NationStates Jolt Archive

AS I have been taking my reasonability’s as a UN delegate I have found that the most major issue is what the UN should have the power to tell nations what to do, and how to spend there money. I find that if the UN requires spending in certain ways, such as more education or recycling, the UN is overreaching its power. I find that if the UN is requiring countries to take a certain position on a controversial issue, such as abortion, the death penalty, or how much a nation should tax, then the UN is over reaching it power again. Do you agree with this?

No.

AS I have been taking my reasonability’s as a UN delegate I have found that the most major issue is what the UN should have the power to tell nations what to do,

Yes, it is the most central debate

and how to spend there money.

What money? Since when did the UN have money?

I find that if the UN requires spending in certain ways, such as more education or recycling, the UN is overreaching its power.

Why? Should it not be the UN's place to ensure that all children are given a fair shot at life and looks for ways to reduce waste - especially when we have such limited resources?

I find that if the UN is requiring countries to take a certain position on a controversial issue, such as abortion,

Thanks to the ludicrous ALC, you don't have to

the death penalty,

No successful resolution has

or how much a nation should tax,

Which was guaranteed by representation of taxation to be solely dealt with at the national level

then the UN is over reaching it power again.

Why?

Do you agree with this?

No.

It isn't necessarily over-reaching its power, because there are relatively few official restrictions on that power, just using more of that power than many nations think would be appropriate...

I do not agree with this. Although I think it is a close argument it misses an important mark. All resolutions will have impacts on the member nations, items will be adjusted, stats will go up and down. I'm not sure if national budgets are raised or lowered but I would not be surprised if they were, depending on the cagegory and strength level.

What I do see a lot is the question of resolutions and issues. Topics that clearly have neither an international scope or can be expressed as a topic that requires a unified approach are generally not liked my many. (One major group is called the NatSov group for National Sovergenty.) Likewise topics that might conflict significantly with the way some nations structure their governments might not be liked by some. (One example is copyright, which is opposed by a few who do not believ in property rights of any kind.)

If there is general agreement on the resolution, then even if it might have a significant impact on the nation there is general agreement to approve it. Repeal Citzen's Rule Required was approved completely ignoring the impact it had on member nation's stats.

Thanks to the ludicrous ALC, you don't have to

Translation: "Wah. A proposal I didn't like passed. Wah."

Give it a rest already, unless you've got the cojones to try to repeal it.

The UN regularly infringes on NatSov. I vote AGAINST every RESOLUTION and FOR every REPEAL.

The UN regularly infringes on NatSov. I vote AGAINST every RESOLUTION and FOR every REPEAL.

Well, that's a brilliant position. :rolleyes:

EDIT: 4,000th post! :D

The UN regularly infringes on NatSov. I vote AGAINST every RESOLUTION and FOR every REPEAL.

All of them? So if I was to introduce repeals of the following resolutions, would you vote for them?

#4
#22
#29
#31
#49
#69
#75

ad nauseam

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I do similarly myself. I usually vote agains resolutions and for repeals. The exceptions are global issues. Such as trade such as the patent resolution that was voted on a few days back. At least I think there was one on that subject. Also I vote for resolutions that maintain peace. The most basic of human rights I also vote for, such as resolutions banning slavery and genocide.

I unfortunately cannot remember who I am about to quote. We were on opposite sides of a debate at the time (I believe it might have been Forgottenlands over the repeal of Citizen Rule Required). They said something along the lines of "the UN has as much power as we give it".

The UN, as an entity consisting of many nations, has no consistant conscience of what constitutes over-reaching its power. It is up to the member nations to guide (browbeat, threaten, cajole, bribe, assassinate, etc) their neighbours and brethren into following a path that is most beneficial to the majority (preferably all, but that's not as likely).