposal would meet with my vehement opposition because I hold that the UN would be wrong to encourage the concentration of political power in the hands of one individual.

Encouraging the democratic option is a statement of principle, making it valid in and of itself. It enforces nothing, thereby not impinging unduly on nations such as Kivisto. The UN adopts position whereby it makes clear its support for or opposition to national economic systems; why should it not do the same for political systems?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Citizen Rule Required does not encourage. It enforces. We MUST allow the populace a say in something to do with government. This is contrary to the ideals of a true dictatorship. Enforcing Unquestioned leaders does the same for the opposite side of the coin. It would enforce that there be a single unelected leader of government. It could be a titular position held by a chimp with no real de facto power. It could be the local leader of government over a town of three cows and a half-wit. The point is that as long as democracy is being enforced in any way, we (dictators) are not being allowed to govern our people to the best of our abillities. Clear discrimination against our political style.

Further proving the lopsided view taken by many that democracy is the only way to go. Willing to support the enforcement of any type of democracy becomes sheer hypocricy when not willing to even consider the flip side of the coin with the same strength.
Please keep in mind that Caratia is currently under the leadership of a Parliament-appointed dictator (although the word is rarely used in international affairs due to its connotation) and that Governor Opraeti could, God forbid, permanently end all Caratian political freedom and so become the permanent ruler of the nation. Although this won't happen, simply understand that there are some dictators who do genuinely care about his nation's people.

Caratia actively supports the repeal of any "furtherment of democracy" bills, for the reasons you have stated. She also believes that it is not the United Nations' place to enforce systems of government upon its members.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

She also believes that it is not the United Nations' place to enforce systems of government upon its members.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Which is exactly what CRR does. Enforces a governmental system on it's members. I'm with you. We shouldn't do that.

Has anyone kept track of how many rhinos I'm at. I lost count and the bodies are piled up too funy to count.

Citizen Rule Required does not encourage. It enforces. We MUST allow the populace a say in something to do with government. This is contrary to the ideals of a true dictatorship. Enforcing Unquestioned leaders does the same for the opposite side of the coin. It would enforce that there be a single unelected leader of government. It could be a titular position held by a chimp with no real de facto power. It could be the local leader of government over a town of three cows and a half-wit. The point is that as long as democracy is being enforced in any way, we (dictators) are not being allowed to govern our people to the best of our abillities. Clear discrimination against our political style.
We haven't ruled out voting for the repeal.

MV

Which is exactly what CRR does. Enforces a governmental system on it's members. I'm with you. We shouldn't do that.

Has anyone kept track of how many rhinos I'm at. I lost count and the bodies are piled up too funy to count.
It's also hypocrisy. Your proposal is simply reverse discrimination, somewhat like affirmative action.

A. T. Stilgram
The Ever-Logical Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

It's also hypocrisy. Your proposal is simply reverse discrimination, somewhat like affirmative action.

A. T. Stilgram
The Ever-Logical Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Alright. Try to keep up. The "proposal" I wrote was, in point of fact, there to point out hypocrisy. It was a gag. A manoever to corner those who say that CRR doesn't hurt anybody, or claim that it simply exists to promote "freedom", or whatever else. It was, and continues to be, designed to demonstrate that political style is s a choice that should be left to the nations and left alone by the UN.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/wall.gif
DAMMIT! I'm running out of puppies again.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpghttp://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/unog-member.png

Incidentally, I think we're at six white rhinos that have been slaughtered during the course of this debate.:p

Considering that the UN has effectively ended the possibility of pure capitalism, anarchy, communism, totalitarianism, theocracy, and many other government and economic models, I fail to see how lopping off pure dictatorships is necessarily a problem or, really, an area of concern. Further, I fail to see how the effect of this resolution is considerable enough for your, or any other, government to have a serious challenge to its power as the sole authority of the nation. If you can't work around it, you probably don't deserve the UN spoon-feeding you an additional aide.

It doesn't outlaw dictatorships, merely gives them a minor weakening. Oh god, we're all going to die </deadpan>

It could also be argued quite easily that all of those "Political Stability" resolutions infringe on a nation's ability to function as a pure democracy. The Republic of Krioval was, like the Forgottenlands, convinced that the United Nations was not exactly amenable to pure ideologies, given how quickly the political climate can change. No, if effective dictatorships and effective democracies are to coexist in this body, there either has to be a reasonable middle ground found, or else we should work to repeal every resolution of the "Furtherment of Democracy" and "Political Stability" type, resolve to never use either of those forms of proposals again, and then determine whether "Environmental" and "Free Trade" resolutions are not, effectively, an ideological restriction on nations that would prefer to ravage the environment or restrict trade, respectively.

Yoshi Takahara
Republic of Krioval

If pure democracies - as you have just indicated - are limited, why do you feel that pure dictatorships should get special treatment and be permitted?

OOC: I thought I was agreeing with you. Oops. I'll try to phrase my arguments better in the future - I think that it's silly for a UN member to complain that the UN is corrupting their ideology simply due to the multiplicity of categories of resolutions. Thus, the idea of "pure dictatorships" makes no sense in the NSUN, to me at least.

If the above was not intended for me, then I am incredibly confused. /OOC

Citizen Rule Required does not encourage. It enforces. We MUST allow the populace a say in something to do with government. This is contrary to the ideals of a true dictatorship. Enforcing Unquestioned leaders does the same for the opposite side of the coin. It would enforce that there be a single unelected leader of government. It could be a titular position held by a chimp with no real de facto power. It could be the local leader of government over a town of three cows and a half-wit. The point is that as long as democracy is being enforced in any way, we (dictators) are not being allowed to govern our people to the best of our abillities. Clear discrimination against our political style.

Fine, you used true instead of pure.

Whatever.

Fine, you used true instead of pure.

Whatever.
Kivisto is not Krioval.

Bah....too many K names.

Although Prince County is a democracy, and feels strongly that democracy is the preferred method to govern, we do not have a problem with other forms of government.

Dictators die, frequently, monarchies are overthrown, and democratic leaders are voted out. Change comes to everything...as it should to this poorly thought out original resolution.

We would support this appeal.




Machiabelly,
The Benevolent Potentate of Prince County

WE, The States of Unity, would formally vote FOR the resolution.

ALTHOUGH we strongly believe in civil and/or politial rights, we believe that a form of government (in this case, democracy) should not be forced apon a nation.

Thank you,
The States of Unity

The basic premise I was aiming for with my joke proposal was that there are those who oppose or are indifferent to the repeal of CRR on the premise that it does not really interfere with a nation's government while they would oppose the same basic legislation if it was directed at the flip side of the coin. Yes, CRR can be easily navigated around, incidentally making it ineffective enough that it really has no place in our books of legislation. It is also discriminatory towards those nations which have no desire to take part in democracy.

I have no real desire to inject dictators into every member nation, even if said dictator need only be a goat in charge of a local district populated by that self-same goat (he would be the unelected leader of that government). The Master In Repose, In Dominion Over Kivisto, also has no particular desire to allow the failings of his peoples in Kivisto to ruin his exemplary governmental history. We enjoy his lordship and accept that his decisions are the right ones. With CRR in place,we cannot fully enjoy the protection of His keen insight into our best interests.

Reconsider. If you would not enjoy even a token effort towards dictatorships within your nations, why should we be forced to endure this token nod at democracy?

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/NORHINOSALLOWED.jpg

You honestly think that mandating a puppet head of state/government is equivelant to a mandate that your citizens at least get to have opinion polls? Sheesh.

The debate on this proposal is some of the most ludicrous debate I have had the misfortune to witness thus far in my tenure as secretary. The opposition have blown this issue far out of proportion and have claimed that the equivelent to a proposal saying that citizens can have some power at some level (not EVERY level, not necessarily the NATIONAL level) is somehow equivelent to them trying to push a single ceremonial dictator at our national level. Their claim that a national level effect is equivelent to an effect at the civic level is nothing short of proposterous.

This ludicrous argument pattern is nothing short of fear mongering and proves that the people least capable of analyzing this resolution are the very dictators that cling to their power like it's the difference between life and death - completely blind that the difference between letting go this battle and pushing forth is negligable to their power but would increase their workload tremendously.

The equivelent would be state-enforced bureaucrats being placed as the governers of towns, or having judges appointed to their positions, or some other area of government being un-elected. Considering most democracies accept that as a necessary evil of their job and even true democracies struggle without some of that existing, we fail to see how such a proposal would be a bad thing. The statement issued by the leader of Kivisto is blown outrageously out of proportion.

The Forgotten Territories will vote against this repeal attempt and encourages its regionmates, and fellow members to do that same. Let us show the Dictators that fearmongering and boistrous claims are unworthy of being the reason for repealing this resolution. Let us leave the spoon feeding to these dictators to their mommies. The UN has enough things to address without having to worry about the whiney dictators about how the UN hindered a small portion of their power. I don't need to put up with this crap - I've got enough people in my office doing it.

OK, it's clear you have some very strong emotions about this issue, even though you've already admitted this resolution serves no real purpose and does not usher in any sort of democracy or accountable government. Even with a total democratic system, the NS equivalent of Palestine could elect Hamas, and proceed to engineer terrorist strikes on civilized nations. Democracy is not an end; it alone accomplishes nothing for effecting good governance. So what is the point of this proposal?

Catcalls and jeers, mixed in with phrases such as "yeah right Riley, when were you appointed to judge what 'relevance' is"Indeed. And whoever named the UN arbiter over which political systems and forms of government are more acceptable, hmm?

OOC: Although I support democracy, this resolution sucks from a gameplay perspective. Plain and simple, it makes it so you cant have dictatorships in the UN...wheres the fun in that?

Thats my only really good argument for repealing this proposal, and its OOC, so does it even count?

OOC: Although I support democracy, this resolution sucks from a gameplay perspective. Plain and simple, it makes it so you cant have dictatorships in the UN...wheres the fun in that?

Thats my only really good argument for repealing this proposal, and its OOC, so does it even count?

If you give them elected mayors but keep the seat of power in a single person with a lifetime status there, is it not a dictatorship?

Read it again! IT DOESN'T PREVENT DICTATORSHIPS

It weeds out a small hole in the the power of a dictator. Boo fucking hoo. A pin-prick from a needle hurts more.

Heck, you give them power at the community hall or something, you probably can get away with saying that that's meeting the requirements since community halls pass bylaws every-so-often.

OK, it's clear you have some very strong emotions about this issue, even though you've already admitted this resolution serves no real purpose and does not usher in any sort of democracy or accountable government. Even with a total democratic system, the NS equivalent of Palestine could elect Hamas, and proceed to engineer terrorist strikes on civilized nations. Democracy is not an end; it alone accomplishes nothing for effecting good governance. So what is the point of this proposal?

OOC: I actually shrugged my shoulders when Hamas won. Was I surprised? Yes. But I think it's actually a good thing that Palestinians got the right to decide who they wanted for a leader. Yes Hamas is calling for the destruction of Isreal - just as Al Queda is calling for our destruction and the IRA wants the Catholics all slaughtered and the Crusades were looking for Palestine to be squashed and on and on. Oh well.

But actually, that's not the thing that drives my passion.

I
HATE
BULLSHIT

Before, I was passively in support of UNR #8 because it gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I didn't really give a shit whether it died or not, I just would've shrugged my shoulders and the UN would've moved on with a minor kink in it's step - just like every other unimportant resolution. Like you said I said, it was more or less an irrelevant resolution.

However, that's not what's being argued here. The opponents of UNR #8 have basically turned their position into one of "this one is so relevant that it cripples our ability to be dictators". Again, I don't care that the resolution got repealed. You'll recall that the majority of the UN ended up supporting a repeal for the disgusting "Protection of Dolphins" resolution - but panned yours. While there is question on whether UNCoESB might have had an impact, the interesting thing that we saw come out of the actual debate - even within the membership of the UNOG - was the message was the wrong one. Repeals are even more important that the message is the right one because the message can't be struck from the UN books. It's there permanently, even if its circumvented in future resolutions, it's still sitting there - and when members read the resolutions from repealed #1 all the way up to the present, they'll see that message first.

If the opponents want to repeal it under the context of poor quality, pointless, useless, takes up space, etc - fine. I'll oppose but otherwise ignore. If they want to start making boistrous claims and lieing through their teeth about its effects, they can expect to see opposition.

Indeed. And whoever named the UN arbiter over which political systems and forms of government are more acceptable, hmm?[/QUOTE]

...the IRA wants the Catholics all slaughtered...

OOC: Just an aside, but you've got that backwards.

OOC: Just an aside, but you've got that backwards.

Good to know, thanks.

The opponents of UNR #8 have basically turned their position into one of "this one is so relevant that it cripples our ability to be dictators".That is not what is being argued at all. The claim is that allowing democracy in non-democratic nations, even on an insignificant or token scale, may encourage the people to make decisions contrary to the sovereign's wishes. For instance, the city councils of San Francisco and Oakland keep passing resolutions to condmen the Iraq war and impeach the president. Now imagine that the people of White Rhino Central in Kivisto passed a nonbinding resolution calling for the Master in Repose's overthrow. While not at all "crippling" the dictator-monarch's ability to be a dictator, wouldn't it promote disharmony and disunity among the dictator's subjects? The whole point of the argument is not that the resolution neutralizes dictatorships, or even "cripples" them, but that it discriminates against them -- and duh, how long would it usually take it you to figure out that a resolution calling for citizen self-rule, even at the remotest level, discriminates against non-democratic regimes?

Barring that, there is always the text of the actual repeal. If you haven't read it, I encourage you to do so. It contains nothing on the order that you claim repeal proponents are spouting.

I'm sorry, I guess I was expecting something loosely resembling a coherent reply here, maybe even a half-convincing or semi-persuasive argument for why Resolution #8 need stay on the books. I mean, a "warm fuzzy feeling," obvious contempt for your opposition, strawman arguments, and high-handed sanctimony are all well and good, but where do they take us in this discussion? Not very far, I'll tell you right now. Maybe I'll return to this thread when the repeal opponents have something relevant to say?

Oh, it discriminates, does it? And Free Trade resolutions don't discriminate against those that believe in Tariff systems - especially intelligent tariff systems that have actually (in RL) seen successful protection and rebounds of industries? And the now defunct Abortion resolution didn't discriminate against those that believed a fetus was a human being? And the defeated Sapient Rights proposal didn't discriminate against the Xenophobic nations? What about the various discrimination resolutions against the bigotted nations? What about Meteorlogical Cooperation against those that believe God's realm of weather should not be interfered in? What about UNSA against the nations that think all armies should be disbanded (after all, it did encourage reasonable arms build up)?

Yes, it does discriminate

But damn does that seem like a f****** stupid argument.

Oh, it discriminates, does it? And Free Trade resolutions don't discriminate against those that believe in Tariff systems - especially intelligent tariff systems that have actually (in RL) seen successful protection and rebounds of industries? And the now defunct Abortion resolution didn't discriminate against those that believed a fetus was a human being? And the defeated Sapient Rights proposal didn't discriminate against the Xenophobic nations? What about the various discrimination resolutions against the bigotted nations? What about Meteorlogical Cooperation against those that believe God's realm of weather should not be interfered in? What about UNSA against the nations that think all armies should be disbanded (after all, it did encourage reasonable arms build up)?
Yes, all of those discriminate. What's your point? In those cases, those who supported them clearly felt it was justifiable discrimination: that xenophobic countries deserved to be discriminated against, that it was in the interests of all women to discriminate against anti-choicers, that free trade is so cute, cuddly and beloved of children that it's worth riding roughshod over protectionist hold-outs. I don't think anyone here is claiming a resolution is not allowed to discriminate: they're saying if it is to do so, it needs to a) be worth it and b) justify that discrimination.

Citizen Rule Required failed both tests. It is not worth it, because whilst it is essentially useless, it could do just enough to unsettle stable, freedom-loving, rights-respecting autocracies, whilst bringing no tangible to the majority of nations. It does not justify that discrimination, because it doesn't provide any proof that democracy in fact does act as a counter-balance to "rouge states". Where are all the liberals from the Anti-Terrorism Act now? Weren't they saying America is the world's greatest terrorist threat? Well, last time I checked, America was a democracy - by the way, anyone now making some snarky joke about the 2000 elections gets a kicking - and yet it's such a rogue power? So in no way is the discrimination of CRR justified.

And FL, much as you might expect me to say this, Kenny is right.

*snip*Yes, resolutions discriminate, and far be it from member states to object when a resolution isn't beneficial to them! Otherwise, what is the point of that movement with which I elected to align my nation last year? Resolution #8 discriminates, but for no good reason: It's been demonstrated time and again it accomplishes nothing. My own nation, were it still a UN member, would be in total compliance with CRR, as it gives citizens the opportunity to elect their leaders on every level of governance -- and what hath it wrought? Kennyites have managed to install a bunch of delightfully insane, incompetent egomaniacs who have managed nothing except to wage unjustifiable wars on pissant nations that had the unmitigated gall to be easy targets.

CRR does not produce democracy, it does not produce accountable leaders, it does not produce good government. Only that "warm, fuzzy feeling" you and Compadria enjopy. So what's the fucking point?

Wow.
Well I don't know why we all just assume democracies are good. Some can be rigged. Or they could just not help the people, with a maniac elected, who rollbacks all democratic reforms and basically turns the country into a harsh dictatorship. I used the harsh, because I do not believe all dictatorships are bad.

The debate on this proposal is some of the most ludicrous debate I have had the misfortune to witness thus far in my tenure as secretary.

How very unfortunate for you.

The opposition have blown this issue far out of proportion and have claimed that the equivelent to a proposal saying that citizens can have some power at some level (not EVERY level, not necessarily the NATIONAL level) is somehow equivelent to them trying to push a single ceremonial dictator at our national level.

Who said national. Certainly not my joke proposal. As I have stated before, a leader of government need not necessarily be at a national level. It could be a local village populated by a couple of rhinos wondering what keeps happening to their brethren and why there's all these puppy corpses on the ground.

Their claim that a national level effect is equivelent to an effect at the civic level is nothing short of proposterous.

Since I have made no claim to such an equivalency or effect, the only thing preposterous here is how you insist on arguing a point you obviously do not fully understand.

This ludicrous argument pattern is nothing short of fear mongering

#1 - simply because you fear even the mention that others do to you what you have already done to them does not render it fear mongering. It is a demonstration (through words) of what you have done. I have stated before, and will restate again I am sure, that I have no intention of submitting my proposal as I have no wish to do to my neighbours what has been done to us. Their national government is free to govern in whatever form they wish and I see no need to meddle with it.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/NORHINOBABIES.jpg

#2 - Ludicrous is the speed at which everything goes plaid. Ludicrous is also how you continually claim that I have made arguments and equations that I have not.

and proves that the people least capable of analyzing this resolution are the very dictators that cling to their power like it's the difference between life and death

No. It only proves that some of the strongest opponents to this repeal can't read.

- completely blind that the difference between letting go this battle and pushing forth is negligable to their power but would increase their workload tremendously.

Hardly. As both sides of this debate have already admitted, CRR doesn't actually mandate that anyone be given power to do anything. We in Kivisto greatly support the repeal efforts of CRR in the principle that Our Benevolent Master is what is best for us. Any token nod in another direction is simply a waste of effort. The same is not true for all, but it is for us. Our right to be governed as we wish is being deeply infringed upon.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/NORHINOS.jpg

The equivelent would be state-enforced bureaucrats being placed as the governers of towns,

Which probably happens already.

[/QUOTE]or having judges appointed to their positions, [/QUOTE]

Many are.

or some other area of government being un-elected.

Yep. That's what I was getting at. State appointed leaders of government. Even a judge heads up his piece of government as an unquestioned leader.

Considering most democracies accept that as a necessary evil of their job

So what's the problem?

and even true democracies struggle without some of that existing,

True.

we fail to see how such a proposal would be a bad thing. The statement issued by the leader of Kivisto is blown outrageously out of proportion.

I disagree (obviously). For starters, I am NOT the leader of Kivisto, simply the UN representative thereof. The counter-proposal that we submitted for perusal offered the same loopholes and weaknesses as CRR. Take a good hard look at how everyone is responding to it. Do you think it caused those on the flip side of the democracy any less grief or turmoil when faced with an actual resolution up for vote that could, and has, reduced their governmental freedoms in such a way?

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/NORHINOSALLOWED.jpg

The Forgotten Territories will vote against this repeal attempt

We had assumed as much at this point.

and encourages its regionmates, and fellow members to do that same. Let us show the Dictators that fearmongering and boistrous claims are unworthy of being the reason for repealing this resolution.

I once again state that all I have presented is the flip side of what is faced by those of us who have no desire to live in democracy. Simply because your narrow mind is incapable of comprehending how many of us realize that mob-rule is not always sufficient to the task of running a nation is no need to fear us or our ideals.

Let us leave the spoon feeding to these dictators to their mommies.

My mother is too busy slaving away in the Uranium mines.

The UN has enough things to address without having to worry about the whiney dictators about how the UN hindered a small portion of their power.

Quite the contrary. It would seem to many of us that correcting a horrible injustice being perpetrated on an international level involving massive discrimination against a misunderstood minority would be exactly the sort of thing the UN should get involved in.

I don't need to put up with this crap

Then get the fuck out of the way for those of us who are trying to crawl out of the cess-pit created by short-sighted, narrow-minded, bigots like yourself.

- I've got enough people in my office doing it.

Then send one of them. Perhaps they'll listen to reason after having to deal with such a pleasurable democrat like you.

If you give them elected mayors but keep the seat of power in a single person with a lifetime status there, is it not a dictatorship?

Read it again! IT DOESN'T PREVENT DICTATORSHIPS

It weeds out a small hole in the the power of a dictator. Boo fucking hoo. A pin-prick from a needle hurts more.

Heck, you give them power at the community hall or something, you probably can get away with saying that that's meeting the requirements since community halls pass bylaws every-so-often.

Which is exactly the same power that would be granted under my counter-proposal for the dictators. It's no threat. Just a huge annoyance.

As a further argument, along different and much more rational lines.

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

According to to The R&DofUNS, not only should we be granted full rights to govern however we choose, but it is the duty of all members to refrain from enforcing such an unrequested intervention into our political jurisdiction.

Kenny, Gruen, I may have a response for you later tonight/this week.

How very unfortunate for you.

And it continues

Who said national. Certainly not my joke proposal. As I have stated before, a leader of government need not necessarily be at a national level.

Originally Posted by Kivisto
Enforcing Unquestioned Leaders
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong

The United Nations

ACCEPTING That the many forms of government all have their advantages and disadvantages

REALIZING That a leader with a long standing relationship with their people would be best capable of knowing and serving their needs

FURTHER RECOGNIZING That the continual change of leadership can potentially create unstable political situations

REGRETTING That such instabilities could cause undue socio-economic turmoil and potential civil unrest

Hereby

MANDATES That every UN member nation must have a single unelected leader of government

DECLARES That said leader may only be removed from office in the event of their death

REQUIRES In the instance of the death of said leader that said leader be immediately replaced with another unelected leader of government.

These words combined implicate heavily national government. After all, the head of government is generally the head of the national legislative body. The single component makes it seem like you are saying there is only one government that can be addressed, so one must assume that it's your national. Yes, we can deke around this and say it's not specific and didn't define government, but DLE style bullshit aside, the implication is fairly clear

Now, let's look at the equivelent statement in UNR #8

Resolution #8: Citizen Rule Required
Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong

This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.


Oh look, it went out of it's way to ensure that it doesn't matter what level of government was elected.

It could be a local village populated by a couple of rhinos wondering what keeps happening to their brethren and why there's all these puppy corpses on the ground.

If we want to play the DLE game....whatever.

BTW, I tend to fight proposal arguments based upon their implied effect, not their legal effect. If I have to use a loophole to deke around an issue, then there's a problem with the resolution.

Since I have made no claim to such an equivalency or effect, the only thing preposterous here is how you insist on arguing a point you obviously do not fully understand.

And this statement....

The basic premise I was aiming for with my joke proposal was that there are those who oppose or are indifferent to the repeal of CRR on the premise that it does not really interfere with a nation's government while they would oppose the same basic legislation if it was directed at the flip side of the coin.*snip*

Is not implying such an equivalency.......how?

#1 - simply because you fear even the mention that others do to you what you have already done to them does not render it fear mongering. It is a demonstration (through words) of what you have done. I have stated before, and will restate again I am sure, that I have no intention of submitting my proposal as I have no wish to do to my neighbours what has been done to us. Their national government is free to govern in whatever form they wish and I see no need to meddle with it.

Oh, please, do try and continue down this line of reasoning. I never once claimed that I'm against a truly equivelent proposal. In fact, I implied that such a proposal would actually be equivelent to a natural modification to most democracies and perhaps even beneficial to them

Should I just shoot the entire herd now so we can at least spare the puppies?

#2 - Ludicrous is the speed at which everything goes plaid. Ludicrous is also how you continually claim that I have made arguments and equations that I have not.

No, you have not stated the exact arguments that I have said you do. You have heavily implied them. I'm amazed you continue to claim otherwise.

No. It only proves that some of the strongest opponents to this repeal can't read.

Perhaps.....perhaps you are saying more than you want to say.....perhaps you are intentionally saying more than you literally are saying and protecting the argument to discredit me. Either way - you tell me what those lines say. Perhaps I am reading too much into it. Perhaps it was a misstep on your part. However, I know how I interpreted them, and I know many others probably would interpret those lines in exactly the same way.

Oh, and that line there in UNR #8 saying it doesn't matter what level....that's pretty obvious what it's saying. You don't have to read the implied meaning at all, it's right there

Hardly. As both sides of this debate have already admitted, CRR doesn't actually mandate that anyone be given power to do anything. We in Kivisto greatly support the repeal efforts of CRR in the principle that Our Benevolent Master is what is best for us. Any token nod in another direction is simply a waste of effort. The same is not true for all, but it is for us. Our right to be governed as we wish is being deeply infringed upon.

Like I said, a pinprick to your power.

Which probably happens already.

My point, exactly

Many are.

My point, exactly

Yep. That's what I was getting at. State appointed leaders of government. Even a judge heads up his piece of government as an unquestioned leader.

Yep. So really, a true equivelent proposal I would be ok with being passed and perhaps even beneficial for those few still trying to make everything fully elected.

So what's the problem?

None

True.

I'm well aware

I disagree (obviously).

Which I find somewhat humorous, even though I didn't expect anything else

For starters, I am NOT the leader of Kivisto, simply the UN representative thereof.

*mutters at mis-step

The counter-proposal that we submitted for perusal offered the same loopholes and weaknesses as CRR.

Only if we play the DLE game

Take a good hard look at how everyone is responding to it. Do you think it caused those on the flip side of the democracy any less grief or turmoil when faced with an actual resolution up for vote that could, and has, reduced their governmental freedoms in such a way?

I'm not bothered one bit, just think the wording is poorly done to be considered an equivelent to CRR or be claimed as having the same loopholes.

We had assumed as much at this point.

Good to hear

I once again state that all I have presented is the flip side of what is faced by those of us who have no desire to live in democracy.

Whatever

Simply because your narrow mind is incapable of comprehending how many of us realize that mob-rule is not always sufficient to the task of running a nation is no need to fear us or our ideals.

I don't fear you. I just disagree.

My mother is too busy slaving away in the Uranium mines.

So THAT'S why you came crying to the UN

Quite the contrary. It would seem to many of us that correcting a horrible injustice

Something that has no effect is a horrible injustice?

being perpetrated on an international level

correct

involving massive discrimination

no effect = massive?

against a misunderstood

Oh, I understand you, I just disagree.

minority

Everyone is a minority in some category.

would be exactly the sort of thing the UN should get involved in.

If all of those were true, you'd be right.

Then get the fuck out of the way for those of us who are trying to crawl out of the cess-pit created by short-sighted, narrow-minded, bigots like yourself.

If you want out, there's always the resign button - not that anyone ever presses it nor that you think it's all a cess-pit (nor that I really expect nor want you to)

But alas, I apologize for losing my temper.

Then send one of them. Perhaps they'll listen to reason after having to deal with such a pleasurable democrat like you.[/QUOTE]

Democrat?

-----------------

According to to The R&DofUNS, not only should we be granted full rights to govern however we choose, but it is the duty of all members to refrain from enforcing such an unrequested intervention into our political jurisdiction.

WRONG!

Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

OOC: as a historical note, I had TH and PC battling me in my first real debate on the forums both sticking to UNR #49 as their defense of their sovereignty claims. It was a legality debate for the effect of UNSA (didn't change anything). PC backed down from using UNR #49 and TH ran out of time, dropping it again in the final request to moderators a month or two later. Fris then told him that using UNR #49 as a sovereignty claim was not a good claim and that UNR #49 actually doesn't endorse a sovereigntist position (beyond sovereignty from other nations directly). Gruen's probably got a link and might refute my memory.

IC: Since the UN is not a NationState, and the other points all talk about International Law as being exempt (and therefore, anything passed by this body as a whole), your argument is moot.

Democrat?Yeah, you know, someone who believes in democracy? :rolleyes:

Kenny, Gruen, I may have a response for you later tonight/this week.



And it continues

So it does.

These words combined implicate heavily national government. After all, the head of government is generally the head of the national legislative body. The single component makes it seem like you are saying there is only one government that can be addressed, so one must assume that it's your national. Yes, we can deke around this and say it's not specific and didn't define government, but DLE style bullshit aside, the implication is fairly clear

Implications are not law. Assumptions are not law. Legislation, the words that are on the law books, are. I cannot be faulted for what you infer.

OOC: It may be because I'm still newish here, but I don't catch the DLE reference. Sorry for my ignorance in that matter.

Now, let's look at the equivelent statement in UNR #8
Oh look, it went out of it's way to ensure that it doesn't matter what level of government was elected.

Now we're playing semantics. EUL didn't explicitly state that it could be any level of government, so you would take great issue with it. Is that the best you can do?

If we want to play the DLE game....whatever
BTW, I tend to fight proposal arguments based upon their implied effect, not their legal effect. If I have to use a loophole to deke around an issue, then there's a problem with the resolution.

That's just silly. There are a great many laws that imply a great many things without actually mandating them. Implications are not law. By your own argument, however, since I have to use a loophole to get around CRR, it obviously has some problems.



And this statement....

Is not implying such an equivalency.......how?

It does explicitly state an equivalency. Between CRR and EUL.

Oh, please, do try and continue down this line of reasoning. I never once claimed that I'm against a truly equivelent proposal. In fact, I implied that such a proposal would actually be equivelent to a natural modification to most democracies and perhaps even beneficial to them

But you argue against it because it doesn't explicitly state that it can be at eny level of government. It doesn't state anywhere that it can't be any level of government. You simply assume and infer based on your own fears and wishes.

Should I just shoot the entire herd now so we can at least spare the puppies?

Any armed incursion onto Kivisto soil with the purpose of harming our national animal will be viewed as an act of war and treated as such.

OOC: Thank you for helping to lighten my mood. I was starting to get all angsty over this and take it personally. Unprofessional to say the least, and I appreciate you helping put it into perspective for me.

No, you have not stated the exact arguments that I have said you do. You have heavily implied them. I'm amazed you continue to claim otherwise.

Prepare to be amazed. You continue to infer and assume my intentions and meanings based on your own point of view. Such is folly. We are two separate individuals (a fact that I'm sure many are thankful for), with different hopes, fears, dreams, aspirations, etc. To assume that you can get inside my head and divine my intentions is simply arrogant.

Perhaps.....perhaps you are saying more than you want to say.....perhaps you are intentionally saying more than you literally are saying and protecting the argument to discredit me.

Perhaps your own paranoid delusions are beginning to get the better of you. If you are incapable of taking what is said at face value without reading volumes of meaning into a 5 minute joke proposal, then, my friend, it perhaps might be time to seek counselling.

Either way - you tell me what those lines say.

They say exactly what is written. No more. No less.

Perhaps I am reading too much into it.

You are.

Perhaps it was a misstep on your part.

It really wasn't.

However, I know how I interpreted them, and I know many others probably would interpret those lines in exactly the same way.

Stop trying to interpret. Simply read what is there and accept it at face value. I'm not that subtle a guy. Ulterior motives would be written all over the page.

Oh, and that line there in UNR #8 saying it doesn't matter what level....that's pretty obvious what it's saying. You don't have to read the implied meaning at all, it's right there

It is clear. It doesn't matter at what level it is instituted, but there will be democracy in every UN member government.

Like I said, a pinprick to your power.

Is not the prick of a pin just as much an assault, an insult, as a slap in the face? We're talking matters of degree. The offense still exists.

My point, exactly
My point, exactly
Yep. So really, a true equivelent proposal I would be ok with being passed and perhaps even beneficial for those few still trying to make everything fully elected.

Good thing we agree on these points. I'm awfully glad I left EUL free of specifics so that individual nations would be free to choose what level of government and what sort of power would be given to the unelected leader.

I'm not bothered one bit, just think the wording is poorly done to be considered an equivelent to CRR or be claimed as having the same loopholes.

I suppose it could have been worded a bit better, yes. I wrote it in about five minutes as a quick point to prove. I honestly never expected it to get the response that it has as it was never intended to be submitted or taken that seriously. The impact it has created doesn't lessen its usefullness for the repeal, however. If the implications inherent in EUL cause this amount of turmoil, how can anyone be any less adamant about the explicit enforcement of a governmental style on all members?

Whatever

Dismissing a point you don't wish to argue doesn't make it any less valid.

I don't fear you. I just disagree.

Then why call me a fearmonger?

So THAT'S why you came crying to the UN

DAMN STRAIGHT! A bee bit my bottom. Now my bottom's big. Wanna kiss it better?

Something that has no effect is a horrible injustice?

Now you're mixing my arguments. That it has no effect is for those that believe it is too weak to be worth repealing. The argument there is that if it is so weak, get it off the books so we need not waste our time with it at all. The horrible injustice is that those of us who wish not for the democratic political style are forced to, even if it is only in a token sense. A token killing of Jews would still be an atrocity. A token enslavement of blacks is still enslavement. A token bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could still end a war. A token beating is still assault.

correct

I usually am.

no effect = massive?

See above.

Oh, I understand you, I just disagree.

If you understand us, then why force us to govern in a way that is not best suited to our people?

Everyone is a minority in some category.

Does that make it right to discriminate against them?

If all of those were true, you'd be right.

They are, and I am.

If you want out, there's always the resign button - not that anyone ever presses it nor that you think it's all a cess-pit (nor that I really expect nor want you to)

I thank you for that. It isn't all a cess-pit, as you say. I'm sure that each of us has laws we'd like to see repealed within the UN. We do stay on with the UN as it does do a great deal of good for all. We simply feel strongly about this particular issue (in case it wasn't painfully obvious), as we do feel it unnecessarily infringes upon our internal right to govern ourselves.

But alas, I apologize for losing my temper.

As do I, while happily accepting yours. I fear my temperament fired rather hotly there for a while. I will endeavor to restrain my language in the future.

WRONG!

OOC: as a historical note, I had TH and PC battling me in my first real debate on the forums both sticking to UNR #49 as their defense of their sovereignty claims. It was a legality debate for the effect of UNSA (didn't change anything). PC backed down from using UNR #49 and TH ran out of time, dropping it again in the final request to moderators a month or two later. Fris then told him that using UNR #49 as a sovereignty claim was not a good claim and that UNR #49 actually doesn't endorse a sovereigntist position (beyond sovereignty from other nations directly). Gruen's probably got a link and might refute my memory.

IC: Since the UN is not a NationState, and the other points all talk about International Law as being exempt (and therefore, anything passed by this body as a whole), your argument is moot.

Alright. You got me there. I must concede that point. Guess I didn't read it carefully enough. I was still kinda hot-blooded at the time and was looking for anything else I could throw into the mix.

It is fairly obvious that we two are not going to be seeing eye to eye on this particular issue, though I must admit that I am having fun with the verbal jousting. I will do my best to keep myself civilized from here on out so that any other listeners won't be overly swayed by tone and are free to dwell upon the issue at hand. That of the merits of CRR and a repeal thereof.

The viewpoint of Kivisto is fairly obviously one of National Sovereignty as it pertains to the internal governing of a nation. As it is an issue with limited international impact, it seems to us that the UN may have more important issues to legislate on. It should be stricken from the books to make room for more important legislation. Back up that view with the stand that it comes down to opinion over whether any one particular style of government is better than any other (please, dear god please, no more charts) and member nations should be free to govern as they please so long as it bears no ill effect on other nations.

We've decided to let the rhinoceri be for the remainder of this debate. Too many more deaths in that area and we'd have the UNCoESB gnome pillaging through our lands doing atrocious things to our mines. We may pull them out again at a later date (on other issues) after we get our rhino breeding program into full swing.

WRONG!

OOC: as a historical note, I had TH and PC battling me in my first real debate on the forums both sticking to UNR #49 as their defense of their sovereignty claims. It was a legality debate for the effect of UNSA (didn't change anything). PC backed down from using UNR #49 and TH ran out of time, dropping it again in the final request to moderators a month or two later. Fris then told him that using UNR #49 as a sovereignty claim was not a good claim and that UNR #49 actually doesn't endorse a sovereigntist position (beyond sovereignty from other nations directly). Gruen's probably got a link and might refute my memory.

IC: Since the UN is not a NationState, and the other points all talk about International Law as being exempt (and therefore, anything passed by this body as a whole), your argument is moot.

This reminds me. I need to finish that argument over national sovereignty/compliance we were doing in the ALC debate. I may take anther look at "Rights and Duties" to see what might be available to use. *puts it on his summer to-do list*

I really hate repeals but I am supporting this one. Democracy is not my right to thrust upon another.

I really hate repeals but I am supporting this one. Democracy is not my right to thrust upon another.

Not even by a deomcratic vote of the UN membership?

That is not what is being argued at all. The claim is that allowing democracy in non-democratic nations, even on an insignificant or token scale, may encourage the people to make decisions contrary to the sovereign's wishes. For instance, the city councils of San Francisco and Oakland keep passing resolutions to condmen the Iraq war and impeach the president. Now imagine that the people of White Rhino Central in Kivisto passed a nonbinding resolution calling for the Master in Repose's overthrow. While not at all "crippling" the dictator-monarch's ability to be a dictator, wouldn't it promote disharmony and disunity among the dictator's subjects? The whole point of the argument is not that the resolution neutralizes dictatorships, or even "cripples" them, but that it discriminates against them -- and duh, how long would it usually take it you to figure out that a resolution calling for citizen self-rule, even at the remotest level, discriminates against non-democratic regimes?
Mathieu Vergniaud grins and nods his head in smug satisfaction. "Long may it continue," he mutters, before Lata Chakrabarti elbows him in the ribs and pointedly rolls her eyes. He remains conspicuously silent for the rest of the debate.

Wow.
Well I don't know why we all just assume democracies are good. Some can be rigged

Which is why more delegates should have approved my proposal 'Aid In Democratic Education'...

Which is why more delegates should have approved my proposal 'Aid In Democratic Education'...
Can I ask where you're going with that? I haven't written an "Aid in Violent Theocracy" yet.

Can I ask where you're going with that? I haven't written an "Aid in Violent Theocracy" yet.

I'd love to see that

Can I ask where you're going with that? I haven't written an "Aid in Violent Theocracy" yet.

I might resubmit it in a few weeks, when I've got a few days off from work & will hopefully be able to spend more of my time online...

Can I ask where you're going with that? I haven't written an "Aid in Violent Theocracy" yet.
I'd love to see that

OOC: So would I...

I'll make a new one now... this seems a bit cluttered a thread to start a new at-vote resolution on.

edit: it's been submitted, mods close this thread plzkthx.