NationStates Jolt Archive

So you're still laboring under the impression that there's a NatSov arguement for everything, huh? Fine, remember how some time back I gave you a list of resolutions and asked you what the NatSov arguement for repealing them was? Well since you never answered me, I'm going to ask again.

1. Abortion Legality Convention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737905&postcount=148)

2. The Microcredit Bazaar (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118)

3. United Nations Security Act
(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111)

4. Nuclear Armaments (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)

5. UN Taxation Ban (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029575&postcount=5)

And they're even clickable so if you need to remind yourself what they do, all you have to do is click on them. I await your reply

OOC: Flibbleites, I apologize I did not answer you better then. I believe I gave quick replies, and you did not consider those quick replies to be Nat Sov arguments. I still don't have time to go into detail, but I would love to discuss this with everyone further. I kind of hoped to segue those discussions to the Nat Sov threads I posted in, but I was told that either that wasn't on topic, or I am not allowed to post in old threads. We can resume the discussion here and now.

Don't forget: Representation in Taxation (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=127)

Ok.

I would agree there is always a nat sov argument against any UN proposal, only there isn't always a good one, and there isn't always a good one that a significant number of nat sov people would agree is even worth considering.

This is important to remember that Nat Sov means a number of slightly different things to different people. There is a small subset of nat sov arguments that the general nat sov group would agree to, and a smaller subset that the wider nat sov favoring people might agree to.

ALC, (I can't believe I would argue this, but logic forces me to) is the best of the group for a Nat Sov argument, since abortion is in and of itself a regional issue, although ALC is for the most part a nat sov argument itself, and it's hard to come up with a nat sov argument against a somewhat nat sov resolution. There is an issue of cross border abortions, which I don't think has ever been addressed by any resolution and when you factor in non UN nations can never be addressed by any resolution. (Cross border abortions is traveling to another country to have an abortion or having an abortion in international waters because it is illegal in your native country.)

The others generally concern either international issues (which can fraction the nat sov members) or with non national issues like the UN.

In a nutshell ... yes, with a few possible exceptions, every resolution that has come here to be discussed has been subjected to national sovereignty arguments as a justification for voting no. Repeals are not subject to this since in players minds they undo resolutions (technically speaking they have game stats impacts and do not undo history, but just say "We've changed our minds").

I've always felt that there should be some sort of justification in a resolution that could be used to illustrate the issue as a transboundary concern. I'm most certainly in the minority here because I do *not* like the "Human Rights" category (I'm not saying I hate the category ... I just think it is not understood by easily 3/4 of the players -- including many in this forum). It is one of the least sovereignty friendly categories, and while I personally (and my nation) like to promote human rights, I like to do so in baby steps --> I'm a big fan of mild resolutions and weak language in resolutions.

I'm here for things like international security, global disarmament, environmental cooperation, free trade, and the non-existant humanitarian aid components. I'm also much more likely to participate in these discussions.

I've always been hestitant to use the Furtherment of Democracy category for the same reason ... it too is not sovereignty friendly (though I think in light of RL Israel and Lebanon, we can see there is some value in the category being used as a surrogate for security). That said, late tonight I'll resubmit the Freedom of Assembly proposal ... while it is a Furtherment of Democracy proposal, in light of RL events, I feel it broaches some meaningful topics that the RL UN *continues* to completely fail at resolving. I'd like us to do the same. ;)

I eagerly await the national sovereignty arguments against those five resolutions.

Six. :mad:

Add UN Small Business Education (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=131) to that list, while you're at it.

And hopefully soon, Chemical Transport Standards. (plugplugplug)

I eagerly await the national sovereignty arguments against those five resolutions.

Are you kidding?

Microcredit promotes capitalism, and the second the UN adopted the resolution it took a slight strike against the SOVEREIGN right of controlled economies to guide their own economies.

Sovereignty is ultimately just a fancy way of saying, "I can make decisions that really don't impact you better for myself than you can."

Microcredit promotes capitalism
Which is not really the issue with an optional program.

and the second the UN adopted the resolution it took a slight strike against the SOVEREIGN right of controlled economies to guide their own economies.
I assume by this you mean that it raised economic freedoms, because it was a Free Trade resolution.

But then, that's true for every resolution, as every resolution must have a category. I'd rather concentrate on the text than a mechanical quirk.

And hopefully soon, Chemical Transport Standards. (plugplugplug)


International in nature. Not a viable nat/sov issue. Personal opinion, of course.

OOC: I wouldn't say that there's a national sovereignty issue with every resolution. Indeed with the UN Taxation Ban I would of thought that's a resolution that PROTECTS nat sov by making taxation the sole preserve of the nation's government. That said I would say there's an argument with any resolution that mandates, requires or makes a country do anything rather than encouraging, promoting etc.

Personally I, speaking as an International Relations with Politics university student, no less, see sovereignty as an important right for a country, but not one that should be inalienable.

Which is not really the issue with an optional program.


I assume by this you mean that it raised economic freedoms, because it was a Free Trade resolution.

But then, that's true for every resolution, as every resolution must have a category. I'd rather concentrate on the text than a mechanical quirk.

I would too ... but my point is that with *every* resolution, somebody will play the sovereignty card. And from their point of view, they'll be 100% correct.

My opinions on the game engine should be well known: it served its purpose in late 2003 -- beautifully so. But after that we've collectively done things with NationStates that the game was never designed to handle. :)

I would too ... but my point is that with *every* resolution, somebody will play the sovereignty card. And from their point of view, they'll be 100% correct.
I fail to see how national sovereignty can be used to argue against UN Taxation Ban.

I fail to see how national sovereignty can be used to argue against UN Taxation Ban.

OK it's true. I overstated my point. Blockers don't violate national sovereignty :) They are a specific attempt to reduce UN sovereignty.

I should have said, every UN resolution that does something violates national sovereignty.

OOC: I would have posted that clearly IC, but now I'm afraid I'd offend too many people by doing so :)

Er... the thread is titled "OOC:", so all posts should be. I suppose it's your thread, though.

The Wolf Guardians']Er... the thread is titled "OOC:", so all posts should be. I suppose it's your thread, though.

Hehe yeah. I'm just saying, I would have rather responded that way IC :)

OK it's true. I overstated my point. Blockers don't violate national sovereignty :) They are a specific attempt to reduce UN sovereignty.

The UN isn't a country, so it doesn't actually have "sovereignity". In any case I'm pretty sure blockers are a violation of the rules: "Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation."

I should have said, every UN resolution that does something violates national sovereignty.

Sure, but that's irrelevant, really. What matters is not that sovereignity is violated, but to what extent and with what justification. And that, in my view, is how you judge whether a natsov argument has real merits. Just because you can make an argument doesn't mean it's a good argument.

Hehe yeah. I'm just saying, I would have rather responded that way IC :)
That makes no sense. How can your character respond to an OOC comment?

In any case I'm pretty sure blockers are a violation of the rules: "Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation."

The main argument that's been raised against the idea that that rule should prevent 'blockers' such as we've seen recently is that any resolution with any mandatory clauses at all effectively blocks all contradictory legislation unless & until it's repealed: For example _
1/ A resolution making all forms of abortion completely legal across all of the UN's member-nations would effectively block all anti-abortion proposals;
2/ A resolution making all forms of abortion completely illegal across all of the UN's member-nations would effectively block all pro-abortion proposals;
3/ A resolution specifically leaving legislation on abortion to the separate nations' governments (with one non-mandatory clause that encourages nations to do something, so that it's not illegal under the 'ALL resolutions must do something" rule), such as the ALC, would effectively block both anti-abortion & pro-abortion proposals;
and many people see no reason why situation #3 should be any less legal than either of situations #1 & #2...
Another point to consider is that the original rule against 'blockers' dates back to before repeals were possible, so that any blockers that might otherwise have been passed in those days couldn't have been removed... but that as repeals are possible nowadays 'blockers' are only 'speed-bumps' rather than permanent barriers...

I would too ... but my point is that with *every* resolution, somebody will play the sovereignty card. And from their point of view, they'll be 100% correct.
My point of view could be that The Earth is flat, the sky is yellow and the Sun does not exist. I could think myself to be 100% correct but I would still be completely wrong.

Saying someone can believe that there NatSov argument is 100% correct is not a sound basis for saying that there is a NatSov argument for every single resolution in existence.

I don't believe Mikitivity was saying there would be a real natsov argument against all resolutions. S/He was saying that someone, whether correct or not would always bring the natsov argument against every resolution. And, in my short experience with the game, someone always has. And, as you stated, in their opinion, they are always correct.

Quite true. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how wrong it is.;)

Are you kidding?

Of course I'm kidding. Sovereignty is a big joke to me.

>.>

<.<

Microcredit promotes capitalism, and the second the UN adopted the resolution it took a slight strike against the SOVEREIGN right of controlled economies to guide their own economies.

Game stats-wise, I'd agree, but when it comes to RP...

Sovereignty is ultimately just a fancy way of saying, "I can make decisions that really don't impact you better for myself than you can."

Hmmm. That seems oddly phrased. I'm not sure exactly what you meant.

The UN isn't a country, so it doesn't actually have "sovereignity". In any case I'm pretty sure blockers are a violation of the rules: "Another example of this is forbidding UN action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation."

Sure, but that's irrelevant, really. What matters is not that sovereignity is violated, but to what extent and with what justification. And that, in my view, is how you judge whether a natsov argument has real merits. Just because you can make an argument doesn't mean it's a good argument.

Kelssek, you rule. Hit the nail on the head and all that rot.

Sovereignity is perhaps an overused term. Some people promote "individual sovereignity"

The word means a great many different things, including "high quality"

http://www.answers.com/sovereign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign

What matters most is exactly where how and why nat sov gets violated by each UN resolution.

Each of our interpretations about Nat Sov is based on what we each believe the role of the NSUN to be. When it exceeds that role, and treads too much into the role of national governments, we believe it to have violated national sovereignty.

But we all disagree on the role of the NSUN!

I'm still waiting to see Nat/Sov arguments against the suggested resolutions.

For an appropriate definition of Sovereign or sovereignty to be used for this discussion, check here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496576), for descriptions of what Nat/Sov is in the context of this game.

He's already admitted there isn't.

I'm still waiting to see Nat/Sov arguments against the suggested resolutions.

For an appropriate definition of Sovereign or sovereignty to be used for this discussion, check here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496576), for descriptions of what Nat/Sov is in the context of this game.

Actually, for descriptions, see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4). That link is pretty good too, though. Stuff by puppets of HotRodia tends to be good, ya know.

Actually, for descriptions, see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4). That link is pretty good too, though. Stuff by puppets of HotRodia tends to be good, ya know.

Strange how you might feel that way, isn't it?;)

He's already admitted there isn't.

It's on my todo list. They aren't just blockers are they?

Unfortunately I have a big todo list, and composing a response you'll accept is the biggest task on that list :) I'll get to it, when I can devote some hours to nationstates, instead of 5 minutes at time.

Patience :)

There's only one accurate argument you can make about blockers violating national sovereignty. It'll be interesting to see if you use it or not.

There's only one accurate argument you can make about blockers violating national sovereignty. It'll be interesting to see if you use it or not.

I over stated my point, I do not think blockers violate national sovereignty. If a UN law was to violate nat sov I don't think it would qualify as a blocker (because then it would be doing something).

There's only one accurate argument you can make about blockers violating national sovereignty. It'll be interesting to see if you use it or not.

Statwank argument?

Statwank argument?

I try not to take the stat affects of resolutions too seriously. Does anyone vote on resolutions based on how they will affects stats?

I try not to take the stat affects of resolutions too seriously. Does anyone vote on resolutions based on how they will affects stats?

It can affect abstainations from the regulars, but outside that, you don't see it here.

However, there are a lot of the non-active UN community that do vote because they want to stat changes.

Statwank argument?

Well it's the "UN resolutions affect your nation's stats" argument. Don't really see it as having anything to do with wank at that point.

I would agree there is always a nat sov argument against any UN proposal, only there isn't always a good one, and there isn't always a good one that a significant number of nat sov people would agree is even worth considering.

Actually... I think the Abortion issue could be argued in terms of basic international human rights BUT that's not why I'm responding. It's not that there is ALWAYS a good argument against and random UN proposal but, rather, there is inevitably at some point a great argument against a horrible proposal and members of the UN are forced to take the good with the terrible as implemented policy within their own borders.