NationStates Jolt Archive

Take a look and let me know what y'all think of the draft.

Title: International Stability Act

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that international conflict, particularly military conflict, is frequently a source of obstacles to many nations and persons in maintaining their liberty, prosperity, and security.

OBSERVING the need for a healthy amount of stability in international politics so that all nations and persons are better able to provide for their liberty, prosperity, and security.

CONVINCED that it is in the interests of all nations and persons to take action in both preventing international conflict before it arises and resolving it appropriately after it arises.

RECOGNIZING that there are some situations in which nations have no choice but to engage in military action to protect the liberty, prosperity, and security of their nation and its people.

URGES all member nations to interact peacefully and productively with other nations where it is possible and practical to do so in an effort to prevent and resolve international conflict in a way that promotes the liberty, proseperity, and security of all nations and persons.

DECLARES that all member nations have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to preserve the existence and continued liberty, prosperity, and security of their nation and its people, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed limitations on that right.

CALLS UPON all member nations to consider seriously the effects that their actions have on international political stability as well as their own internal political stability, the economic impact of their nation's policies on the nation as a whole and on the people of the nation, and the liberty of all nations and persons.

Please be aware this post is because of honest confusion. I'm not being snide or sarcastic.

I've read it through several times, and still am unclear on what exactly it is setting out to do. Is it to protect a nations right to go to war if needed? or something else. What sort of things is it protecting or blocking?

The main reason I'm asking this is because I've been thinking of bringing back a much revamped version of Banishment Ban sometime in the future, and are unsure if this draft would affect or even block it.

DECLARES that all member nations have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to preserve the existence and continued liberty, prosperity, and security of their nation and its people, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed limitations on that right.

Looking at this clause, it seems to me that the proposal is the ultra-mega-maxi-blocker. By including liberty and prosperity, it would prevent submission of most if not all resolutions that prohibited actions by nations in the areas of human rights, environmental protection, and economic affairs. For example, because some nation might consider protective tarriffs necessary to prosperity, free trade resolutions would be barred.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

DECLARES that all member nations have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to preserve the existence and continued liberty, prosperity, and security of their nation and its people, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed limitations on that right.
I would have suggested replacing the 'previous' with 'passed' to stop this being a possible uber-blocker (and thus illegal), but then I realised doing such a thing would render the entire proposal toothless (and thus illegal?). Seems like a catch-22 to me.

I've read it through several times, and still am unclear on what exactly it is setting out to do.
As far as I can tell, what it is setting out to do is block. I can't see that it does much else.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this essentially ban all resolutions? If so, our stance is a vehement no.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Title: International Stability Act

Captain Ramius: "A little rebellion here and then can be beneficial"

Every time I hear the concept of "International Stability: Good, turmoil: bad", I think "what short term thinkers". International instability can certainly cause problems - especially with loss of life and economic collapse - but that is far from the only things one must consider.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Significant

With Ausserland's comment in mind, I think the strength "strong" might be more appropriate.

The NationStates United Nations,

For the record, I'm really getting sick of these "Start by addressing the UN"

NOTING that international conflict, particularly military conflict, is frequently a source of obstacles to many nations and persons in maintaining their liberty, prosperity, and security.

And can also be an excellent way of gaining liberty, prosperity and security AND the prevention of potential International conflict and the protection of Internation stability is well known for restricting liberty, prosperity and security.

OBSERVING the need for a healthy amount of stability in international politics so that all nations and persons are better able to provide for their liberty, prosperity, and security.

I disagree completely.

CONVINCED that it is in the interests of all nations and persons to take action in both preventing international conflict before it arises and resolving it appropriately after it arises.

Hardly. I would think it in my best interests if the Wenaists were permanently ousted from Gruenberg. Pipe dream at best, but doesn't change my point.

RECOGNIZING that there are some situations in which nations have no choice but to engage in military action to protect the liberty, prosperity, and security of their nation and its people.

Agreed

URGES all member nations to interact peacefully and productively with other nations where it is possible and practical to do so in an effort to prevent and resolve international conflict in a way that promotes the liberty, proseperity, and security of all nations and persons.

Mostly agreed

DECLARES that all member nations have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to preserve the existence and continued liberty, prosperity, and security of their nation and its people, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed limitations on that right.

No.

OOC: This reads like a green light to the likes of the Patriot Act. Hell no. Freedom at all cost is not freedom.

CALLS UPON all member nations to consider seriously the effects that their actions have on international political stability as well as their own internal political stability, the economic impact of their nation's policies on the nation as a whole and on the people of the nation, and the liberty of all nations and persons.

......

For the record, I'm really getting sick of these "Start by addressing the UN"
That's actually to give the "sentence" of the resolution a subject, not to address the UN.

Lola Osborne
Director, Office of Grammar, Loopholes, and Technicalities
Ceoranan UN Office

I still am getting sick of it, no matter what the purpose.

Eh, live with it, the grammarian in me goes crazy when it's absent.

As for the proposal at hand... I think Ausserland and Forgottenlord have said all I have to say about this.

To further Enn's note about the use of the word previous, that renders any future UN Resolutions effectively void.

I don't like this one at all. I see no good coming from it. The planet never stops turning, and if it did, we would disintegrate, since it's spinning at roughly 10,000 miles an hour at the equator. That is to say... Instability must occur. The trick is being in the right place at the right time, not stopping it altogether.

But that may just be the gentle Taoist in me speaking.

If not to block future resolutions, this looks like something to give leverage against disarmament, human rights, or anything else related to "liberty, prosperity, and security". That phrase, by the way, is repeated so often (5 out of 7 paragraphs) that it almost smells like propaganda.

This pile of tripe would just turn the UN into a mere talking shop. As far as I can see this blocks every future resolution, undermines the supremacy of international law and tries to disguise using buzz words.

Worst. Draft. Ever.

I would hope that this draft was posted to encourage discussion rather than a genuine effort to get this into international law. Otherwise, I can only assume the author has lost all sanity and sense of legality.

First, I am going to state my personal opinion: full support. After this passes, I would look to repeal the Eon Convention, and then to advise the Jews of Gruenberg to run, very very fast.

However, I am not here to present my personal views, but those of my nation, and those are: full opposition. We believe the UN should be able to legislate on international affairs, and that national sovereignty extends only to territorial concerns. To suggest that any action in the name of stability is justified is several steps too far for us.

~ The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

I look around this hall and see representatives from countless nations that could really benefit from some 'instability'.

This proposal is not likely to meet with our support.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

TH, in all honesty, I think if you actually do submit this and the mods rule that it does exactly what we're saying it does, you will single handedly shut down all potential for blockers being proposed. I love the dimension blockers add to the UN and I think it would be a damn shame if a hairbrained move such as this goes ahead. The moderators aren't going to let you get away with shutting down the UN - you KNOW this.

Especially since we're biased "one worlders".

Or something.

Especially since we're biased "one worlders".

Or something.

One-world fascists.

But yeah. Did I already post in this thread? Just in case I haven't already contributed...

Blah = this proposal.

OOC: Taking posts in bunches for efficiency's sake. Will get to the main point here shortly.

The main reason I'm asking this is because I've been thinking of bringing back a much revamped version of Banishment Ban sometime in the future, and are unsure if this draft would affect or even block it.

I'd have to see the text of the revamped version to advise you on that.

Looking at this clause, it seems to me that the proposal is the ultra-mega-maxi-blocker. By including liberty and prosperity, it would prevent submission of most if not all resolutions that prohibited actions by nations in the areas of human rights, environmental protection, and economic affairs. For example, because some nation might consider protective tarriffs necessary to prosperity, free trade resolutions would be barred.

It would actually extend even further than that, though you're incorrect that it would bar free trade resolutions. I'll explain why in a bit.

I would have suggested replacing the 'previous' with 'passed' to stop this being a possible uber-blocker (and thus illegal), but then I realised doing such a thing would render the entire proposal toothless (and thus illegal?). Seems like a catch-22 to me.

That catch-22 has been there since UNSA. :)

Though the proposal would still be legal. It does have other clauses that do things, which is important.

OOC post

*gets out a nice paddle* Time for a round of ping-pong. Been too long since I've played, but I'll try not to disppoint. :)

Every time I hear the concept of "International Stability: Good, turmoil: bad", I think "what short term thinkers". International instability can certainly cause problems - especially with loss of life and economic collapse - but that is far from the only things one must consider.

This is actually a great point. I'm very much a long term thinker, and this is something that crossed my mind while writing the ISA. The problem is that it's difficult to express in resolution format. I'm still thinking about how I want to do that.

With Ausserland's comment in mind, I think the strength "strong" might be more appropriate.

To be blunt, you're thinking wrong, and so is Auss.

For the record, I'm really getting sick of these "Start by addressing the UN"

Me too, actually. But it's not a big enough deal for me to change it.

And can also be an excellent way of gaining liberty, prosperity and security AND the prevention of potential International conflict and the protection of Internation stability is well known for restricting liberty, prosperity and security.

Really now? Any evidence for this "well-known" phenomena?

I disagree completely.

I could not possibly care less. And I did try, just to be fair.

Hardly. I would think it in my best interests if the Wenaists were permanently ousted from Gruenberg. Pipe dream at best, but doesn't change my point.

The Wenaists are fun. :)

Agreed

Mostly agreed

Hey we agree on something. Life is grand, ain't it? :)

No.

OOC: This reads like a green light to the likes of the Patriot Act. Hell no. Freedom at all cost is not freedom.

The PATRIOT Act was a pansy-ass piece of shit compared to ISA, and much less reasonable.

......

That's not a clause you're going to want to discount, by the way.

If not to block future resolutions, this looks like something to give leverage against disarmament, human rights, or anything else related to "liberty, prosperity, and security". That phrase, by the way, is repeated so often (5 out of 7 paragraphs) that it almost smells like propaganda.

Propaganda? Me? Never. ;)

This pile of tripe would just turn the UN into a mere talking shop. As far as I can see this blocks every future resolution, undermines the supremacy of international law and tries to disguise using buzz words.

Worst. Draft. Ever.

Bullshit. I've seen much worse in the queue. And I suspect you have too.

I would hope that this draft was posted to encourage discussion rather than a genuine effort to get this into international law. Otherwise, I can only assume the author has lost all sanity and sense of legality.

One of the purposes of the draft is to encourage discussion, but it's possible that it will become international law too, though probably after some strategic revision.

TH, in all honesty, I think if you actually do submit this and the mods rule that it does exactly what we're saying it does, you will single handedly shut down all potential for blockers being proposed. I love the dimension blockers add to the UN and I think it would be a damn shame if a hairbrained move such as this goes ahead. The moderators aren't going to let you get away with shutting down the UN - you KNOW this.

Fortunately, the Mods are going to pay attention to what I say the proposal does, and not jump to make a ruling on what it is and does. It's a damn shame some folks couldn't do the same.

Especially since we're biased "one worlders".

Or something.

heh. Biased, yes, as are we all to some degree and in different ways. But I would hardly characterize all the Mods as "one worlders". Certainly not our two most active UN Mods.

Eh, live with it, the grammarian in me goes crazy when it's absent.

As for the proposal at hand... I think Ausserland and Forgottenlord have said all I have to say about this.

To further Enn's note about the use of the word previous, that renders any future UN Resolutions effectively void.

I don't like this one at all. I see no good coming from it. The planet never stops turning, and if it did, we would disintegrate, since it's spinning at roughly 10,000 miles an hour at the equator. That is to say... Instability must occur. The trick is being in the right place at the right time, not stopping it altogether.

But that may just be the gentle Taoist in me speaking.

You said "bring it on". I just did as you asked. :)

Alright, now to address the most common issue.

The claim that this proposal blocks all future legislation is patently absurd.

I suspect that most of you remember the UNSA debate or have read it at some point. Remember what UNSA allowed? (leaving aside a couple strategic loopholes) That's right, all mild language proposals. Same thing applies here. If the ISA were to pass, y'all could still submit mild language proposals to your heart's content. Have at it, as far as I'm concerned. It warms my sovereigntist heart when people pass resolutions that respect my sovereignty (as long as they're not too terribly out of bounds or ridiculous). :)

Now exactly what it does do is an interesting question, and depends on how strong you read CALLS UPON as being as well as your view of compliance.

Let's say you read CALLS UPON as being non-mandatory/sovereignty-friendly. Then the stuff following the CALLS UPON is ineffective and ISA blocks a hell of a lot. More than any other resolution, unintentionally or intentionally, that's for damn sure. Still not nearly everything though.

But if you read the CALLS UPON as being a mandatory clause on par with the strength of DECLARES, then there's a horse of a different color. It requires that all nations take into account all sorts of things (that they should be taking into account anyway, IMO) and means that all nations have a heavy responsibility to counterweight the freedom they have.

Also, if you're reading CALLS UPON as a strong clause (and I can replace it with something more obviously strong if you like), we have the issue of compliance. If you think compliance is assured by the gnomes, then hey, no problem. The gnomes will make sure all nations take the important factors into consideration before making policies. This seems like it would be a pretty good thing for folks who want other nations to be more reasonable. Hell, the ISA would be doing most of your work for you by making nations think things through and make reasonable policies.

But if you think compliance is not assured by the magical godmoding gnomes, it's six up and half a dozen down. You probably already think nations can do mostly want they want if they do some reasonably creative legislating or "forget" to have UN resolutions enforced by their nation's law enforcement, so it's not like the ISA would change much for y'all, really.

However, I am not here to present my personal views, but those of my nation, and those are: full opposition. We believe the UN should be able to legislate on international affairs, and that national sovereignty extends only to territorial concerns. To suggest that any action in the name of stability is justified is several steps too far for us.

~ The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador

OOC:

This is probably the most significant objection I've heard as yet. I'm currently looking at a way to re-write it to address that. It's an interesting challenge.

Alright, now to address the most common issue.

The claim that this proposal blocks all future legislation is patently absurd.Well now, why don't you just submit it and find out? I'd put very good money that the mods will not see it that way. Then we will be able to put this...abomination of a draft to death. Hopefully with a big stick.

I'll just restate. Worst proposal ever (submitted by someone who has been around the block a few times, as opposed to the trillions of newcomer proposals we see).

So this essentially blocks any proposal that isn't totally soveringnty friendly, and acts as a pre block to any non soverignty friendly replacement for repealed legislation?

At least that is what I think your posts are saying. Still unclear on it though. I'm trying very hard not to jump to conclusions, but that is how I am reading your posts. Perhaps I've missed something.

OOC: That's hardly a stirring defence. "You can still submit mild proposals." Well whoop de doo. It is legislating the UN into a hole.

The kind of proposal that gives the sovereigntist movement a bad name.

Somehow, my argument seems to have not changed. Somehow, I'm still going to call it "shutting down the UN". Somehow, I still think you are going to get ALL, and I do mean all, blockers banned

TH, When I first saw UNSA, I saw a proposal like this as a significant possibility, or multiple proposals along this line, that would eventually shut down the UN. Ok, fine, turn it into a body that does nothing but pass mild proposals. Doesn't change anything, it still shuts down the UN. You're trying to do a "let the NatSovs win" proposal and in the process, I honestly think you are going to collapse the very movement you popularlized.

My opinion remains the same. Whether it is illegal or not, I believe the mods will make it illegal. This is a ludicrous proposal and takes the game way too far. You have clearly missed the point of every single person that has posted so far.

Let's say you read CALLS UPON as being non-mandatory/sovereignty-friendly. Then the stuff following the CALLS UPON is ineffective and ISA blocks a hell of a lot.Sounds illegal to me.

Hell, the ISA would be doing most of your work for you by making nations think things through and make reasonable policies.Sounds like metagaming to me.

I'm not going to bring down the Modhammer yet, but I'm really not convinced here.

Having read the discussion to date, I'm more convinced than at first reading of the proposal that it would reduce the NSUN to passing nice, friendly, fluffy little resolutions with all the punch of a bowl of pablum.

Who cares about the "CALLS UPON"? The meat is here:

DECLARES that all member nations have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to preserve the existence and continued liberty, prosperity, and security of their nation and its people, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed limitations on that right.

This clearly would prevent the NSUN from legislating against anything that any nation might "deem necessary". So if my nation might deem protective tarriffs and a whole host of other protectionist measures necessary for preserving "prosperity," the NSUN couldn't prohibit them. I'm still waiting to be told why I'm wrong about this. Maybe those who understand free trade better than I do can explain it, but it seems to me you can't have very much in the way of a free trade proposal if absolute, draconian protectionism is a guaranteed right of nations.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Why didn't you just submit this masterpiece I drafted 4 months ago???

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10570755&postcount=12

OOC post

*gets out a nice paddle* Time for a round of ping-pong. Been too long since I've played, but I'll try not to disppoint. :)

Ok

This is actually a great point. I'm very much a long term thinker, and this is something that crossed my mind while writing the ISA. The problem is that it's difficult to express in resolution format. I'm still thinking about how I want to do that.

To be blunt, you're thinking wrong, and so is Auss.

No, our definitions are seperate. You're having a gigantic impact upon how the UN operates. That's a pretty strong resolution.

Also, you missed an important word in Ausserland's post

it would prevent submission of most if not all resolutions that prohibited actions by nations in the areas of human rights, environmental protection, and economic affairs.

A mild resolution prohibits nothing.

Me too, actually. But it's not a big enough deal for me to change it.

Yeah. More of a general vent. I tried updating my personal site on UN resolutions, got sick of seeing the line every single time I hit the next resolution.

Really now? Any evidence for this "well-known" phenomena?

OOC: War of Independance, 1776? Gained more freedoms and liberties by declaring war against the governers of the colony. Revolutions in all sorts of nations throughout history including (but far from limited to) Russia/Soviet Union in 1989-1991 (Yes, that was instability, especially since it resulted in a coup) and Chile's outsting of......fuck, I can't remember the dictator's name. Many other dictators throughout history have resulted with revolutions that have brought more rights and freedoms - if not on the short term, certainly on the long term - that they wouldn't have gotten had they remained in the state they were in.

The flip side - while I could beat a tired horse and go after the Patriot Act and its global equivelents that clamped down on people's rights to the point of the controversial Gitmo, these are fairly mild compared to some of the worst human rights abuses that exist in the name of National Security. Holocaust would be an excellent example, because if I recall correctly, the Jews were seen as a threat by many because of their success. Admittedly, that is not the reason at the base of everything, but it is what's claimed that counts when one analyzes politics as much as it is the reasons behind it - and it is the claims that comes in and is compared to the resolutions. I probably should also note the 400+ people China kills annually for National Security and the amazingly oppressive governments of North Korea and Saudi Arabia and, of course, there is Isreal - though I have yet to decide whether I support or oppose of Isreal's tactics, especially when one looks at the society it is contending with which elected a Hamas government.

It is a very common phenomonae and it is a fool who says it doesn't happen.

I could not possibly care less. And I did try, just to be fair.

*shrugs*

Might want to consider to use the word believing. Observing indicates an evident fact. Believing indicates an opinion.

The Wenaists are fun. :)

It's fun watching them run around like little ants trying in vain to defend their undefendable Goddess, but they are still despicable and should not be left to rule their nation with such a lack of morals.

Hey we agree on something. Life is grand, ain't it? :)

Um......not this week......for other reasons

The PATRIOT Act was a pansy-ass piece of shit compared to ISA, and much less reasonable.

The Patriot Act used the same arguments to justify its existance. The fact that you declared its arguments as correct further justifies its existance.

That's not a clause you're going to want to discount, by the way.

Anyone who doesn't consider it while working doesn't understand how the world works. You're telling us something we already know. What is there left to do but shrug?

But if you read the CALLS UPON as being a mandatory clause on par with the strength of DECLARES, then there's a horse of a different color. It requires that all nations take into account all sorts of things (that they should be taking into account anyway, IMO) and means that all nations have a heavy responsibility to counterweight the freedom they have.
I forgot to say what horseshit this is.

Taking into account the consequences of actions does not automatically indicate acting on those conclusions. Let's say "calls upon" is mandatory (which you know full well it isn't - or at least isn't necessarily): when we invade Gurglestan and start killing them all, we'll consider that our actions have consequences for other nations. We'll consider that, and then say "good, they're Gurglestani scum, they deserve it". And we'll carry on.

Still, you'd be able to pass a mild proposal suggesting we don't, if it's ok and we don't mind terribly, do an awful lot of genocide pretty please.

Sounds illegal to me.

Why?

Sounds like metagaming to me.

Why?

I'm not going to bring down the Modhammer yet, but I'm really not convinced here.

And I'm not convinced it's illegal, not by a long shot. "Sounds like" ain't much of an illegality claim.

No, our definitions are seperate. You're having a gigantic impact upon how the UN operates. That's a pretty strong resolution.

What definitions are you talking about?

Also, you missed an important word in Ausserland's post

Yes, after looking at it again, I did. I apologize to Auss and yourself for my comment.

A mild resolution prohibits nothing.

And depending on your view of compliance, a Strong resolution doesn't prohibit much at all.

Yeah. More of a general vent. I tried updating my personal site on UN resolutions, got sick of seeing the line every single time I hit the next resolution.

I know the feeling.

OOC: War of Independance, 1776? Gained more freedoms and liberties by declaring war against the governers of the colony. Revolutions in all sorts of nations throughout history including (but far from limited to) Russia/Soviet Union in 1989-1991 (Yes, that was instability, especially since it resulted in a coup) and Chile's outsting of......fuck, I can't remember the dictator's name. Many other dictators throughout history have resulted with revolutions that have brought more rights and freedoms - if not on the short term, certainly on the long term - that they wouldn't have gotten had they remained in the state they were in.

Then we're talking about your earlier point about long-term thinking, something I've already addressed.

The flip side - while I could beat a tired horse and go after the Patriot Act and its global equivelents that clamped down on people's rights to the point of the controversial Gitmo, these are fairly mild compared to some of the worst human rights abuses that exist in the name of National Security. Holocaust would be an excellent example, because if I recall correctly, the Jews were seen as a threat by many because of their success. Admittedly, that is not the reason at the base of everything, but it is what's claimed that counts when one analyzes politics as much as it is the reasons behind it - and it is the claims that comes in and is compared to the resolutions. I probably should also note the 400+ people China kills annually for National Security and the amazingly oppressive governments of North Korea and Saudi Arabia and, of course, there is Isreal - though I have yet to decide whether I support or oppose of Isreal's tactics, especially when one looks at the society it is contending with which elected a Hamas government.

Mmhmm. Let's see what you claimed.

And can also be an excellent way of gaining liberty, prosperity and security AND the prevention of potential International conflict and the protection of Internation stability is well known for restricting liberty, prosperity and security.

First you do a rehash of the long-term thinking bit, and then talk about the abuse of national security as an excuse for oppression. A little clarification as to why this supports your claim about international stability would be helpful.

Might want to consider to use the word believing. Observing indicates an evident fact. Believing indicates an opinion.

It's fun watching them run around like little ants trying in vain to defend their undefendable Goddess, but they are still despicable and should not be left to rule their nation with such a lack of morals.

Is that an observation, or a belief?

Um......not this week......for other reasons

I'm sorry that's the case for you.

The Patriot Act used the same arguments to justify its existance. The fact that you declared its arguments as correct further justifies its existance.

I read through the PATRIOT Act (though admittedly a long time ago so my memory may be spotty) and don't recall much about international stability.

Anyone who doesn't consider it while working doesn't understand how the world works. You're telling us something we already know. What is there left to do but shrug?

It's an important fact to remember. That's why most folks feel the need to pass resolutions dealing with other nation's domestic policies, because it seems like some nations don't take these things into account in their decision-making, unfortunately.

OOC: That's hardly a stirring defence. "You can still submit mild proposals." Well whoop de doo. It is legislating the UN into a hole.

It's the same hole the UN was in before I wrote the damn thing.

The kind of proposal that gives the sovereigntist movement a bad name.

We'll see.

Why didn't you just submit this masterpiece I drafted 4 months ago???

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10570755&postcount=12

I was going to accept your claim that the ISA was the worst proposal ever by a regular, but then you showed me this. Impressive. It's an incredible example of baiting in addition to being massively illegal in numerous ways.

Having read the discussion to date, I'm more convinced than at first reading of the proposal that it would reduce the NSUN to passing nice, friendly, fluffy little resolutions with all the punch of a bowl of pablum.

Who cares about the "CALLS UPON"?

The section following the CALLS UPON is very important. To help you get an idea of how important, I'm going to have to elaborate on some earlier points.

This clearly would prevent the NSUN from legislating against anything that any nation might "deem necessary". So if my nation might deem protective tarriffs and a whole host of other protectionist measures necessary for preserving "prosperity," the NSUN couldn't prohibit them. I'm still waiting to be told why I'm wrong about this. Maybe those who understand free trade better than I do can explain it, but it seems to me you can't have very much in the way of a free trade proposal if absolute, draconian protectionism is a guaranteed right of nations.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

OOC: As I noted in my response to FL, I misread your original statement. My apologies again.

My opinion remains the same. Whether it is illegal or not, I believe the mods will make it illegal. This is a ludicrous proposal and takes the game way too far. You have clearly missed the point of every single person that has posted so far.

Or is it possible that every single person that has posted so far has missed the point?

I think it's more than possible, personally. And I think it's partially my fault for not being more clear. I'll try to fix that.

What definitions are you talking about?

Definitions of what constitutes killing the UN.

Yes, after looking at it again, I did. I apologize to Auss and yourself for my comment.

And depending on your view of compliance, a Strong resolution doesn't prohibit much at all.

Doesn't matter. Strong resolutions can say they prohibit something. Mild resolutions can't. Ausserland's point stands.

I know the feeling.

Then we're talking about your earlier point about long-term thinking, something I've already addressed.

Mmhmm. Let's see what you claimed.

First you do a rehash of the long-term thinking bit, and then talk about the abuse of national security as an excuse for oppression. A little clarification as to why this supports your claim about international stability would be helpful.

Ok, let's see where this thread of the debate has gone through.

NOTING that international conflict, particularly military conflict, is frequently a source of obstacles to many nations and persons in maintaining their liberty, prosperity, and security.

Translation: International conflict hinders people's rights. Conclusion: International (or National) stability is beneficial.

And can also be an excellent way of gaining liberty, prosperity and security AND the prevention of potential International conflict and the protection of Internation stability is well known for restricting liberty, prosperity and security.

You'll recall the subject is International Conflict.

Translation: International Conflict might be a great way of gaining freedoms and attempts to prevent it and bring a sense of national and International security has often resulted in limitations of people's rights Conclusion: International stability is not always the best course of action

Really now? Any evidence for this "well-known" phenomena?

While I was wondering if, perhaps, you had misunderstood my claims, your statement seems to be implying that my claim was wrong.

*snip discussion about various RL historical events*

Conclusion: My statement is supported by historical evidence. International Conflict can have beneficial results.

A little clarification as to why this supports your claim about international stability would be helpful.

It supports it with proof. Do I need to explain in greater detail or were you confused?

Is that an observation, or a belief?

A belief can be contradicted and we can go our seperate ways. An observation shouldn't be contradictable.

I'm sorry that's the case for you.

I read through the PATRIOT Act (though admittedly a long time ago so my memory may be spotty) and don't recall much about international stability.

National stability is a component of International Stability.

It's an important fact to remember. That's why most folks feel the need to pass resolutions dealing with other nation's domestic policies, because it seems like some nations don't take these things into account in their decision-making, unfortunately.

You assume much with that claim. It is more likely they pass them because they disagree with what the other nations are willing to tolerate as the natural consequences of the particular decision they made. Certainly, Wenaism becoming the state religion in Gruenberg is going to be felt around the world because anyone that leaves Gruenberg will take a portion of Wenaism with them - which will obviously affect other nations. However, I wouldn't just say Gruenberg is content with that but I'd go as far as saying Gruenberg is jumping for joy at the possibility they might convert some of us infidels to join their cult. Obviously, this very same issue comes at odds with various delegations and beliefs of many systems.

Yes, this is a relatively tame version, but you can imagine that there are many issues where people do consider the consequences of their actions but consider it still worth those consequences - or even see such consequences as bonuses. This could extend to all fields.

So this essentially blocks any proposal that isn't totally soveringnty friendly, and acts as a pre block to any non soverignty friendly replacement for repealed legislation?

Essentially, yes.

At least that is what I think your posts are saying. Still unclear on it though. I'm trying very hard not to jump to conclusions, but that is how I am reading your posts. Perhaps I've missed something.

I really appreciate you not jumping to conclusions and trying to understand. :)

I'll try to explain more clearly here, for your sake and that of everyone else here.

Here's what you can submit if the ISA passes.
- Mild-language proposals in any category.
- International cooperation/committee resolutions (depending on how they're written).
- Repeals (and repealing the ISA would be quite possible, dare I say probable).


I'm going to make this as clear as possible folks. What you see in the draft is the UN legislative equivalent of the atomic bomb. It's more powerful than anything you're seen before, and the possibilities are frightening. They even concern me somewhat, though not unduly, and here's why.

The ISA is the worst-case scenario for the folks that like to force their views on other nations via the UN (and frustrating for those of us who like good and Strong international law). And guess what? Even in the worst-case scenario, the UN can and will go on. You still have repeals, including the imminent repeal of the ISA, as well as every category open to you. Is this clear? This is the worst possible thing that can happen to the UN from an IntFed standpoint, and the UN is not shut down. In fact, it's likely to go on much as before, with folks drafting proposals about lots of things and trying to repeal the blockers. And since the ISA would hardly be repealproof, NatSovs would still have to do plenty of work to keep the UN in balance.

What's more is that this legislative weapon is not exclusively available to national sovereignty advocates. International Federalists (or hell, even I could do it if I wanted) could adapt it to impose their ideology on the whole United Nations, and because the structural limitations that prevent a massive NatSov blocker from eliminating all UN legislation aside from repeals aren't there for the IntFeds, they actually could use it to eliminate all UN legislation aside from repeals if sufficiently broad wording was used. If y'all will remember from the UNSA debate, I posted a sample resolution written IntFed style that would totally block the Free Trade category, and a similar thing could be done in the Political Stability category that would have an even stronger effect than the ISA because it would eliminate even mild resolutions. Fortunately, I don't think IntFeds want to see that and they wouldn't use it that way, but the potential is there if they want to adapt the clause I've used for blocking to their own ends. Of course, even then such a resolution would probably be subject to a fairly quick repeal, and the UN would go on as before.

So why worry? That's my question.

The UN will go on regardless. It would be a pain in the ass if such a thing were to pass, and I think it would be a waste of time for me to pass something like the ISA in its current form, or for an IntFed to pass their ideological (and even stronger) equivalent. But as far as harming the game for any real length of time, I seriously doubt it.

But if y'all are still worried and want to prevent something like that from being passed, the solution is pretty simple. We can easily revise the ISA to be a blocker (irony alert!) for such a massive blocker from either side of the ideological divide, by making it Mild on both the national sovereignty clause and the international federalist clause and still preventing any others from coming down the pike because they'll be illegal for Duplication.

Or is it possible that every single person that has posted so far has missed the point?

Maybe it's both. Or maybe we got it but we're more concerned about other things (like the longevity of the blocker) to really care about the point.

Maybe you could've made your point without actually writing a proposal that treads into dangerous territory.

But I'll wait to see what you say your point was before I berate further.

So why worry? That's my question.

Because it's a fucking disgrace to the game.

NEXT!

Definitions of what constitutes killing the UN.

Ah. Well of course. You're laboring under the impression that the gnomes assure compliance. So Strong resolutions aren't just binding law like they are for me, they're reality.

Doesn't matter. Strong resolutions can say they prohibit something. Mild resolutions can't. Ausserland's point stands.

Ausserland's point does indeed stand. But yes, it does matter.

Edit: When you pass a Strong resolution, you're thinking it's doing something incredibly important, and I'm thinking you're wasting your energy. Our different views on compliance put us farther away from each other ideologically.

Ok, let's see where this thread of the debate has gone through.

Ok.

Translation: International conflict hinders people's rights. Conclusion: International (or National) stability is beneficial.

You'll recall the subject is International Conflict.

Translation: International Conflict might be a great way of gaining freedoms and attempts to prevent it and bring a sense of national and International security has often resulted in limitations of people's rights Conclusion: International stability is not always the best course of action

While I was wondering if, perhaps, you had misunderstood my claims, your statement seems to be implying that my claim was wrong.

Conclusion: My statement is supported by historical evidence. International Conflict can have beneficial results.

It supports it with proof. Do I need to explain in greater detail or were you confused?

I was confused by your wording and explanations. I appreciate the clarifications.

A belief can be contradicted and we can go our seperate ways. An observation shouldn't be contradictable.

What makes me curious about your attempt at contradicting the argument in the proposal is not the distinction between an observation and a belief. That's a fairly minor point, and I don't really care which one gets put in their respective places.

The fascinating thing is your continued insistence that international conflict can be perfectly appropriate when that is exactly what the ISA allows for. Nations can decide to engage in conflict if they see the need to do so.

You assume much with that claim.

Assume? No. It's based on observation of other folks behaviors, but I can see how it may have been a bit of an optimistic interpretation of other folk's motives. Thanks for pointing that out.

It is more likely they pass them because they disagree with what the other nations are willing to tolerate as the natural consequences of the particular decision they made. Certainly, Wenaism becoming the state religion in Gruenberg is going to be felt around the world because anyone that leaves Gruenberg will take a portion of Wenaism with them - which will obviously affect other nations. However, I wouldn't just say Gruenberg is content with that but I'd go as far as saying Gruenberg is jumping for joy at the possibility they might convert some of us infidels to join their cult. Obviously, this very same issue comes at odds with various delegations and beliefs of many systems.

Yes, this is a relatively tame version, but you can imagine that there are many issues where people do consider the consequences of their actions but consider it still worth those consequences - or even see such consequences as bonuses. This could extend to all fields.

That's actually one of the reasons I'm opposed to imposing my national ideology on other nations via the UN. Who am I to decide for other nations that conflict isn't necessary for long-term benefit in their case, or that oppression of their citizen's civil liberties isn't necessary for their long-term benefit?

Because it's a fucking disgrace to the game.

NEXT!

That's all? Just a vulgar, opinionated statement with no explanation of why it's the case?

I really prefer it when there are substantive points of contention in responses to my posts.

You said "bring it on". I just did as you asked. :)

This isn't even a challenge though. You might as well ask to have a picture taken off your butt instead of your face at school picture day.

Here's what you can submit if the ISA passes.
- Mild-language proposals in any category.

Illegal, for mechanics I believe. Can't submit significant or strong proposals? BUZZ.


- International cooperation/committee resolutions (depending on how they're written).
- Repeals (and repealing the ISA would be quite possible, dare I say probable).

I'm going to make this as clear as possible folks. What you see in the draft is the UN legislative equivalent of the atomic bomb. It's more powerful than anything you're seen before, and the possibilities are frightening. They even concern me somewhat, though not unduly, and here's why.
Well, you've convinced me (not that I wasn't already convinced). This here Proposal is a bad idea. So bad, even the creator is worried about it. I'd worry for your health if you got your hand on a hammer and decided to hit yourself on the head with it. Sure, it'd be a bad idea, but that apparently doesn't stop you.

The ISA is the worst-case scenario for the folks that like to force their views on other nations via the UN (and frustrating for those of us who like good and Strong international law).
Except, apparently, for the NatSov. Because, like you said to Witchcliff:

So this essentially blocks any proposal that isn't totally soveringnty friendly, and acts as a pre block to any non soverignty friendly replacement for repealed legislation?
Essentially, yes.
You're not even trying to hide it.

And guess what? Even in the worst-case scenario, the UN can and will go on. You still have repeals, including the imminent repeal of the ISA, as well as every category open to you. Is this clear? This is the worst possible thing that can happen to the UN from an IntFed standpoint, and the UN is not shut down. In fact, it's likely to go on much as before, with folks drafting proposals about lots of things and trying to repeal the blockers. And since the ISA would hardly be repealproof, NatSovs would still have to do plenty of work to keep the UN in balance.
So who in the hell is this benefitting then? If everyone is going to be unhappy with this damn thing, why on earth are you proposing it? Hammer on the head thing.

I thought you'd at least take my challenge seriously. I wouldn't wipe my butt with the paper this would be written on if computers didn't exist. Unless I were out of toilet paper. But only grudgingly...

I really prefer it when there are substantive points of contention in responses to my posts.

Even my logic professor said once upon a time... "You can't argue with someone who isn't using logic, so don't try. If you can't convince them to think critically, don't continue the argument."

There comes a point where it's just too difficult to think of any way to argue with someone who is not making sense. If you want substantive points of contention, have substantive points of support.

I can't even think of an analogy for what that "Why worry" line says. It really is boneheaded.

This isn't even a challenge though. You might as well ask to have a picture taken off your butt instead of your face at school picture day.

If it isn't a challenge, why are folks trying so hard to get rid of it?

Illegal, for mechanics I believe. Can't submit significant or strong proposals? BUZZ.

That's not what I said. I mentioned mild-language proposals. Mild-language proposals can get up to Significant easily enough, possibly Strong if they address a broad enough issue.

But a good thought on your part, nonetheless.

Well, you've convinced me (not that I wasn't already convinced). This here Proposal is a bad idea. So bad, even the creator is worried about it. I'd worry for your health if you got your hand on a hammer and decided to hit yourself on the head with it. Sure, it'd be a bad idea, but that apparently doesn't stop you.

I've posted a draft. Not submitted it as a proposal like I could have. Not tried to sneak it through by using a puppet nation to propose it for me.

You're not even trying to hide it.

No, I'm not. And what does that indicate to you?

So who in the hell is this benefitting then? If everyone is going to be unhappy with this damn thing, why on earth are you proposing it? Hammer on the head thing.

I haven't proposed it. And frankly, it's a hell of a lot better that we get this out of the way now and don't wait for an extreme sovereigntist or even an extreme international federalist to abuse this possibility.

I thought you'd at least take my challenge seriously. I wouldn't wipe my butt with the paper this would be written on if computers didn't exist. Unless I were out of toilet paper. But only grudgingly...

I did take your challenge seriously, as well as this reponse. And I certainly didn't have to, given the distinct lack of courtesy being shown here.

Just a quick notice. I won't be responding to this thread for this thread for a while, both because I'm going out of town soon and because I want it to have a chance to cool off. People, including myself, are getting too snippy over it from my perspective.

If it isn't a challenge, why are folks trying so hard to get rid of it?
Because we respect you enough not to treat you like a n00b.

That's not what I said. I mentioned mild-language proposals. Mild-language proposals can get up to Significant easily enough, possibly Strong if they address a broad enough issue.

But a good thought on your part, nonetheless.
Still sounds illegal to me, trying to limit the abilities of the significant and strong proposals.

I've posted a draft. Not submitted it as a proposal like I could have. Not tried to sneak it through by using a puppet nation to propose it for me.
It's a draft of a proposal. It's a proposal when it's born and stays a proposal until it's approved to be a Resolution, don't dance around the word I chose.


No, I'm not. And what does that indicate to you?
That you either think that it could be voted into the books without IntFed support, that IntFed won't mind voting for it, that you've lost your mind, or are just trying to jerk us around. In any of those cases, you're either wrong or you need to stop it.


I haven't proposed it. And frankly, it's a hell of a lot better that we get this out of the way now and don't wait for an extreme sovereigntist or even an extreme international federalist to abuse this possibility.
As if an extreme sovereigntist would be able to pass something worse than this?

I did take your challenge seriously, as well as this reponse. And I certainly didn't have to, given the distinct lack of courtesy being shown here.





(...........)

I'm curious, HotRodia. Would something similar to the Universal Bill of Rights be illegal under your proposal, were it to become resolution?

If so, I have to say that I find your proposal despicable. Guaranteeing basic universal human rights is in my opinion the very core of what the UN should do. Everything else extends from that.

Note that I am talking entirely from my point of view here, and am only talking about your proposal.
I'm not trying to call you anything, merely informing you of my opinions when it comes to this tactic in the UN.

I've had enough of this - everyone else is pretty much in agreement about this, and when one person stubbornly refuses to accept what is plain and obvious to everyone else...well, it's just pointless.

If this is your "big guns" or "best shot," then you need to learn how to aim. Right now you are shooting yourself in the foot.

I don't know if you were just posting this to rattle nerves and encourage debate, or if you are insane enough to consider posting this. But I'm not having any further part indulging you by even discussing this.

OOC: War of Independance, 1776? Gained more freedoms and liberties by declaring war against the governers of the colony. Revolutions in all sorts of nations throughout history including (but far from limited to) Russia/Soviet Union in 1989-1991 (Yes, that was instability, especially since it resulted in a coup) and Chile's outsting of......fuck, I can't remember the dictator's name.

OOC: Augusto Pinochet. I now return you all to your regularly scheduled bickering. ;)

That's all? Just a vulgar, opinionated statement with no explanation of why it's the case?

I really prefer it when there are substantive points of contention in responses to my posts.

Because I have never felt so insulted by you.

I'm ducking out.

and Chile's outsting of......fuck, I can't remember the dictator's name. OOC: Augusto Pinochet. I now return you all to your regularly scheduled bickering. ;)

OOC: Pinochet wasn't actually "ousted", he [eventually] surrendered office peacefully to elected politicians after losing a plebiscite...

OOC: Pinochet wasn't actually "ousted", he [eventually] surrendered office peacefully to elected politicians after losing a plebiscite...

OOC: True, but that's who FL was trying to think of. :p

All "purpose of the resolution" debate aside, this proposal is ultimately useless. In it's current state, it is an uber-blocker and will likley be deleted by the mods. With slight alteration, it becomes a resolution that basically says "UN Nations can do whatever they want as long as it isn't banned by the UN". Last time I checked, UN Natiions can already do that, and we don't need a resolution (particularily such a confused and mis-titled resolution) telling us that. This resolution is pointless, confused, confusing, and stupid.

Another thought.

If the mods rule it legal, and if it passes, and if the repeal fails, would the following proposal remain legal:

The United Nations,

Believing chemical weaponry to be bad mkay:

1. Declares the use of chemical weaponry to be unnecessary for the preservation of the existence and continued liberty, prosperity, and security of any nation and its people;

2. Prohibits the use of chemical weaponry.

Another thought.

If the mods rule it legal, and if it passes, and if the repeal fails, would the following proposal remain legal:

My eyes! The sunglasses do nothing! My eyes!