NationStates Jolt Archive

Split from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491959

To reiterate my last two posts

No, I picked the first four Resolutions that haven't been Repealed and forced them into the Moral Decency category. Much like what is happening here.

I'm not randomly shoving something into it

Read more closely. Those are Cog's words, not mine.

Whatever. They are a thorough explaination of the categories by a mod and what you left as the official explaination of the categories.

So is wife beating, owning slaves, murder, rape, assault, arson, theft, bribery, oppressing workers, and anything else in the world.

Yes, so?

This is no more about restricting the "right" to commit piracy (Moral Decency) than it is promoting the "right" to ship without being robbed (Human Rights).

I do believe I already discussed the difference between right to being able to do something and the right to not have something done to you. One is a freedom, the other is a protection.

On a different note, I would appreciate it if people stopped replying to this legality debate with IC comments. I don't recall very many legality debates that were done IC. Why? Because I'd rather hear your opinions about this without the bias of your ministers.

Ok, a different angle that occurred to me on the bus.

If we were to legalize piracy (no chance in hell of passing, I know), what category would it fall under?

If we were to legalize piracy (no chance in hell of passing, I know), what category would it fall under?

Free trade! :D :p

So is wife beating, owning slaves, murder, rape, assault, arson, theft, bribery, oppressing workers, and anything else in the world.Yes, so?And here's were we have the breakdown. I do not consider any of those to be 'rights'. I don't have the right to shoot my neighbor and laws against murder are not restricting my rights.

To be perfectly blunt, you don't have a right to do anything you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. To be even more blunt, the fact that you're arguing this leads me to question your rationality and if you've become utterly blinded by ideology.

To be perfectly blunt, you don't have a right to do anything you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.

Ummm...actually, that's exactly what rights are like in HotRodia.

And here's were we have the breakdown. I do not consider any of those to be 'rights'. I don't have the right to shoot my neighbor and laws against murder are not restricting my rights.

To be perfectly blunt, you don't have a right to do anything you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.

Even in an anarchy?

You certainly have the freedom to do so. I guess I should ask - what is the difference between a freedom and a right?

To be even more blunt, the fact that you're arguing this leads me to question your rationality and if you've become utterly blinded by ideology.

Possibly. It's also possible that our definitions are mixed up and perhaps we should start off by questioning them. However, there are interesting questions about how we determine what is the difference between a human rights and moral decency proposal, and even moreso how we would classify the counter. Neither of these questions you have really given me an answer to other than suggest I'm blinded by ideology or toss examples at me - one of which you went scarecrow with.

Now, let's go through your list.

So is wife beating, owning slaves, murder, rape, assault, arson, theft, bribery, oppressing workers, and anything else in the world.

Obviously, wife beating, owning slaves and most likely rape (I suspect you MIGHT be able to get away with rape if you're very fucking careful with the wording, but 99% of those proposals would be illegal) would all fall under grossly offensive. Oppressing workers, if legal, would be labor deregulation. However, murder, assault, arson, theft and bribery - if the UN were to every write a proposal that mandated the legalization (or, really, even just the decriminalization) of any of these, what category would it fall under?

Even in an anarchy?Just because my nation is an anarchy doesn't mean I support the concept. Besides, anarchy is a collapse of social order, no matter how much the wonks in General may wish to paint it as a method of governance.

You certainly have the freedom to do so. I guess I should ask - what is the difference between a freedom and a right?Do you really want me to quote Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com) here? Briefly, freedom is a state of being, rights are things that people have claim to. Civil rights, are freedoms granted by the government. "Inalienable rights" are something made up by the Founding Fathers (who cribbed from Locke) that are freedoms granted by a divine being (specifically, the Christian God).

Notice how rights are being granted by some authority? To use your anarchy example, I might have the freedom to punch you in the nose, but I don't have the right to. Indeed, with a strict interpretation, people living in an anarchy have no rights at all.

However, there are interesting questions about how we determine what is the difference between a human rights and moral decency proposal, and even moreso how we would classify the counter.Seems pretty clear cut to me. Piracy is not a right, therefore banning it does not limit "civil rights", therefore banning it is not Moral Decency.

And if we're going to play these semantic games, then I need to edit Cog's definitions. Human Rights deals with "civil rights" and Moral Decency deals with "civil freedoms", which means they deal with two different things. Of course, it would probably be better to have an admin change the MD descriptor line, as "civil freedoms" is something of a non sequitor.

However, murder, assault, arson, theft and bribery - if the UN were to every write a proposal that mandated the legalization (or, really, even just the decriminalization) of any of these, what category would it fall under?"Silly"

Just because my nation is an anarchy doesn't mean I support the concept. Besides, anarchy is a collapse of social order, no matter how much the wonks in General may wish to paint it as a method of governance.

You do realize that a word can have multiple (and acceptable) definitions? English has a number of such words, as I'm sure you know.

Notice how rights are being granted by some authority? To use your anarchy example, I might have the freedom to punch you in the nose, but I don't have the right to. Indeed, with a strict interpretation, people living in an anarchy have no rights at all.

An authority is not necessarily a deity, though in the case of HotRodia, that deity would be Supercarious, the Engine that Drives the Universe. But in terms of governance, the nation's government, such as it is, draws its authority from the people, and that government has chosen to give its people the right to do whatever the hell they want.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Piracy is not a right, therefore banning it does not limit "civil rights", therefore banning it is not Moral Decency.

Is breastfeeding in public (from the issue I'm sure you remember) a right? I venture to say you wouldn't think so. And yet, banning breastfeeding in public would fall under Moral Decency, would it not? What about public nudity (from another issue)? That's not a right, is it? And yet, I dare say banning public nudity would fall under Moral Decency.

What stats do those issues affect, Hack? As a GM you know, right? Don't they affect the Civil Rights stats, the same stats that take a hit from Moral Decency resolutions? Doesn't banning public nudity in that issue take away from our Civil Rights stats just like an MD res?

You do realize that a word can have multiple (and acceptable) definitions? English has a number of such words, as I'm sure you know.Indeed. However, commonly accepted definitions must be used and prefered or we find ourselves dithering over the definition of "is".

An authority is not necessarily a deityCertainly. However, the basis for the Founding Fathers' inalienable rights was God. At least in the Declaration of Independance, which is the only place where such a phrase appears.

But in terms of governance, the nation's government, such as it is, draws its authority from the people, and that government has chosen to give its people the right to do whatever the hell they want.But in an anarchy there is no government. No government means no authority granting rights.

[breastfeeding and public nudity]Neither of these are parallel to piracy, however, as they cause no harm. Victimless crimes and all.

What stats do those issues affect, Hack? As a GM you know, right? Don't they affect the Civil Rights stats, the same stats that take a hit from Moral Decency resolutions? Doesn't banning public nudity in that issue take away from our Civil Rights stats just like an MD res?Not exactly ;) Issues are more robust than Resolutions. Both of those, I believe, affect freedoms.

Indeed. However, commonly accepted definitions must be used and prefered or we find ourselves dithering over the definition of "is".

Heh. He was doing all sorts of dithering, and not much of it has to do with semantics. ;)

And I don't buy your slippery-slope argument. Language evolves quite well on its own, and what's commonly accepted will change, as with the definition of anarchy. That's how it goes, and it doesn't necessarily mean we'll end up debating the meaning of "is". And besides, debates, philosophical or legal, often require discussions of semantics before the real debate can begin.

Certainly.

Glad you agree.

However, the basis for the Founding Fathers' inalienable rights was God. At least in the Declaration of Independance, which is the only place where such a phrase appears.

Heh. I'm familiar with it.

But in an anarchy there is no government. No government means no authority granting rights.

It depends on which sense of "anarchy" you're referring to. And at the very least, in terms of the game we do have many nations classed as Anarchy with medium-sized and even omnipresent governments listed in the national description on their nation page. My nation, for example, has had an omnipresent government while being an Anarchy in the past.

Neither of these are parallel to piracy, however, as they cause no harm. Victimless crimes and all.

I dunno. I'll try not to be too graphic here, but a naked hairy fat man jiggling along on the way to work leaves many victims behind him in nations where such a lack of fitness is considered disgusting and offensive.

Not exactly ;) Issues are more robust than Resolutions. Both of those, I believe, affect freedoms.

But they both affect the same thing, don't they? That was the essential point.

Edit: And I do know that issue effects are more complicated than resolution effects.

And I don't buy your slippery-slope argument. Language evolves quite well on its own, and what's commonly accepted will change, as with the definition of anarchy.Perhaps, but I don't think the definition of anarchy has really changed. The people that promote it (anrcho-communists/capitalist/anamists/primativists/etc) still believe that there will be no government. That's rather the point. And if you establish a "tribal council" where everyone is equal, well... that would be textbook direct democracy. And while that certainly seems like anarchy at times (heh), it's not the same thing.

And besides, debates, philosophical or legal, often require discussions of semantics before the real debate can begin.True, and I'm never one to shy away from semantics, but it strikes me as a delaying tactic here. Aside from being somewhat off topic, I'm not convinced the definition (add quotation marks if you wish) of anarchy has shifted enough to invalidate my point.

It depends on which sense of "anarchy" you're referring to. And at the very least, in terms of the game we do have many nations classed as Anarchy with medium-sized and even omnipresent governments listed in the national description on their nation page.Well... this game is hardly a paragon of reality. Or even logic. I direct your attention to the oxymoron that is The Shambling Mounds (http://www.nationstates.net/the_shambling_mounds). A "Capitalist Paradise" with 100% taxes and private industry outlawed. That's at least as inexplicable as an "Anarchy" with an omnipresent government.

My nation, for example, has had an omnipresent government while being an Anarchy in the past.That's one of those combinations that "shouldn't" happen.

I'll try not to be too graphic here, but a naked hairy fat man jiggling along on the way to work leaves many victims behind him in nations where such a lack of fitness is considered disgusting and offensive.Yes, but not harmful in a "kill you and steal all your stuff" way like piracy is.

But they both affect the same thing, don't they? That was the essential point.Nah. There's freedoms and there's rights. Both are pretty specific.

Rights are definitely granted, not innate. I'm as staunch an Amnesty supporter as you'll find, but my basis for this is not that human rights are innately inalienable and transcendent, it's that they ought to be.

Anyway, If the game was consistent then this wouldn't really be an issue. However, rights and freedoms are frequently confused, and so we get unclear circumstances such as the piracy categorisation.

I'd say that a case can be made for Moral Decency in that it impinges on the freedom to roam the seas yarring at people and introducing them to sharks via planks. It's also pretty clear to me that it addresses a security matter of international significance - there's your International Security qualifier. And then... it places a barrier on trade, too. Piracy is an economic freedom, as well as a personal freedom. However, none of the 'anti'-Free Trade categories fit because of extra provisions that the propsoal doesn't satisfy.

To cut a long and probably dull ramble short: both MD and IS seem fine to me, just choose which ratings you want to increase/decrease and go from there. It wouldn't be the first time a proposal has fit into more than one category. Be aware that people are more inclined to up military spending than curtail civil freedoms or rights, mind.

As already noted in the 'Suppression of Piracy' thread, I too considered the definitions given for the catgeories -- along with the precedent of some previous proposals that other people submitted, or at least posted in this forum, without their legality on the basis of Category being questioned -- to justify a 'Moral Decency' classification for suppressing pirates...

However I disagree with Dassenko about 'Free Trade', on the basis that the definition currently given for that catgeory only refers to "barriers" not to "government-imposed barriers" (and there is precedent for barriers of other kinds being considered) so that in my opinion removing -- or at least reducing -- the pirates' effects on legitimate trade (which presumably must be greater in scale than the pirates' own activities) would also suit a classification under that heading...

To just jump into this whole Moral Decency vs International Security business, I think that the question of Moral Decency applies only to acts that can be considered to be contravening a moral law. Homosexuality, euthanasia, drugs, abortion, etc, all fall under moral criterion because there's a distinct moral question inherent in any resolution about them. You have to decide which set of moral standards you choose to adhere to and for that matter, where you derive your moral standpoint from, which in turn influences the actual behaviour of the society you are representing. To wit, if you were to legislate in favour of a resolution restricting abortion 'rights' on moral grounds, you would almost certainly be doing so on the basis of a moral law accepted by the majority of the citizenry you represent. In other words, you can't disassociate the moral background of your country from a national position, which means ultimately the U.N., when legislating on issues deemed to be under the aegis of "moral decency" has come to a consensus based upon the majority morality of its members.

So how does this apply to piracy? Well, morally speaking there is no common ground on piracy, because as an issue it is very much dependant on national circumstances and given the fluctuating and variable state of what is considered 'moral' and 'decent', you can't really legislate it as morality because you have no precedent nor unifying morality to use as a guide. Similarly, a protest against a resolution on the basis of morality would be flawed because it cannot recognise the full scope of variable moral laws.

International Security on the other hand, can be done so, because the grounds of what is agreed as security are far less ambiguous. Most people can agree that whilst it may be impingning on the economic freedom of a pirate to pirate, we are simultaneously protecting the economic rights of victims of piracy. Economic rights can go both ways, but compared to freedoms, they are usually imposed as a means of protecting the lowest denominator in a society, those most vulnerable to exercising economic freedom and abusing the economic rights of others. So a security definition avoids the thorny issue of "freedom" and the ambiguity of "moral decency" and focuses on rights, which are granted by a central authority and confirmed and consolidated by a society. Freedom, it has to be said, is only as good as those exercising it and to put it plainly it is a meaningless term, because like "moral decency" and "morality" it can be swung so many ways. A right though is far more categorical and clear. For those reasons, an IS definition would be simpler and far more practical for the purposes of debating the resolution.

I hope this wasn't too confusing.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Just because my nation is an anarchy doesn't mean I support the concept. Besides, anarchy is a collapse of social order, no matter how much the wonks in General may wish to paint it as a method of governance.

I note that you didn't answer my question. Alright, let's go with a nation that's near anarchy - they say citizens can do whatever they want so long as it isn't oppressing workers (with various rules capped on businesses and such). Is this a practical government? Not really. But not all nations in NS are so that doesn't really undermine the legitimacy of this argument.

Do you really want me to quote Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com) here? Briefly, freedom is a state of being, rights are things that people have claim to. Civil rights, are freedoms granted by the government.

And a logical extension is that a moral decency proposal removes those freedoms granted by the government - or one could better word it as freedom removed by the government.

"Inalienable rights" are something made up by the Founding Fathers (who cribbed from Locke) that are freedoms granted by a divine being (specifically, the Christian God).

You'll note that the only thing I've ever claimed to be an inalienable right is death. Obviously doesn't match your definition, but it certainly is a right that's impossible to remove

Regardless, how was this brought up?

Notice how rights are being granted by some authority? To use your anarchy example, I might have the freedom to punch you in the nose, but I don't have the right to. Indeed, with a strict interpretation, people living in an anarchy have no rights at all.

That's assuming there isn't a puppet government with absolutely no purpose that hasn't decreed that they have full rights. Again, not a practical government, but not all NS governments are.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Piracy is not a right, therefore banning it does not limit "civil rights", therefore banning it is not Moral Decency.

Says who no nation has granted the right to piracy? Says who no nation that harbors pirates is not saying "you are allowed to be a pirate"? That seems like a lot of assumptions there.

And if we're going to play these semantic games, then I need to edit Cog's definitions. Human Rights deals with "civil rights" and Moral Decency deals with "civil freedoms", which means they deal with two different things. Of course, it would probably be better to have an admin change the MD descriptor line, as "civil freedoms" is something of a non sequitor.

Yes, but since it does use civil freedoms, one would assume that limiting a freedom would still work as a moral decency proposal, even if it isn't a civil right.

EDIT: Perhaps the reason it uses civil freedoms for Moral Decency and civil rights for Human Rights is that it goes from the basis that they aren't rights by default but the freedoms can still be restricted by the government, while Civil Rights are being granted by the governments of the world should a Human Rights resolution be passed thus making them civil rights.

"Silly"

So all proposals that fall under this concept are silly by default? What about a proposal for the right to duel to the death? Considering some nations here opennly admit that they have such laws in place and it isn't based upon the possibility of the collapse of society, I think that would be a legit proposal (even if it doesn't have a shot in hell of passing). What category would it be under?

So how does this apply to piracy? Well, morally speaking there is no common ground on piracy, because as an issue it is very much dependant on national circumstances and given the fluctuating and variable state of what is considered 'moral' and 'decent', you can't really legislate it as morality because you have no precedent nor unifying morality to use as a guide. Similarly, a protest against a resolution on the basis of morality would be flawed because it cannot recognise the full scope of variable moral laws.

'Thou shallt not commit murder.'
'Thou shallt not steal.'

Piracy that doesn't break at least one of those quite-widely-accepted moral rules?

Haven't seen an argument like this since my Political Theory classes at uni. :cool:

And +5,000 points to Hack for throwing Locke out there. Although I'm disappointed, my friend, that you can't cite the appropriate chapter(s) from his Two Treatises on Government. ;)

A few points...

I'm fully behind Compadria's description of economic rights vs freedoms. Piracy is an economic freedom - I'd have thought this was self-evident. Furthermore, the 'barriers' to trade are everywhere. It's not possible to avoid barriers as the very existent of competitors place barriers of one sort or another on one's potential for trading. I think it's best to stick with defining these barriers for the purposes of the game as those erected by govts, international organisations, cartels, etc.

However, I'm with St Edmund with regards to the moral basis of banning piracy. There's a definite moral code coming into play. It's not universal, but very few codes are - not even paedophilia, to name but one example.

And I agree with FL that piracy is a right in some places. Certainly in Ecopoeia it (well, a mild form of it) is a tacitly acknowledged necessary evil. The govt turns a blind eye (not that it's capable of much more anyway, Eco being a pseudo-anarchy). Now, I'm sure Eco is not the most extreme nation out there, so presumably some pirates somewhere have fairly well-enshrined rights.

Finally, the only political theory I've ever been involved with is on these boards, so no doubt I'll soon find I'm way out of my depth. At which point I'll pretend I understand and keep schtum.

Okay, I'll jump into this. *sigh* The question is rights versus freedoms. In the "state of nature" -- that is, without government -- man has total freedom but no rights. Once man enters into the so-called "social contract" and forms a government, he gives up his freedoms. The government then grants "rights" to certain freedoms that man had in the state of nature -- e.g., freedom of speech, assembly, etc., per the US Constitution. Thus, once a government is formed, one may have a right to a certain freedom, but only if granted by the government.

Hack was entirely correct earlier when he stated that a right must come from some source of authority. Religious folks, like those (mostly deists) who wrote the US Declaration of Independence, will cite God (or more specific to that particular document "Creator") as the authority, but we secular folk look to the government as a source of rights and the protection thereof.

'Thou shallt not commit murder.'
'Thou shallt not steal.'

Piracy that doesn't break at least one of those quite-widely-accepted moral rules?

Well, that's one set of moral rules. While most moral rules are against murder, their interpretation of what morally constitutes murder (as opposed to a legal definition) can vary quite highly. Same for stealing. For example, if the pirates are running out of water and they have no other means of obtaining it other than theft, then some would say that wasn't theft, other would.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

EDIT: And thanks to Dassenko for agreeing with my definition of economic rights vs economic freedoms. You get a special otter blessing for that.;)

Perhaps, but I don't think the definition of anarchy has really changed. The people that promote it (anrcho-communists/capitalist/anamists/primativists/etc) still believe that there will be no government. That's rather the point. And if you establish a "tribal council" where everyone is equal, well... that would be textbook direct democracy. And while that certainly seems like anarchy at times (heh), it's not the same thing.

This goes back to my point about some words having two (or more) definitions in English.

Frankly, I tend to not like the use of the term anarchy either because I think in some ways it's a poor fit for those ideologies. But at the same time, in other ways its a great fit, and I aknowledge that, as well as the fact that anarchy, while not being perfect, is the best available term to use. And since it has understandable practical value given the situation, I tolerate it.

True, and I'm never one to shy away from semantics, but it strikes me as a delaying tactic here. Aside from being somewhat off topic, I'm not convinced the definition (add quotation marks if you wish) of anarchy has shifted enough to invalidate my point.

Eh. Not a delaying tactic. Just the usual ping-pong breaking off into tangent points.

I'll concede that, IRL, the definition of anarchy has not shifted enough to invalidate your point. But in the context of NS, well, I think it has.

Well... this game is hardly a paragon of reality. Or even logic. I direct your attention to the oxymoron that is The Shambling Mounds (http://www.nationstates.net/the_shambling_mounds). A "Capitalist Paradise" with 100% taxes and private industry outlawed. That's at least as inexplicable as an "Anarchy" with an omnipresent government.

But right now, this game is exactly the reality we're dealing with, ain't it? NS is not the same as RL. We've had to mention that in this forum so many times that we made a card for it and included it in a sticky. It strikes me as inappropriate that we would insist that we're grounded in NS and then when making a ruling on a game matter, decide that we'll base our decision on RL facts rather than game facts.

The truth is, that in the NS world, anarchies can have omnipresent/large/medium-sized governments. The fact is, this is NS, not RL, and anarchies can do all sorts of things here.

That's one of those combinations that "shouldn't" happen.

Yes, but it did. That's how the NS reality is.

Yes, but not harmful in a "kill you and steal all your stuff" way like piracy is.

Oh look! A difference of degree. So what?

I appreciate that you think piracy is worse than public nudity, because frankly I agree with you. But piracy is not suddenly excluded from being banned using the MD category just because it's not a "right" anymore than nudity is. They may not be a parallel case, as you mentioned, but they are analogous for the purposes of my point. They are both acts that people have moral objections to and are victimized by, and banning both is a restriction on individual freedoms, maybe even "rights" depending on the particular nation in question.

----------

I'll try to be very clear here on what I mean. Moral Decency includes the restriction of "rights", but is not exclusively bound to what are commonly accepted as rights. Let's take some obvious examples:

Gay Marriage: Not commonly accepted as a right. Hell, I'm entirely in favor of allowing gays to get hitched and I still don't see it as a right.

But banning gay marriage would be Moral Decency, now wouldn't it?

What about euthanasia? What category would a ban on euthanasia be? Moral Decency, right?

Let's take abortion. A ban on abortion could easily be written as a Moral Decency proposal, and I'm betting that even if someone tried to submit an implicit abortion ban, carefully worded, as an HR proposal, a lot of folks would have a conniption fit and insist on it being Moral Decency.

What about public nudity? Not a right in all countries, is it? And a UN ban on public nudity would be, you guessed it, Moral Decency.

Let's look at an old resolution by Goobergunchia, "Outlaw Pedophilia". Is pedophilia a right? Hell no. But what is the resolution that bans it? Moral Decency.

----------

When it comes down to it, Hack, I'd rather not see the UN held to your conception of what constitutes a human right when it comes to the official rules on legislating.

Please let the general assembly continue to decide what's a right and what's not in the context of UN law. If the UN wants to uphold abortion as a human right (while I personally see it as a privilege to be paid for), I'll fight against it ICly for my nation's reasons, but I'd rather not see the Human Rights category officially restricted to dealing with what I (or anybody else) personally consider OOCly to be rights.

Nah. There's freedoms and there's rights. Both are pretty specific.

According to the game as well as Merriam-Webster?

I note that you didn't answer my question.Because your question was irrelevent.

Regardless, how was this brought up?You asked the difference between rights and freedoms. Please try to remember your own arguments.

That's assuming there isn't a puppet government with absolutely no purpose that hasn't decreed that they have full rights. Again, not a practical government, but not all NS governments are.We can assume all day long, but I'm not going to DLE the ruleset.

Says who no nation has granted the right to piracy? Says who no nation that harbors pirates is not saying "you are allowed to be a pirate"? That seems like a lot of assumptions there.Because of my age and the fact that I've passed a test, I can legally drive. That doesn't mean I have a right to drive. It's a granted priveledge; much like legalized piracy. Sir Drake didn't have the right to plunder the Spaniards, he was given permission.

So all proposals that fall under this concept are silly by default? What about a proposal for the right to duel to the death? Considering some nations here opennly admit that they have such laws in place and it isn't based upon the possibility of the collapse of society, I think that would be a legit proposal (even if it doesn't have a shot in hell of passing). What category would it be under?Why yes, FL. A Proposal to legalize arson would be silly. Are you trying to be obtuse here? Spoiling for a fight? Or is there actually a point buried in there somewhere?


And +5,000 points to Hack for throwing Locke out there. Although I'm disappointed, my friend, that you can't cite the appropriate chapter(s) from his Two Treatises on Government.I figured someone would jump on me if I didn't. And I don't have a copy handy to look it up. It's been awhile since I studied Locke.


I'll concede that, IRL, the definition of anarchy has not shifted enough to invalidate your point. But in the context of NS, well, I think it has.Perhaps, but NS has a whole bunch of insanities that must be ignored when dealing with the rules. 'Reasonable Nation' theory and all. I'm not going to change things around for nations populated by hyper-intelligent shades of blue, and I'm not convinced that "omipresent government" anarchies are any more reasonable.

But right now, this game is exactly the reality we're dealing with, ain't it? NS is not the same as RL. We've had to mention that in this forum so many times that we made a card for it and included it in a sticky. It strikes me as inappropriate that we would insist that we're grounded in NS and then when making a ruling on a game matter, decide that we'll base our decision on RL facts rather than game facts.There has to be a blend of the two. The rules are metagame, and must take into account things outside of the "IC" scope of the game. We're not discussing a specific Proposal, so we have to step out of the IC world, and consider things other than just the "realities" of the NS world. Especially when dealing with definitions.

Oh look! A difference of degree. So what?The devil is in the details. And, come on, Tex. You know that there is considerably more than a "degree of" difference between piracy and see some fat bastard's ass.

They are both acts that people have moral objections to and are victimized by, and banning both is a restriction on individual freedoms, maybe even "rights" depending on the particular nation in question.Most people's objections to piracy aren't framed via morals.

When it comes down to it, Hack, I'd rather not see the UN held to your conception of what constitutes a human right when it comes to the official rules on legislating.You know I'm not trying to micromanage here. I don't see piracy as a right, and I don't see banning it as Moral Decency. Especially when there's a much better category to put it under. I don't want to accuse you of arguing for the sake of argument, but think about it for a second. You're arguing that piracy (and thus, by extension, every crime in existance) is a "right".

Please let the general assembly continue to decide what's a right and what's not in the context of UN law.This has nothing to do with the general assembly. If it had been submitted under Recreational Drug: Promote, nobody would be arguing my authority to question the category. This isn't a matter of if people accept the concepts of a Proposal, it's a question of the UN Ruleset.

but I'd rather not see the Human Rights category officially restricted to dealing with what I (or anybody else) personally consider OOCly to be rights.It already is.

Nah. There's freedoms and there's rights. Both are pretty specific.According to the game as well as Merriam-Webster?Huh?

I'm not convinced that "omipresent government" anarchies are any more reasonable.

Governments so large & complex that they can rarely if ever actually get anything -- including the enforcement of rules -- done, leading to anarchy by default?

I figured someone would jump on me if I didn't.

That's what I'm here for. ;)

And I don't have a copy handy to look it up. It's been awhile since I studied Locke.


For shame. One should never forget genius. :p

Oh, and I notice that, in all this bickering, my serious post went ignored. Typical. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother being serious here (even though I only do so, admittedly, on rare occasions).

Perhaps, but NS has a whole bunch of insanities that must be ignored when dealing with the rules. 'Reasonable Nation' theory and all. I'm not going to change things around for nations populated by hyper-intelligent shades of blue, and I'm not convinced that "omipresent government" anarchies are any more reasonable.

Reasonable or not, it's the reality we're working within.

There has to be a blend of the two. The rules are metagame, and must take into account things outside of the "IC" scope of the game. We're not discussing a specific Proposal, so we have to step out of the IC world, and consider things other than just the "realities" of the NS world. Especially when dealing with definitions.

I agree. It has to be a blend of IC and OOC. Roleplay and game stats should both be taken into account.

But I'm not sure why you want to consider non-NS realities. We're playing NS, not RL, when it comes to UN categories. When it comes to the question of what rights are in an abstract sense, sure we should bring in RL stuff. But with deciding NSUN categories, we're firmly in the scope of the NS universe, mostly game stats and some roleplay.

The devil is in the details. And, come on, Tex. You know that there is considerably more than a "degree of" difference between piracy and see some fat bastard's ass.

Sure. But not differences relevant to the analogy.

Most people's objections to piracy aren't framed via morals.

So what? Did the ALC get fitted into the MD category because it said abortion was immoral? No, it didn't, as I recall. Care to review the thread and see what the ruling on ALC's category implies about what can go in the MD category? I can link you if you want.

You know I'm not trying to micromanage here. I don't see piracy as a right, and I don't see banning it as Moral Decency. Especially when there's a much better category to put it under. I don't want to accuse you of arguing for the sake of argument, but think about it for a second. You're arguing that piracy (and thus, by extension, every crime in existance) is a "right".

Sigh. I'm not making the same argument as FL was.

I'm arguing that banning those things I mentioned belong in the Moral Decency category, regardless of whether you or I consider them rights or not, regardless of whether any particular nation currently considers them rights. There are plenty of things that could be restricted or banned in the Moral Decency category, and not all of them are going to be commonly-accepted rights. (I also tried to point out that just because you don't consider some things rights doesn't mean they aren't rights in other places, for example HotRodia.) Regardless, that whole anarchy/rights tangent aside because I don't think it's particularly relevant to deciding what category something goes in and I'm getting irritated that we've gotten distracted with that little red herring, let me clarify here.

Here's how I tend to view it. When an HR resolution passes saying that folks have right to do something, they now have that right in international law. When an MD resolution passes saying that folks don't have that right, they don't have that right in international law. It doesn't really matter if it's a right in Gruenberg, or in HotRodia, or The Hack, or Forgottenlands. It doesn't really matter if I as a player think it's a right, or you as a player (or as a Mod, imo, see further in the post for why) think it's a right. Our individual opinions are only determining what can be enshrined as human rights in international law to the extent that we as players vote on and debate them.

The UN can decide whether a particular action (ie. abortion, euthanasia, public nudity, pedophilia) is the right of individuals in international law through Human Rights legislation. The UN can decide to ban a particular action and make that action explicitly not a right in international law. Or it can leave it to the nations to decide if it wants.

This has nothing to do with the general assembly. If it had been submitted under Recreational Drug: Promote, nobody would be arguing my authority to question the category. This isn't a matter of if people accept the concepts of a Proposal, it's a question of the UN Ruleset.

Yeah, well that's a little more obvious, ain't it? And you're absolutely right it's a question of the UN Ruleset, and I don't see why it would be a question of whether a Mod's political philosophy agrees with a player's. Isn't it much more fair and objective to base your decision on a proposal's category on the game stats/roleplay correlation rather than on your personal view of what constitutes a right?

It already is.

Care to provide evidence of that claim? If I submit a proposal banning public nudity in the Moral Decency category, would you delete it because you don't think public nudity is a right?

Please tell me you wouldn't.

Huh?

I was wondering where you were getting the freedoms/rights distinction from. The game stats I was referring to or the dictionary.

----------

To sum up, it is my understanding that the appropriate categories for proposals were decided based on the correlation between the game stats of the category and the roleplay text of the proposal. I'm confused as to why any one person's view on what constitutes a right is necessary to deciding what category something belongs in.

An "Abortion Rights" proposal in the HR category wouldn't get deleted for a category violation by a pro-life Mod because they don't think abortion is a right, would it? A resolution banning pedophilia in the Moral Decency category wouldn't get deleted for a category violation because a Mod thought pedophilia was not a right, would it? Then why would a resolution banning public nudity or piracy get deleted for a category violation just because a Mod thinks they aren't rights?

Am I the only one who finds the idea of opening the door to category violations based on a Mod's personal views of what constitutes a right incredibly disturbing?

Governments so large & complex that they can rarely if ever actually get anything -- including the enforcement of rules -- done, leading to anarchy by default?

Hmmm. Like a sociopolitical black hole. Interesting.

Hmmm. Like a sociopolitical black hole. Interesting.

One of my own other nations (the one called Bears Armed, in the IDU) just got reclassified as an 'Anarchy' by the UN, despite having a "sprawling, bureaucracy-ridden" government... I'm assuming that something like that is happening there.

Oh, and I notice that, in all this bickering, my serious post went ignored. Typical. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother being serious here (even though I only do so, admittedly, on rare occasions).
Your post was sober, sensible, and informative. Not acknowledging it is our way of staving off an ice age in hell.