NationStates Jolt Archive

Universal Freedom of Choice

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Every day we face choices, and the decisions we make shape our lives forever. It is the act of choosing that defines us as human beings. We are a product of the choices we have made and the world we inhabit is truly the world of our own creation. Rarely are we confronted with the opportunity to instantly shape our destiny. It is the way we address seemingly trivial choices, concerned with literature, art, entertainment, social interaction and countless other subjects, that makes each individual and their life unique. It is the individual's right to make such choices that this resolution seeks to protect. - Introduction not in final version.

Aware that sometimes, all choices we face are an illusion, but nonetheless strongly believing that as humans, we are entitled to make them ourselves,

Reiterating that freedom of choice is a defining element of our very humanity and the inalienable right of all humanity,

Alarmed that there are those among us who seek to limit our ability to choose, including but not limited to political, educational and consumer choice,

Further alarmed that individuals can be influenced and their ability to decide limited through cultural conditioning,

Deeply disturbed that the practice of subliminal advertising appears to erode the fundamental human trait of free will,

Noting with concern that in the wider world, the populations of entire nations repeat non sequitors issued by the State and remain in profound ignorance of the world around them,

Recalling the Resolution "Universal Bill of Rights" and Articles 1, 2 and 3 in particular,

Approving of past Resolutions restricting personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency,

Stressing that humanity has an innate curiosity about the world, and welcoming all efforts to permit this curiosity to reach its full potential,

1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society;

2) Strongly encourages leaders to imagine how different the world could be, if from an early age, people were free to exercise genuine choice in what they read, watched and learnt;

3) Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers, and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this;

4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies,

b) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State,

c) The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in nations where provision of public services is a State monopoly, while the right of the State to later deregulate nationalised services, or choose not to do so, remains unaffected;

6) Declares a moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising pending independent internationally-coordinated research into its effects on the capacity of individuals and wider society to make rational decisions.

I am submitting this soon. Normally, I would write a Proposal using the correct UN format (I do UN debate, after all), but I felt that something like this would not translate well to official UN language. The legislation itself is just a few lines, but it takes a while to explain the idea behind it, and most people browse the UN pages without looking at the forum. Hence the lengthy preamble.

It's a pretty speculative thing, I am not very confident of its chances of success, I mainly want to see how many Approvals it gets the first time.

So, what are people's thoughts, ideas?

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

On the surface this proposal seems all well and good. However, I wonder if other nations might like to offer their opinions as to whether or not this would deny nations the right to have exclusively, to name but two examples, a nationalised health service or free education.

I'm not rejecting this proposal at all but would like to stimulate some debate.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

OOC: I'm knackered, can't think clearly enough to detail my own misgivings and simply want to go home so I'm passing the buck to others.

We are all for choice, but this seems worryingly vague. When you say 'choices according to your own conscience', you are precluding the possibility of there being people around who don't have one. A major role of the State is to protect its citizens from the worst among themselves.

Further, as John Stuart Mill says, in book-every-politician-should-be-forced-to-read On Liberty:

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things in which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

In other words, we agree with you that cultural conditioning is sinister and insiduous, but are unsure how any legislation saying It Is A Bad Thing will change this. This is a hugely vague proposal suggesting no specific measures, and open to vast abuse. We'd note, as an example, that this could be interpreted to forbid parents from choosing books for their children.

So far as we can make out, the only specific measure this advocates is something like a ban on censorship. We approve of this sentiment, but are unsure why it is presented as essentially a footnote. We are also concerned that such a loosely-worded clause could be used to justify the circulation of state secrets, child pornography, and so forth.

Thackeray Sung
Ministry of Personal Development

Catholic Europe does not support this resolution.

Whilst we technically agree with the idea and principle of the resolution, to grant freedom of choice to the individual without limit by the government, we cannot accept it. Ultimate and unlimited freedom of choice is dangerous to the individual, others around them and the state and compromises a moral life. We do not believe that people should be able to choose to take hard drugs (such as heroin), for example, which we gather this resolution would allow.

"appropriate cultural conditioning" - sounds like fancy talk for regimented brainwashing.

what is the goal of this proposal? we think the ramifications of freedom of choice as it is worded here are not being given enough consideration. for example, as was already stated, national healthcare. where's the choice there? and compulsory elections? that is blatant legislation outlawing political apathy. we also have fellow UN member nations practicing dictatorship, and some of these may find freedom of choice as it is put forth in this proposal contradictory to their agendas.

we think you need to clearly state the goal here, and recognize that the goal is likely an attempt to dominate other nations ways of life. we do not agree this is an appropriate action for the UN. we feel the UN needs to respect its fellow member nations and work on international relations, not setting forth proposals that limit their control over their own people.

This Proposal does not seek to outlaw political apathy at all. The individual would still be very much free to choose to be apathetic and ignorant of the political world. It is only their right to think about such matters that would be protected. They would not be coerced into involvement at all. On the contrary, such coercion would be very much against the spirit and word of this Proposal.

But yes, this Proposal would erode the control that dictatorships exert over their people. I make no apologies for this, it is the whole idea, as the individual above says, to limit the control of the State over people, for in many cases it is excessive. Whilst I agree that dictatorship is a valid political model, I strongly believe that people should still have some freedom of choice, in particular with regard to the content of their personal informal education, the unique everyday learning process that each individual experiences.

It is this that the Proposal mainly seeks to address. I understand the concerns that people have that this may give people the right to demand choice in private healthcare and education, where the State feels it best to have exclusively public systems. That is more of a consumer choice issue, which is touched on here, but the emphasis is very much on the individual's right to choose with regard to information, beliefs (not necessarily religious, world views are at least as important), etc.

Yes, it is rather vague, I know. I will have a look at what I can do to explicitly eliminate what it is not intended to cover. This certainly does not cover the provision of privately run versions of public services.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Karakiemos fully agrees with this proposition, and will fully back it in the voting booths.

(Blinks rapidly)

* The Rep of Komokom lays down his frying pan for a moment, and stands to make a stiring speech in favour of the proposal.

"Well, I must say its a little star'y - eye'd, and even a little vague,

But in connection to the proposal, I suppose one must expect this, especially when you consider, the, errr, subject matter and therefore content, in order to explain, the, ummm, meaning for behind the errr, legality of what it would in effect mean for members should it be passed,

Which I hope it will. Rarely does one see in ones period of time serving the errr, public at large, a proposal of such calibre and scope, a proposal that goes above and beyond the fundamentals of human rights, and instead goes on to the specifics of the human desire for true freedom,

If anything, this proposal is a water-shed in the U.N. and can be only summed up as a key summation in the U.N.'s oft-forgotten mandate it seems,

To make the world a better place.

The time is always right to do what is right, so said Martin Luther King, Jr. And right he was. Time for us to do the same.

I hesitate to say in fact, that, in a hundred proposals passed, members will still say, this proposal, was the mark of our finest hour."

- The Rep of Komokom. :)

(Cheering and applauding Tactical Grace for their outstanding contribution to the U.N. regardless of any voting result.)

The USSJ fully agrees with Catholic; total freedom of choice, while a noble idea, is a dangerous idea if not executed properly. Simply allowing people to do as they see fit without any government control or even approval could have disasterous consequences both for a country's economy and social structure.

For that reason, the United Socialist States of Jonussia, under the benevolent leadership of President Jon Ivanovich, will fully oppose this measure to the fullest extent allowed by the UN.



--All glory to the Fatherland

Seems to me the majority of dissenters so far seem concerned about crediting people with responsibility... :shock:

Yet it seems to me we have here a golden opportunity to gift people with such an simple honor. After all, this is not exactly reality, its a game, and one would hope we need not emulate reality up to the point where the majority of the public really are irresponsible ninny's... :?

Did I go and say that out loud? :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

I have modified the Proposal to take into account the concerns expressed so far. I invite further comments and suggestions. :)

Incidentally, regarding the vagueness of the Proposal, the guaranteeing of the individual's right to the pursuit of happiness in the US is also pretty vague, it too does not mention specifics, but it does not cut across the law at all as people imply that my equivalent here would do.

This simply enshrines in law the freedom of an individual to choose, however vague that sounds, entirely within the limits of criminal justice. It is ridiculous to suggest that this gives people the right to "choose" to go on a killing spree. To alay any unfounded fears, I have included some limitations at the end of the Proposal.

So, any other comments?

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

* The Rep of Komokom stands from his position over his copy, and his might stamp is raised high, to plummet down like an lightning bolt, and with a resounding thump-i-fication, like that of a storm of frying-pans, the single word of judgement appears on his copy and blazes with etheral light...

{ Y E S }

- The Rep of Komokom, He of the brilliant frying pan of U.N. justice. And a rather healthy sooper dooper ego... :wink:

While we did not take part in the debate regarding previous drafts of this proposal, the Holy Empire of Gethamane feels that their concerns have been addressed and barring further debate, Tactical Grace should proceed to submit the proposal.

And on behalf of the Holy Empire of Gethamane, I would like to congratulate and thank the Representative from Tactical Grace, and all others involved in putting together this fine piece of work.

This proposal appears well meaning, although has problems which nobody has addressed.

It allows Individual A to say whatever they want about B, without limitations. To prevent this one line should be ammended to say:

1)The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical, mental or psychological harm or distress on others or themselves; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies.

Which would hopefully ease the concerns of the delegate from Catholic Europe, as it would limit self destructive acts, such as heroin taking.

As regards to:
We'd note, as an example, that this could be interpreted to forbid parents from choosing books for their children
I would add this condition:

The legal guardian of any minor or incapable individual is responsible to make informed choices decisions on their behalf, supported by the state.

This would also allow for care of the mentally ill and other similar unfortunates?

I think this proposal does need to be suitably phrased in offical UN lingo, and I'm happy to help on that, and I also think this proposal needs further opinion before it could really do what it is intended to do, but in theory it does act as a positive step towards encouraging the promotion of human rights.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

1)The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical, mental or psychological harm or distress on others or themselves; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies.

This is a definite improvement. It allows us to maintain things like libel laws and our incitement-to-racial-hatred legislation, which we're rather attached to, while implying something like a freedom of speech otherwise. It importantly leaves which of these acts to ban up to individual governments (were the ban explicit it could have troubling consequences, but we have faith that nations will have a hard time justifying such slender loopholes as it allows for).

The legal guardian of any minor or incapable individual is responsible to make informed choices decisions on their behalf, supported by the state.

There ya go. Nice wording; instates this as a responsibility before a right, and thus allows the State to step in if a parent is choosing irresponsibly.

We support these changes fully, and are inclined to support this proposal if they are made.

We concur with Rehochipe's statement and thank Hirota for their telling contribution.

This has the potential to be a very fine resolution indeed.

Art Randolph
Speaker on Legal Affairs

Good suggestions. :)

I hope I have managed to incorporate them to your satisfaction.

I have converted the format of the piece into a slightly more formal style. Once again, I welcome further suggestions and feedback. It is well worth commenting, as I am quite willing to make sensible changes.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Grace - I am also drawing up a provisonal statement in UN lingo, and I'll PM it to you for consultation....hopefully some of it might eb useful?

Bah what the heck, someone might be interested in it....

Universal Freedom of Choice

Convinced that it is a fundamental right that individuals have the freedom to decide their own choices without obligation to conform the majority or state;

Believing that this freedom of choice is a definitive part of being human, and that it is an integral right of all humanity;

Recognising that humanity has an innate curiosity of the world, and welcoming attempts to permit this curiosity to reach its full potential;

Recognising the right to sexual freedom outlined in the Sexual Freedom resolution;

Further recognising the Gay Rights resolution, and determined that a no group should oppress another;

Further recognising the Religious Tolerance resolution, and determined that personal religion or belief should not be influenced by another individual or by the state;

Also further recognising the Universal Bill of rights resolutions, and all other resolutions determined to improve human rights and civil liberties.

Determined that resolutions to restrict personal freedoms in the interests of moral decency, such as Outlaw Paedophilia resolution should be maintained, upheld and enforced;

Concerned that individuals suffer influences from other individuals, groups or the state in their personal lives;

Convinced that the state exists to serve to populace, and not the reverse;

Fully aware that some individuals either do not possess the maturity or the mental capacity to make informed decisions about their life;

Affirms the following:

Urges member states to remove any state limits on an individual’s freedom of choice;

Encourages Member States to include provision in their educational system to promote freedom of thought;

Congratulates Member States which will make provisions to ensure no individual’s freedom of choice is influenced by the State;

Emphasizes the need for individuals not to be judged by individuals or Member States for their decisions;

Accepts that the legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety laws laid down by the state;

Asserts that decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies;

Notes that the right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in such cases where none exist and the provision of public services is the preserve of the State;

Asserts that decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies;

This is kind of gramatically weird. It's phrased sort of as a vocabulary redefinition: 'if a decision hurts you, it doesn't count as a decision.' We'd rather have something like this:

Maintains that no right is asserted to decisions that directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them, or physical or psychological harm on others; and that the State may prosecute such cases according to their normal criminal law.

We had brief trepidations that this might curtail the ability of individual nations to illegalise abortion or institute population controls, but a quick rethink established that this'd just demand somewhat more robust ethical reasons for doing so.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

<shrugs> it's not the offical draft - it was simply my attempt to "UNise" the proposal into suitable language....but I agree with the idea Snr Orthmann suggested....

This is a wonderful idea.

We provide educational opportunities for our children to allow them to experience as much of the panorama of life as possible.

Choice is relatively meaningless without good information.

b) The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in such cases where none exist and the provision of public services is the preserve of the State.

Not a huge fan of this bit - while the attempt to defend public services is admirable, the proposal still seems to rule out the possibility of creating public services by nationalising private industry.
Would it be possible to either add another disclaimer to that effect, or to rewrite this section entirely so that it allows for the general principle that the collective democratic will can sometimes override the choice of individuals?

Any nation with a ministry of propaganda and proletariat control will be deeply uneasy at this.

Any nation with a ministry of propaganda and proletariat control will be deeply uneasy at this.

I don't know. It seems this still allows the government to promote particular attitudes and so forth so long as they allow meaningful choices. It's a matter of degree.

But yeah, the compulsory consumerists won't be best pleased. To which we say, tough cheese to them.

To alay any unfounded fears, I have included some limitations at the end of the Proposal.

Thankyou. Catholic Europe is still unsure of whether or not to support the proposal, however the changes that you have made has really made us rethink whether or not we support this proposal.

b) The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in such cases where none exist and the provision of public services is the preserve of the State.
Not a huge fan of this bit - while the attempt to defend public services is admirable, the proposal still seems to rule out the possibility of creating public services by nationalising private industry.
Well, the original idea stemmed from someone's concern that in a nation where public services are a State monopoly, the "Freedom of Choice" would give people the right to choose a private alternative, and since none exists, a private sector in public services might open up by default. This obviously goes beyond civil rights and has the potential to violate the economic sovereignty of some nations, at least with regard to what basic economic model they run. The limitation I inserted is not ideally worded, but the intention is to reassure people the Proposal does not mandate any such thing. I will think some more about how I phrase it.

I am also looking at how I can convert the preamble into something approximating UN language without redering it soulless. There is always the danger of splitting a whole into too many small pieces.

EDIT 1: I have now altered and reorganised the operative clauses broadly in line with UN language.

EDIT 2: I have now rewritten most of the preamble.

Comments, suggestions?

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Again like Catholic Europe, the USSJ, once firmly against this resolution, has now been swayed by the modifications and changes made that ensure that government will have the ability to prevent the harmful sectors of society from doing as they please.

The USSJ is now behind the Universal Freedom of Choice Act.

--All glory to the Fatherland

OK, I have completed the Fourth Draft. Many thanks to everyone who has commented on my Proposal, and those who have addressed specific issues and made helpful suggestions.

Please review it and feel free to raise concerns and suggest solutions. This stage is, after all, about building consensus.

Hopefully, I will have a final draft to submit to the UN mechanism in a day or two. :)

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Catholic Europe now approves of this resolution, especially considering that normal criminal law will not be violated.

I have now added a new preambulatory clause and an operative clause 6, dealing with the issue of subliminal advertising. I realised that when trying to protect individuals' rights to choice and free will, it would be a great oversight to omit this issue, which effectively undermines the whole concept.

Is everyone happy with the way I have dealt with it? I would welcome suggested changes, as this may turn out to be an important element of what I am trying to achieve.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

It's time to take this baby out on the highway and see what she'll do.

OK, last chance to suggest improvements. This UN Proposal goes before the UN tomorrow afternoon UK time.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Only one concern: does this make the word limit? (The damn thing's a horrible constraint against well-thought-out resolutions).

Only one concern: does this make the word limit? (The damn thing's a horrible constraint against well-thought-out resolutions).
Sigh. Yes, that did have me worried. Looks like the only way to tell is to try tomorrow. And if it goes over, I suppose the Introduction at the very beginning is mostly redundant, and could be removed. Which would be a bit of a shame, as it does add up to a very satisfying whole.

EDIT 1: Yes, the Proposal is 691 characters over the limit. I need to remove at least a hundred words from it first, but I think I should be able to do it without changing the legislation itself much.

EDIT 2: I have thrown out most of the intro, and left everything else more or less unchanged, but it is still 78 characters over the limit. Grrr . . .

EDIT 3: I have now made subtle edits to stuff like sentence construction, and am still 8 characters over the limit. Sigh. I will figure it out in the morning.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Only one concern: does this make the word limit? (The damn thing's a horrible constraint against well-thought-out resolutions).

Agreed! My treatment of the human genome proposal suffered!

Anyway, this proposal has gone from being good to excellent, a strong effort towards putting the UN on the right path :)

I submitted it, but it has not appeared on the stack! :shock: It should be on page 9, but there is no page 9. :shock:

EDIT: Looks like I have no choice but to wait until the evening update. This sucks. :cry:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I like it the way it's written now. It's a lot more clear to me now.

Unfortunately, I have lost UN delegate status and am unable to offer my approval. We have some political apathy going on in my region and people are claiming the UN is holding back their ability to be wise dictators. *sigh*

However, when it comes up for vote, it will have my support.

I'm not wholly comfortable with the proposal to allow a person, a legal guardian, decide what is best for an 'incapable individual'. Suppose a person is in a persistent vegatative state (PVS). We can't be sure what the person in said state would wish for if he were able to do so. Here the legal guardian could legitimately request that all life support be terminated for this patient.
Please refer to the Diane Blood and Tony Bland decisions from English criminal and civil law, which are cases in point on this issue.

OK, my UN Proposal has now been submitted, several hours later than planned due to the entire site going offline. Sadly, I had to remove the entire intro too, which is a shame, as it explains the spirit behind the Proposal quite nicely.

Let's see now how well it does. If it gets more than 50 Approvals, there might be a point in a redraft.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I'm not wholly comfortable with the proposal to allow a person, a legal guardian, decide what is best for an 'incapable individual'. Suppose a person is in a persistent vegatative state (PVS). We can't be sure what the person in said state would wish for if he were able to do so. Here the legal guardian could legitimately request that all life support be terminated for this patient.
Please refer to the Diane Blood and Tony Bland decisions from English criminal and civil law, which are cases in point on this issue.
That subsection is a limitation, rather than a law. I make specific reference to existing national laws remaining in place. What I am saying is that while people have the freedom to choose, where there are existing laws stating that a child or disabled or mentally ill individual must be in the care of a responsible adult, etc, complete with specific laws defining their duty of care, responsibilities, etc, my bit of legislation does not over-ride that. So essentially, my legislation is not applicable to those situations, and they are not in any way affected. It remains up to individual nation to decide their policy in such matters. It is my opinion that it is best to leave such complex issues alone or address them in a dedicated Proposal, rather than interfere with them in just one clause.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I'll just bump this overnight. :)

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Another overnight bump.

It is one of the most popular Proposals at the time of writing, but sadly this is as much due to the lack of opposition as to its support. Please consider Approving it. :)

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

so it's been submitted then yeah? I'll urge my regions delegate to endorse it immediately!

At least section 5 a) ensures this proposal will be bearable when it is inevitably approved.

At least section 5 a) ensures this proposal will be bearable when it is inevitably approved.
Well that's fair enough since you do not allow your citizens any rights or freedoms whatsoever. But I did think that there would be more liberal, centrist and libertarian nations out there, who would agree with the sentiment of the Proposal. It is on page 3 of the stack now, with only a day and a half remaining, and the level of support it has received so far has been quite disappointing. :(

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

well, it'll get through eventually, it just needs to be submitted till it does :)

Well, basically it's now a case of endorse it if you want me to resubmit it.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Thanks for the incoming Approvals, guys! With only 14 hours left on the stack, the chances of my UN Proposal becoming a Resolution appear low, but it seems that there is enough support out there to make resubmitting it worthwhile. :D

EDIT: Halfway to quorum. Woo!

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

OK, my UN Proposal has fallen off the stack with 100 Approvals, and I have now resubmitted it in the same form as before. I think that if everyone who approved it the first time were to approve it early on, it would have a good chance of passing.

Remember, this will not affect your economy in any way, nor will it radically change your political system. My Proposal will simply improve the civil rights of your citizens a bit, and will most likely have a beneficial impact on their education. Please do consider giving it your approval. :)

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

BUMP. :D

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Another BUMP. All nations which value freedom of thought and possess regional Delegacy, I urge you to approve my Proposal (currently on page 8 ) - search for "choice". Last time, it got 100 approvals. Let's see if it can go all the way this time. :D

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Whilst I would support the idea of the advancement of freedom in many countries I think that the idea that the concept of 'freedom' can be comprehensively ordered and regulated in one bill is rather naive.

Whilst I would support the idea of the advancement of freedom in many countries I think that the idea that the concept of 'freedom' can be comprehensively ordered and regulated in one bill is rather naive.
Naive, but idealistic! Which is what the UN is for! :D

But seriously, obviously the concept of freedom needs a lot of legislation to define, especially with the harsh character limits we have imposed on our Proposals. My little bit is merely addressing one broad aspect of it.

And right now it is the most popular Proposal in the entire queue. We have had no Resolution to vote on for some time now, this is the best chance we have at getting one in the next few days. I urge all Delegates to approve it, as there is a good chance here of passing some decent freedoms legislation.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Whilst I would support the idea of the advancement of freedom in many countries I think that the idea that the concept of 'freedom' can be comprehensively ordered and regulated in one bill is rather naive.
Naive, but idealistic! Which is what the UN is for! :D

But seriously, obviously the concept of freedom needs a lot of legislation to define, especially with the harsh character limits we have imposed on our Proposals. My little bit is merely addressing one broad aspect of it.

And right now it is the most popular Proposal in the entire queue. We have had no Resolution to vote on for some time now, this is the best chance we have at getting one in the next few days. I urge all Delegates to approve it, as there is a good chance here of passing some decent freedoms legislation.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Okay I've re-read the proposal and it wasn't as rigid as I first took it to be. I think it's a good piece of legislation and I've given it my support in the UN. It's still a long way short of having enough votes though.

It's still a long way short of having enough votes though.
I know, it only has two days left and still needs more than 80 approvals. But I am hoping more people read it through. It would be a shame if it failed just because not enough people actually read it. :cry:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

This is the regular overnight BUMP for this Proposal thread. If you are a moderate regional Delegate, please go to page 5 of the Proposal stack or search for "choice" and consider approving it. :)

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

My UN Proposal is now at the top of page 1 of the Proposal stack and has close to the 100 approvals it had when it failed to reach Quorum the first time. However, it now has a full day remaining. If you have not yet considered it for approval, please do so. :)

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Bah.... there is nothing new on this proposal. From what I can see, it is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to regulate the ad industry.

Bah.... there is nothing new on this proposal. From what I can see, it is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to regulate the ad industry.
Clearly then, you have focused on just one clause and missed the point of the document as a whole. There are far deeper philosophical issues regarding the freedom of thought here. Had I wanted to do something so trivial as regulate the ad industry, I would have actually addressed said industry. There are only two lines about the ad industry in the whole Proposal.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

"Universal Freedom of Choice" has just obtained the 152 Approvals necessary for Quorum. It has 12 hours remaining on the stack, and in that time, it would be great if anyone who has not yet endorsed it would consider adding their approval, to guarantee a safe margin. :)

Thank you to everyone who has supported my efforts, and in particular those who have given me feedback and suggestions - your assistance has been most invaluable. I will name you all individually once it comes to a vote as a Resolution. :D

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Bah.... there is nothing new on this proposal. From what I can see, it is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to regulate the ad industry.
Clearly then, you have focused on just one clause

The rest of it is just Rhetoric... things that are already free and granted by every government of the world. The only new thing suggested in this bill is the regulation of the ad industry, to prohibit subliminal ads.... Everything else is nothing.

It is like submitting a proposal called "Universal Right to Breathe" that had a dozen paragraphs spouting meaningless nothing about breathing... ending with a paragraph banning smoking.

We have not had anything new for over a week, hardly anything has even come close. Most of the stuff in the stack has been written in ten minutes by people who have not even troubled themselves to read the rules, and a significant fraction is deleted through Mod action for breaking them. At least I have made an effort.

And no, the freedom to, for example, seek one's own political education and awareness is not something granted by all nations, as we will doubtless see when every dictatorship in the UN votes against my Proposal. Furthermore, making a record of self-evident things is something often done in law and bureaucracy, indeed it is the fundamental calling of such organisations. If you take a look at past Resolutions, you will see that there is much in there that is common sense, and yet it has still been set in stone through democratically enacted legislation.

It may seem like patently obvious rhetoric to you, but if it passes, it will achive something, and not without encountering opposition from those who obviously feel they have something to lose. If it was truly empty, no-one would bother, and it would not have survived the Mod vetting process anyway.

Lastly, I request that other critics make more constructive criticisms than this.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

:D

Congrats to you Tactical Grace on your extraordinary effort to reach quorum and beyond on this "Universal Choice" resolution. I for one intend to vote for it.

You have shown great tenacity, compromise, accomodation and even restraint (with critics especially -- you turned several into supporters!). You even remained as gracious as one can be with the remaining ones...

:idea:
When lobbying UN Nations for the resolution, include your opening preamble (that was unfortunately deleted to pare it down for acceptance) in your followup emails to seek support from all UN members.

Well deserved praise and admiration from this Emir.

(Emir rises from his breakfast nook, sends his housestaff to arrange delivery of coffee and croissants to Tactical Grace; along with flowers)

[The second full day of Spring / Autumn reigns supreme; birds chirp into the twilight; partisans at the barricades the world over pause after hearing the news of the Resolution's ascendency]

congratulations Tactical Grace - this resolution is a profound step forward for the UN, bringing personal freedoms to greater levels is only a good thing in the eyes of this Member state.

Thanks guys! :)

There are two and a half hours remaining until the UN legislative mechanism update, and the Proposal has a safety margin of only a dozen Approvals - I knew it would be close, but this has been quite nailbiting.

I have also secured the support of three of the Pacific Delegates (and given their political leanings, the likely opposition of the other two). The Resolution itself may well be a closely fought one; we will have to wait and see.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

My UN Proposal is now a Resolution. Expect the UN Forum to be flooded with angry dictators denouncing it in a multitude of threads at any moment . . . :D

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Congrats on getting this far. I have a feeling the UN debating hall floor will be awash with delegates' blood come the end of the voting period. Should be fun...

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

We have recommended the resolution to our region, and given a link...

this is just the latest in a long string of attempts for the UN to control what individual nations do. shouldn't the governments have the right to choose? I think it's a good Idea, but by making it mandatory, it underminds itself.

While I agree with the general concept of this resolution it seems to directly impinge on the sovereign right of nations to rule as they see fit. If it were truly just a Declaration of Basic Human Rights as claimed it would not contain clauses to ban subliminal advertising, nor would it limit the ability of burgeoning nations to decide their own fate. This smacks of pork barrel politics.

"The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services"

What about newly formed nations that have not yet had the opportunity to make decisions regarding such things as health care (your example)? Am I, as a newly formed country, now forced into a path of the privatization of healthcare? Where is my country's choice in the matter?

Regarding subliminal advertising: Does this really affect choice? I would seriously doubt that such advertising is able to "force" anyone to do something that they are adamantly opposed to. If anything it acts on previously present desires and brings them to the forefront. Is this not part of decision making? Any choice we as individuals make, is driven by outside forces. If subliminal advertising is banned where do we then draw the line? Are teachers not allowed to profess opinions in the classroom because it will unduly influence young minds? Will we outlaw social cliques in our schools because the peer pressure involved limits the individual's freedom of choice?

If you wish to make a declaration that freedom of choice should be a basic tenet of government and an inalienable right that is fine. However, to back that up with legislation (or resolutions) that limit the very freedom you are supposedly extolling is the height of hypocrisy.

I could not disagree more, on a number of points.

Allow me to first address the issue of subliminal advertising. The effects of the technique itself are still the subject of debate - Neither you nor I can honestly say whether it exerts a subtle influence in much the same way as ordinary advertising, or is an effective method of mind control. The Resolution declares a moratorium pending further research, etc - in other words, merely a temporary suspension while tests are conducted. There is no permanent ban, as you mistakenly suggest.

Next, the clause about services. Had you read the earlier debate which surrounded it, and thought more carefully about the wording, you would realise that it specifically says that it does not force any country to go the route of privatisation or nationalisation of services. You claim your nation will be forced to privatise healthcare. You are wrong. The clause itself clearly states that the legislation has no impact whatsoever on the provision of services. That is the whole reason behind its inclusion. This Resolution does not affect your economy. Being in the Human Rights category, it cannot affect any economic stats at all.

Regarding the sovereign right of nations to rule as they see fit, this is an off-topic subject which has been covered in this forum numerous times before - joining the UN waives that right and allows the UN to affect the running of your country. Those wishing to avoid the implementation of this Resolution or any other in their country if it passes can only do so by resigning their UN membership. The government does indeed have the right to choose, but this right can only be asserted fully by not being a UN member. This is a very important point, and I will repeat it again - membership of the UN impacts on your nation's sovereignty. There is no use complaining about it to me, that is the way this game is designed.

Lastly, to say that teachers' opinions and peer pressure are in some way outlawed by this Resolution is absurd. This Resolution safeguards people's rights to form their own opinions. It does not seek to ban their expression.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Rhetoric, rhetoric and more rhetoric rambling about things that it is not possible to legislate. How will my citizen's lives differ in any way after they've been legally given the right to make choices? I support political and individual freedoms fully, but this legislation is unnecessary, and restrictive of governments that go about their processes in different ways than I. It reads, as Brfitopia suggests, as a railroad car to sneak through a ban on subliminal advertising.

Though I support freedom of choice, I cannot support your proposal.

People's Spokesman Elliot
Incorporated States of the Dazze

I say no! If everybody had the same thinking then nobody would argue, thus we would all be happy.

~Everybody on the planet should die. That is the "we".

I could not disagree more, on a number of points.

Allow me to first address the issue of subliminal advertising. The effects of the technique itself are still the subject of debate - Neither you nor I can honestly say whether it exerts a subtle influence in much the same way as ordinary advertising, or is an effective method of mind control. The Resolution declares a moratorium pending further research, etc - in other words, merely a temporary suspension while tests are conducted. There is no permanent ban, as you mistakenly suggest.

I would still maintain that it has no place in this resolution if this resolution, as you stated earlier, is indeed just a declaration of the right to choose. It's pork barrel politics at it's finest. You attach an issue which should be a separate resolution to one that should garner popular support in an effort to sneak it through the approval process.

Next, the clause about services. Had you read the earlier debate which surrounded it, and thought more carefully about the wording, you would realise that it specifically says that it does not force any country to go the route of privatisation or nationalisation of services. You claim your nation will be forced to privatise healthcare. You are wrong. The clause itself clearly states that the legislation has no impact whatsoever on the provision of services. That is the whole reason behind its inclusion. This Resolution does not affect your economy. Being in the Human Rights category, it cannot affect any economic stats at all.

The resolution states:


The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services, and does not mandate the creation of private health and education sectors in nations where provision of public services is a State monopoly, while the right of the State to later deregulate nationalised services, or choose not to do so, remains unaffected;


This seems to only protect countries that have already nationalized health care and would prevent countries that have privatized healthcare from nationalizing it later, esssentially forcing new countries to have privatized healthcare since they would not have the grandfather clause protected national healthcare to begin with. It also allows countries with nationalized healthcare to later privatize it but they would not then be able to nationalize it if the experiement didn't work.




Lastly, to say that teachers' opinions and peer pressure are in some way outlawed by this Resolution is absurd. This Resolution safeguards people's rights to form their own opinions. It does not seek to ban their expression.

In no way did I suggest that the resolution outlawed these things. I suspect you know this but decided to make this statement anyway in an attempt to make my whole argument seem absurd.

The point I was making is that if you are outlawing subliminal advertising (for the time being or for all time matters not) where do you draw the line on things that influence people's choices? I, and many psychologists, would argue that hearing opinions by trusted mentors at a young age or the influence of one's peers has FAR more impact on how one makes a choice than a subliminal advertisement. Once we start determing what has undue influence where do we stop?

The Cooperative Will of Moogi is concerned that the UN might go the oppositte direction of this proposal, and legislate for less choice. This possibility would really hamper our citizens longstanding collective trip. Moogi says no.

Regards
The Grand Cooperative Board of Moogi.

Clause 5b covers your point about children nicely - minors do not have total freedom of choice; while they are minors, their parents/guardians/etc are still able to make informed decisions on their behalf.

In Clause 5c, the important part is the first phrase "The right to choose with regard to services only extends to existing services" and it applies to all nations equally, irrespective of whether they have privatised or nationalised services. The rest is merely clarification requested by another individual, who wanted explicit mention made of the fact that the manner of the provision of services need not necessarily be changed by the government if people demand it at some point in the future. All possible cases are not specifically mentioned, because this is merely a limitation on the scope of the Resolution (ie It does not enter the economic realm at all), and not its primary focus. The manner of provision of services is a subject for a massive Proposal in its own right, what Clause 5c says is that I am not going to go into it.

As you may have noticed from the earlier pages of this thread, subliminal advertising did not enter the Proposal until the penultimate draft (there were 6 in total). I added it as an afterthought, seeking to plug a potential hole in the whole concept of universal freedom of choice, namely the potential of subliminal advertising to undermine it. Thus there is no hidden agenda in this. And if you feel so strongly about the right of governments and corporations to employ it, since the UN and Issues are separate mechanisms, you can always explicitly permit subliminal advertising in the issue devoted to it.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Rhetoric, rhetoric and more rhetoric rambling about things that it is not possible to legislate. How will my citizen's lives differ in any way after they've been legally given the right to make choices?
If you feel it will make no difference whatsoever, why complain? It is not exactly wasting the UN mechanism's time, since prior to this, there had been no Resolution at vote for 9 days, the Queue behind it is empty, and looking at the Proposal stack, frankly, there is very little there that could possibly be held up by this. Empty it might be in your eyes, but we might as well.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

This is from another forum, I suggest everyone read it before you vote.


"Okay, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this resolution makes no sense at all.

QUOTE
1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society;


Well, duh.

QUOTE
2) Strongly encourages leaders to imagine how different the world could be, if from an early age, people were free to exercise genuine choice in what they read, watched and learnt;


So, he's saying that parents should not be allowed to raise their children. The children themeselves, from an early age, can choose what to watch and read. Mein Kampf? Go for it. Hard core porn? It's yours. Snuff films? Sure.

QUOTE
3) Recognises that the most basic human characteristic is that of curiosity - the ability to wonder, ask questions, and seek answers,


Come on, a Star Trek episode could tell you this.

QUOTE
and affirms its belief that no State should limit its people's freedom to do this;


Now this is really wacky. If someone wonders what the Prime Minister's head would look like with a butcher knife stuck in it, is it okay to find out?

QUOTE
4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;


People should not be judged by the decisions they make? It seems like the author was curious about crack cocaine and LSD before writing this thing.

QUOTE
5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:


According to their own consience? So forget all the laws, rules, and regulations. If you're not sure wether or not you should steal that guy's car, let your consience decide.

QUOTE
a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies,


Okay, this clears it up a bit. So if I wonder what someone's house would look like burned to the ground, I should be able to find out, as long as I don't injure them.

QUOTE
6) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State,


Umm... that's how it is in real life, man.

QUOTE
6) Declares a moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising pending independent internationally-coordinated research into its effects on the capacity of individuals and wider society to make rational decisions.


Put on your tin-foil helmets, kids!"

Are you all Insane? This bill is an attempt to force a "nanny-state" mentality on all nations! We are resolute in our objection to such a poorly written concept!

from the bill ...
6) Declares a moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising pending independent internationally-coordinated research into its effects on the capacity of individuals and wider society to make rational decisions.

What kind of non-sense is that? Who decides what is subliminal and what is just very persuasive? Will we need a Ministry of Judging Subliminalism now? People... please THINK AND READ before voting in such dangerous law.

H.H. Pope Liam the Great is sickened by the fact that so many sheeple are just voting for this law because of the feel good title. And to be honest, I am too.

The absolute arrogance of the wording could only have been written from a socialist elitist. The assumption that "you know more than the voters" is a disgusting trait amongst beaurocrats and we, the Holy Church of Psychotropics, are disgusted with.

This dangerous bill will stifle FREE SPEECH! Ergo it will violate numerous laws of our own country... and possibly the UN itself.

Bishop Gates, Minister of Finance and Information for all Psychotropics.

{ the bishop looks at the gathered body with scorn as he votes NO! }

This is from another forum, I suggest everyone read it before you vote. <massive snip>

That is from another topic. Please let us not have cross-topic discussions, it will only screw up the flow of debate. I am prepared to edit out posts reproduced from parallel topics if this one is flooded with them.

Extracts from my inbox:

you cant force people to have free will! reading and learning to discern from various media what are facts and what are false for yourself is an essential part of intellectual development

This choice is precisely what my Resolution seeks to protect. No-one is going to be forced into having free will, it is only their right to it that will be protected.

forcing a nations leader to acept this bill is a serious offence against the free will you are so addament we all must have.

No, once again, that is an unavoidable characteristic of the way this game is coded, nothing to do with me.

most people are too stupid for free will to be an appealing concept

Their right to free will should be safeguarded even so.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I totaly said YES and i think that all should as well....i agree with all that have said yes and that have posted on this forum. :o :P :D :) :idea: :!: :!: :!: :!:

I agree with the points this resolution makes, except fot the one placing a moratorium on 'subliminal' public advertizing. All advertizing is subliminal in it's own way, so you cannot place a moratorium AGAINST advertizing, because it is one of the basic principals of capitalist competition.

So, for now, Centralamerican States will vote 'NO' on this resolution, pending review.

Alex R. Garay III
Constitutional President
Federation of Centralamerican States

Had I realised that this one clause would become the source of most of the opposition to this Resolution, I would have made it clearer that I refer only to the insiduous forms of subliminal advertising made famous by, for example, the various movies which revolve around the theme. I never meant it to include all artistic subtleties in advertising in general, which many people have taken it to mean. I do feel that some of the people who have been in touch with me about this are being needlessly pedantic.

I say again, this Resolution in no way affects any nation's economy, and subliminal advertising can always be permitted by choosing that option in the dedicated issue. This is a Human Rights Resolution and its effects if passed should not go beyond the Civil Rights variables. Arguments from economic and sovereignty perspectives are baseless as they overlook the way the UN mechanism is coded.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

People can follow their own wims and fancies and disobey laws with this proposal. I implore you to vote against this proposal. It will allow people to ask questions about classified goverment projects and programs. In addition to the subliminal messaging "restriction".

I see the main purpose of this bill, and please correct me if I'm horribly mistaken, as a protection of a person's right to think, feel, and believe as they want to, and sometimes act on it. I'm wondering why we need a bill such as this.

A person will already believe and think what they want to.

As for letting people do as they please, I recall a group of 19 people doing as they pleased a few years back. They ended up dying as a result, but were very happy that they made September 11, 2001 a day that none of us will ever forget.

As for not judging people by their actions, HOW IN TARNATION ARE WE GOING TO JUDGE THEM? I know! let's judge them by race! or religion! or both! how about we kill all the catholics, and jews, and blacks, and homosexuals, and the polish(hopefully you've seen the reference to Hitler, and 1930s-1940s Germany)! no one can judge us by our actions, so why not? Of course, that would only leave us with, eventually, a few blonde hair blue eyed people left. While the Sweedes(being blonde haired and blued eyed more often than not) might be very pleased with this idea, I'm not.
IF WE DON'T JUDGE PEOPLE BY THEIR ACTIONS, WE HAVE NO LOGICAL GROUNDS ON WHICH TO JUDGE THEM.

As for the political ideology, it seems to be an attempt to force people to have a democracy. Forcing people into a free state is getting rid of free choice. Let's take a step back and remember that this is only a game. It's also about thousands, perhaps even millions, of people worldwide to see what would happen if they were in control of a country, and to see what precedents they might set by accident.

Nationstates.net runs on the freedom to choose.

But who's freedom to chose?

Mine. And Your's. The guy how thinks just like you. The guy who disagrees with everything you've said. We all have the right to choose.

Isn't the freedom to choose what's right?

Well, this bill would undermine what's right and wrong, because it would change right and wrong from one person to the next.

I had mentioned the 9-11 terrorist attacks. To them this was not only right, but also and honor and a duty.

So was it right?

According to this bill? Yes.

According to what you might believe, no.

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. It's freedom limited by responsibility.

So what's my point?

We can't ever expect people to be responsible for themselves.

The whole reason for the government and nationstates.net is that people, individually will make mistakes, and won't know what's right.

Only society as a whole can decide what actions are needed.

But Wait! We don't have whole societies here! We only have us and our morals!

Exactly.

Therefore each one of us must go against reality and choose how each of us wants to run our own country.

It's our right to choose to do what we want.

Therefore, this resolution stands up for principles that it (the bill) itself goes against, and therefore undermines it's own effectiveness.

THIS BILL, WHILE TRYING TO GIVE EVERYONE FREEDOM OF CHOICE, TAKES THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AWAY FROM THE ONLY REAL PEOPLE IN THE GAME, THE NATION'S LEADERS!

I will forever allow the "citizens" of Aeolian to do as they please, and think a they want.

This will NEVER give me the right to make you do the same.

Let's vote down this bill, and bring some REAL freedom to this world.

We live in a game? And the only real person in all of Goobergunchia, believed by most to be 1.757 billion strong, is President Goobergunch? I am insulted to be called a figment.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

While I appreciate the work that went into this resolution, we need to finally escape this rut of passing every resolution that isn't complete trash. Contrary to popular belief, a resolution can indeed be well written, but not passage material. It's not personal, it's business.

In this case, I would like to chime in on a couple of points that force my vote against:

subliminal advertising--not to beat a dead horse, but to force the UN to take a position on something in an admittedly temporary manner is reckless. If the UN is to make policy that affects member nations (as they all do, since there is never any by choice opt-in), it should do so only AFTER all deliberation and research. Since the author admits that this issue is still unclear and not supported by a preponderance of research, the UN should delay passage of any resolution that references it.

child parenting--what exactly is an "informed decision"? I'm willing to bet that if you poll 10 people on the definition you'd get a myriad of differing answers. This is a perfect example of the vague wording that pervades this resolution. Nice try, but we should not pass any legislation that is then forced on member nations that is not clear and direct. Enforcement, after all, depends on it.

And lastly, as a final thought on what I hope was a frustrating retort by Tactical Grace, I reject any argument that says "support this resolution or exercise your right to quit the UN." As the delegate says, the UN does indeed impact on national sovereignty, which is EXACTLY why we need to be EXTREMELY careful that what we pass is absolutely necessary.

This resolution does not pass muster on any of these points and thus needs to be rejected. A better, more concrete version can always come back up at a later date.

Andrew St. Fallsworth
Human Rights Delegate
Republic of Dunlend

I'm sorry, but this proposal reminds me greatly of the Progressive reforms that occurred during the Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft campaigns. Specifically, I feel that Dewey's system of Progressive learning (which was worthless and caused many people to grow up ignorant, causing a wider swath of ignorance in American culture and society) is being very well represented in this resolution. I vote against this resolution because, though it may be good and pure at its base, will ultimately be wrong and evil when carried out to its full extent.

The members of the Moogi Cooperative Board would rather not have interlopers giving their citizens more choice than they already have. We're practically selling lemonade for helicopters, as it is.

It would appear to me that passing this resolution would, in fact, restrict some freedom of choice for a substantial group of people. The effort to homogenize all nations under a given subset of freedoms would simply restrict the ability of people to migrate to a country that protects their own individual ideals. Certain people may want governmental protection from certain actions and ideals of other people. Removing the ability for a country to enact such protectionist laws would, in fact, restrict the rights and choices of the very individuals this misguided resolution claims to protect.

Well, I may be new to this game, but I fully support the proposal. I believe in human rights and that the governments should have no right in taking people's freedom away from them at all. Everyone has the right to express oneself. Democracy is the only way to go in this world and it is the only way any country can prosper. Look at the nations of the world (in real life). In general, democracies have prospered while the totalitarian states are not doing so well. Yes, there are some exceptions, but debates and challenges to authority are the way that make things improve so much better. Democracy and freedom of choice are the way to go in this world!! :) Therefore, I vote yes to the resolution!! :) I will fully comply with it to the fullest. :)

The peoples and their representatives of the Region of Hawaiian Brian's have empowered me to voice the following two concerns regarding the Univeral Choice proposition before us:

1. CONTRAVENES UNIVERSAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of subliminal advertising, Clause (6) which declares a moratorium (a temporary ban, but a ban nonetheless) is violative of Article 2 of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, passed 8 August 2003 by this council, which held "Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."

2. INTERFERES WITH JUDICATORY POWER OF JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS

Clause (4)'s statement that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make is overly broad and imprecise in its language. One of many reasonable interpretations is that it would prevent courts from rendering judgment in cases dealing with the acts of a litigant. While the resoloution includes a caveat for physical and psychological harms, to be governed by "Normal Criminal Law", it purports only to apply criminal law to physical and psychological acts. Criminal law is far more inclusive, involving, inter alia, property rights, privacy rights and procedural rights (e.g. American Constitutional protections). The proposed resolution also makes no mention of a caveat for local civil tort law, and instead, with one broad stroke, would eliminate the power of adjudicatory tribunals to render judgment on any controversy.

We applaud the intention of the proposal's drafter, but remain gravely concerned about the aforesaid reservations. We urge all Member States to stay their support of the resolution pending redrafting, and, in lieu of such redrafting, to vote this resolution down.

SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brian's United Nations Delegate

There are some matters in which the government of a nation is better suited to make the decision than the citizens of said nation. That being said, I believe the concept of "choice" should remain an issue of national sovereignty and not a universal "right."

The Council of Enn would like to congratulate Tactical Grace for this fine proposal. As Valhallic Souls said,

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from responsibility. It needs to establish, yes, you are free to find out what a butcher knife in your wife looks like, but no you are not free from the consequences of your actions.

We agree with these sentiments.

The Council of Enn would like to congratulate Tactical Grace for this fine proposal. As Valhallic Souls said,

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from responsibility. It needs to establish, yes, you are free to find out what a butcher knife in your wife looks like, but no you are not free from the consequences of your actions.

We agree with these sentiments.

I also thought that was a very clever turn of words. ***Nods admiringly***
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

People can follow their own wims and fancies and disobey laws with this proposal.
Then, like countless others, you have not read to the bottom.

It will allow people to ask questions about classified goverment projects and programs.
How is it different to the current situation? People can ask, you can tell them to go away. Always has been like that, always well.

In addition to the subliminal messaging "restriction".
There's a simple solution to that - choose the "allow subliminal advertising" option in your issue (and watch what happens to your stats). :twisted:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

The Council of Enn would like to congratulate Tactical Grace for this fine proposal. As Valhallic Souls said,

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from responsibility. It needs to establish, yes, you are free to find out what a butcher knife in your wife looks like, but no you are not free from the consequences of your actions.

We agree with these sentiments.
Thank you. This is exactly the point I have been making, that one's freedom of choice would be safeguarded in international law, but should you abuse that right and harm others, one's national law would still swing into effect. There are those who would claim that this Resolution places nations on the road to lawlessness, but it in no way erodes any nation's ability to punish lawbreakers.

Choice, yes, but the potential consequences remain.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Gassarat is AGAINST.

Despite agreeing with it in principle, it seems like a lot of wasted words. Only Article 5 really matters. It doesn't make provisions for national laws that don't involve preventing harm to other people. I'm assuming that "where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies" means only when it is involving harm to others. Correct me if I have made the wrong assumption. It seems that in allowing everyone to act according to their conscience, you are endorsing anarchy with limitations.

Should I be allowed to brutally sacrifice animals because it is within my conscience? That doesn't harm anyone. Should I be allowed to steal things, because my "philosophy of life" is that you should do whatever you want to be happy?

According to this proposal, all existing laws that do not involve harm to your own person or another person are null and void. Obviously, this is severely restricting national sovereignty.

Should I be allowed to steal things, because my "philosophy of life" is that you should do whatever you want to be happy?

No because it would inflict harm on another (the person who you stole from would probably be upset), and thus normal criminal law does apply.

Of course, if the person was not harmed, then they would not report it, thus you'd get away with it.

I'd agree that financially should have been included with physically or psychologically in order to clarify this further , but there is a character limit to proposals, and this proposal suffered a lot when it got under that limit. :?

Or I would have said harm, and just left it at that....but it's a little late for that now :)

of course section 5 says "without unreasonable interference from the State" and I think that a police force would not be acting unreasonably if they arrested someone climbing out of a window with a large bag labelled "swag" especially when it is in the interests of moral decency.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

of course section 5 says "without unreasonable interference from the State" and I think that a police force would not be acting unreasonably if they arrested someone climbing out of a window with a large bag labelled "swag" especially when it is in the interests of moral decency.
Precisely.

And people, for what I hope is the last time, you have to realise that you lost your right to absolute national sovereignty the day you joined the UN. Here's how it works in this game:

You join the UN, the UN joins your government.

It's just the way the system works. If you made a Proposal stating that the UN has no juristiction over a member nation's domestic policies, it would get deleted for interference with game mechanics.

"Don't hate the playa, hate the game!" :lol:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Members of the United Nations:

THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALLAPIN Mayeer does not support this resolution. Though the spirit of the resolution is quite acceptable, it is too vague, and I fear that it will be highly vulnerable to misinterpretation or distortion.

I applaud the inclusion of limiting choice to those which do not harm the chooser or others, but that, too, is open to interpretation. I.e., each nation will inevitably has its own definition of harm--each may therefore use this universal freedom of choice to the detriment of its citizens.

I encourage you to vote against this very vague resolution.

Sincerely,

Ronald G. Newara
President, The Democratic Republic of Allapin Mayeer

Anyone dumb enough to be swayed by subliminal advertising is going to be swayed by regular advertising, so this seems like a "feel good", let's-pretend-we're-doing-something-for-the-masses-but-we've-actually-got-our-thumb-up-our-butts kind of law.

To sum up:

Human Freedom - GOOD!

Silly Resolution Prohibiting Subliminal Advertising - BAAAD!

There are two important people who will no longer have the freedom to choose if this passes.
Me and you.
While I already follow this kind of doctrine in my country, I may one day decide otherwise.
If this bill passes, I will have lost my right to do as I please with my country.
And as for democracy being the only way, perhaps you're right.
But what if you're wrong?
Then by passing this you have become totalitarian, and made myself and other national leaders to do what you want, and elimenated our free will.
Aeolian is mine to do with as I please, and though I support this docterine, making it mandatory is the last thing we should do.
We shouldn't force free will upon people who don't want it, and don't you dare try to argue that everyone does want it. Not everyone wants it, that's why there are suicidal cults in the world. We can't make them want freedom, nor should we try to.
Also, I'm still having trouble with the whole idea of not judging people by their actions.
There's no other way to judge them.
VOTE NO!

URGENT TELEGRAM:

RE: Universal Freedom of Choice
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights


I respectfully encourage you to change your UN vote from "Votes For" to "Votes Against."

"1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State"

I agree with both of these statements, but then the resolution goes on saying this.........

"6) Declares a moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising pending independent internationally-coordinated research into its effects on the capacity of individuals and wider society to make rational decisions."

I thought at the beginning of the UN resolution it said all people had a right to make its own choices. But at the end of the resolution it says that advertising should be halted until the government decides whether individuals can make rational decisions...."

Don't people have a right to decide if they want to watch subliminal advertisements? And if there is a committee of international researchers looking into this, then how do we know that while doing their research that they weren't affected by the subliminal advertisements, no matter what the outcome is?

We shouldn't force free will upon people who don't want it, and don't you dare try to argue that everyone does want it. Not everyone wants it, that's why there are suicidal cults in the world. We can't make them want freedom, nor should we try to.
It is not about making anyone want freedom. It is about protecting their right to freedom of thought. They do not have to use it if they do not want to or do not know how, but at least it will be there.

Also, I'm still having trouble with the whole idea of not judging people by their actions.
There's no other way to judge them.
The legal system is free to judge criminals for their crimes, but this Resolution does urge society not to judge individuals for their actions. I know full well that this is not an ideal that everyone shares, but it is expressed in the Resolution, yes.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

And as for democracy being the only way, perhaps you're right.
But what if you're wrong?

I agree.

Also doesn't this proposal restrict your choices in forms of government? Monarchys, Dictatorships, Police-States, and I'm sure others. While I don't support these forms of government, I was under the understanding that they were protected by the UN. Such a proposal would reduce their ablity to control their members, which is the basis of these governments.

While I admire the spirit of the proposal, I cannot and will not support it. I encourage others to do the same.

OK. I give up. Can someone tell me what the heck this resolution will actually do when it passes? Seriously? Asides from banning subliminal advertising?

My government has been classified as "Corrupt Dictatorship", although I maintain "benevolent despotism" is a better term. I can't for the life of me work out what actual impact this resolution will have on my nation or on any other dictatorship. Can someone give me the "for dummies" version of this resolution, so I know whether to bail out of the UN before the thing takes effect or not?

The Republic of Global Peoples, thought it is a lofty and idealistic endevor, cannot support such a resolution for several reasons.

First off, it seesm to limit government ability to provide for the general population. Yes, people have the right to choose, but with a socialized medical system, there is very little choice to be had. Such a bill would be a threat to the social services of the RGP.

Secondly, it seems this bill would also outlaw the governments ability to promote public welfare. Weather it is called an "outreach campaign" or "subliminal advertising," does the government not have the right to promote public safety? Would a warning label on a cigatrette box be considered a "subliminal advertisment?"

Thirdly, there is little hope of having a just and objective way to enforce such a measure. Outside observers cannot truly know if there is true "freedom of choice" within a nation, and may seek to further their own ends by finger-pointing and unprovoked intervention into another governments affairs.

Therefore, though a respectful and honorable venture, the RGP must vote against this resolution.

:shock: All I can say is, I am well and truly amazed. Moderate rulers have an excellent chance here of further bettering the condition of their people, but they object as it would make life difficult for dictators.

Your solidarity is remarkable. But tell me, would they return the favour, were it to be otherwise?

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

OK. I give up. Can someone tell me what the heck this resolution will actually do when it passes? Seriously?
As I have been saying, your people's human rights will be improved, as this is a Human Rights category Resolution of intermediate strength. This will improve your civil rights variables, but since your nation is fairly old, its inertial properties mean that your visible Civil Rights stat is unlikely to change, and your UN Category will almost certainly remain the same. I hope this helps. It is up to you, of course, to decide whether you wish to avoid these changes completely.

EDIT: The world is not going to collapse, and you will not become an Anarchy, just because this passes.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Yes, people have the right to choose, but with a socialized medical system, there is very little choice to be had. Such a bill would be a threat to the social services of the RGP.
Not it absolutely would not. Subclause 5c clearly states that the freedom of choice only applies to existing services. That's why I put it in there, people asked me to insert it during drafting. You will not have to privatise anything, and you will not have to nationalise anything. It is a Human Rights Category Resolution, thus it can have no economic effects either way.

Secondly, it seems this bill would also outlaw the governments ability to promote public welfare. Weather it is called an "outreach campaign" or "subliminal advertising," does the government not have the right to promote public safety? Would a warning label on a cigatrette box be considered a "subliminal advertisment?"
Not it would not be considered subliminal advertising. That's just plain ordinary advertising. You could promote public welfare all you want, as long as you did not use sinister sci-fi methods of taking over your citizens' minds while you did so. :wink:

Thirdly, there is little hope of having a just and objective way to enforce such a measure. Outside observers cannot truly know if there is true "freedom of choice" within a nation, and may seek to further their own ends by finger-pointing and unprovoked intervention into another governments affairs.
Relax, the UN mechanism will take care of that. It will simply improve your human rights a bit and you will not have to worry about outside intervention by any state, as that does not fall into the scope of the mechanism.

I do hope you reconsider.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

OK, I understand that the game stats will alter a bit, but I do like to actually pay attention to UN resolutions IC, so I'd like to know what sort of things this resolution would mean for Pantocratoria asides from shifting me one way or another (which, incidentally, I still do quite easily. I move backwards and forwards between Father Knows Best, Corrupt Dictatorship and Psychotic Dictatorship on a fairly regular basis.).

I find it highly ironic that if this resolution were to pass, it would strip people of their ability to chose if they want it to be.

OK, I understand that the game stats will alter a bit, but I do like to actually pay attention to UN resolutions IC, so I'd like to know what sort of things this resolution would mean for Pantocratoria asides from shifting me one way or another (which, incidentally, I still do quite easily. I move backwards and forwards between Father Knows Best, Corrupt Dictatorship and Psychotic Dictatorship on a fairly regular basis.).
I used to do that too, between Father Knows Best, Corrupt Dictatorship, Demccratic Socialism and Centrism. It stopped happening once I passed 700m.

Anyway . . . as far as I am concerned, the NS UN does not actually go in with its own police force and bureaucracy to make sure people's rights are not being violated. Thus your people (and all other UN citizens) will simply have an internationally recognised piece of paper filed in the UN archive, saying that they are entitled to choose their own philosophy in life (secular, spiritual, existentialist, whatever), worldview, political orientation and so on. This does not mean that where there was a dictatorship, they can suddenly elect their own representatives. It is only a declaration of sorts. Indeed, the title might have been better with Declaration stuck onto the end of it.

Think of it, if you will, as the bits of the RL US Bill of Rights and so on, which has quite idealistic parts saying that everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness. This does not mean that the government is duty-bound to provide happiness for them, nor does it cut through criminal laws and allow US citizens to do whatever illegal/immoral activity they feel like doing in the pursuit of happiness. It simply gives them a right, a freedom, without really placing any obligations on anyone.

My Resolution is an international UN-wide equivalent of that, dealing not so much with happiness, which one could say is indirectly implied here, as with choice. It is vague, yes, but the right to choose is an unavoidably vague subject. My Resolution simply safeguards that vague right, without attacking legal or corporate institutions at all.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

So you're saying that you envision this proposal as having absolutely no IC impact on the everyday Pantocratorian whatsoever?

So you're saying that you envision this proposal as having absolutely no IC impact on the everyday Pantocratorian whatsoever?
Well, if young Pantocratorians who commit the inexcusable social faux pas of choosing New Diet Pepsi With Lemon over full-sugar Vanilla Coke, are traditionally thrown out of their parental home and stoned by angry locals as they are run out of town, then this Resolution will have the UN wagging its collective finger in mild disapproval of this denial of choice.

This applies equally to those denied the opportunity to read existentialist literature, for example. It does to some degree limit censorship, but only from the perspective that people have a right to not be denied a choice in art and literature, it does not actually specifically ban censorship. It merely grants people an internationally recognised right to be free of unreasonable censorship. The government can still trample on that right if it really wants to do so.

The IC idea is that in the interests of maintaining a good international image, governments will choose not to stamp on the rights granted in this Resolution, thus resulting in an improvement in human and civil rights. But they could still deny people choice, of course.

I suppose that this is to some extent permissive legislation, in that it does not ban anything, only gives people some rights. The strongest thing it does is effects a temporary suspension of subliminal advertising. ICly, people could always say that the temporary suspension has expired, and return to using it if they want.

Like I have been saying, this Resolution is not the end of the world for anyone.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

First - I will admit that I haven't read this whole thread - or the other one. But, I'm going to express general principles - not specific examples...

Whenever a well-written, well-researched Resolution comes up, there are always those that make the case that it’s too vague - too specific - or whatever.

People forget that most RL laws are. Nothing is case in stone - that is why we have courts to make rulings.

Courts - whether domestic or international interpret laws to provide rulings on specific cases.

Over time those rulings form into precedent - which typically forms a stronger, more defined set of principles (at least under common law systems).

To suggest that a UN resolution is flawed simply because it doesn’t take into account every possible situation is naive at best. Even constitutions of large, well developed nations need amendments from time to time.

Wolfish (or at least its UN puppet/delegate) votes in favour of this resolution.

ahhh, but the UN has no such court to interpret the resolutions it passes.

ahhh, but the UN has no such court to interpret the resolutions it passes.

No it doesn't. I would suggest that in the NS UN the interpretation would be left to the nation itself - whether that be through a domestic court or the ruler (in the case of non-democractic nation).

Obviously there was a good ammount of idealistic zeal behind the writing of this legislation. However, there wasn't much forethought as to how it would affect various cultures. There are those that chose to not have the burden of choice for themselves and would rather lead there quiet, peaceful, simple lives under the watchful and benevolent eye of their nations' leaders. A resolution of this type should be left up to the individual nations to implement as they see fit. To IMPOSE such strictures undermines the very idealism that spirited the authorship of the proposal to begin with.

This resolution is violating a previous UN law:

Rights and Duties of UN States

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability Strength: Significant Proposed by: Frisbeeteria
Description: : UN membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly give up when we chose to join the UN. It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus UN sanctioned international law. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the United Nations of NationStates. A Declaration on Rights and Duties of UN States: Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Section II: The Art of War: Article 4 § Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack. Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons. Article 6 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife. Article 7 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action. Article 8 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5. Section III: The Role of the United Nations: Article 9 § Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State. Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Votes For: 15083

Votes Against: 3395

Implemented: Tue Feb 24 2004

If the Universal Freedom of Choice bill passes then this previous law will be meaningless and the UN will have contradictory laws. What is the point of laws if they contradict each other?
:?:

This resolution is violating a previous UN law:

Rights and Duties of UN States

Thank you, we're very familiar with that resolution. Could you point out specifically how the Freedom of Choice resolution violates Rights and Duties?

This resolution is violating a previous UN law:

Rights and Duties of UN States

Thank you, we're very familiar with that resolution. Could you point out specifically how the Freedom of Choice resolution violates Rights and Duties?
I don't think you are familiar with it. It states that nations have certain rights they do not want to give up. I won't retype my reasons.

I don't think you are familiar with it. It states that nations have certain rights they do not want to give up. I won't retype my reasons.

On the contrary, having argued forcefully in favour of its passing on these very forums we are well aware of its content. We still await a genuine argument suggesting that the Freedom of Choice resolution contradicts it. Before you "retype" your reasons, you would first have to "type" them, which is what we are requesting.

I don't think you are familiar with it. It states that nations have certain rights they do not want to give up. I won't retype my reasons.

On the contrary, having argued forcefully in favour of its passing on these very forums we are well aware of its content. We still await a genuine argument suggesting that the Freedom of Choice resolution contradicts it. Before you "retype" your reasons, you would first have to "type" them, which is what we are requesting.

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

I currently only have one religon in my country and it is state controlled. Universal Freedom of Choice would allow my people to have any religon they choose.

I currently only have one religon in my country and it is state controlled. Universal Freedom of Choice would allow my people to have any religon they choose.

We don't believe that it would. The only relevant action that the Freedom of Choice resolution actually commands, rather than merely "urging," "encouraging", or the like, is:
5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State

This makes no direct reference to religion. And in any case, since the Rights and Duties resolution directly enshrines nations' choice of their form of government, theocratic rule can clearly be considered "reasonable interference".
Not that we like theocracies or want to protect them, but this resolution doesn't threaten them.

This resolution is violating a previous UN law:

Rights and Duties of UN States

If the Universal Freedom of Choice bill passes then this previous law will be meaningless and the UN will have contradictory laws. What is the point of laws if they contradict each other?
To give employment to lawyers. Much of the legal profession exists to iron out legislative inconsistencies through use of precedent, etc.

For the record, I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Resolution to which you refer, and do not believe that mine is fundamentally in conflict.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

It seems to me to be in conflict, in that this should be a law enacted by individual countries and not imposed by an international group. If a nation wishes to enact such useless laws, that is their right, and should not be something forced upon them by the UN. The enacting of an international law that really only has jurisdiction on a national scale is a threat to each nations' sovereignity.

East Hackney is correct, my resolution does not command any nation to do anything. It is largely permissive legislation. That is, it somewhat idealistically says "Wouldn't it be nice if . . . ?" It recognises a few things, expresses hopes and convictions, etc, and there are a couple of declarations of rights, but nowhere does it order nations to act in a particular fashion. The strongest clause is the declaration of a moratorium, but those are practically voluntary by default anyway. There really isn't anything to fear here. This Resolution is hardly an empty shell, but it is certainly not the armoured bulldozer that some would have you believe.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Therefore this resolution will increase the bureaucracy, and there will be numerous legal cases which will be expensive(not including the cost of hiring the lawyers) brought forth by this resolution. Is a resolution that only says What if really worth it? I say NO.

My Resolution simply protects the right of people to make choices in life. Whether people are able to exercise that right, or whether they choose to do so, does not fall into its scope. It enshrines a set of principles in law. Not everyone agrees with that, but there are only so many people I can convince. Hopefully, there will be enough.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I had to vote against the resolution. My problem is that it does not make any concrete recommendations, and therefore does not actually stand for anything. As a UN member, I cannot vote for a "wouldn't it be nice if people thought about X, Y, and Z..." piece of legislation.

I had to vote against the resolution. My problem is that it does not make any concrete recommendations, and therefore does not actually stand for anything. As a UN member, I cannot vote for a "wouldn't it be nice if people thought about X, Y, and Z..." piece of legislation.

Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document...


Maybe somebody already pointed this out, but I'm not leafing through pages of posts to find out. I agree with the majority of the resolution, but I find this part a bit off. Decisions are what make people who they are. If we're not judging people by their decisions, what else can we judge them by? Their religion? Their race?
I'm going to have to vote against this resolution.

The Dictaorship of Poltergeist does not like this proposal. It takes away our govermental power. You said that you created this to get rid of nation that has a Ditcaorship nation, well sir. Not all Dictaorship nation are bad. My nation is a peaceful one (even though we recently had a build up of arms to protect ourself). Our civil rights are very strong, our economy is strong. Yes personal liberty is below average, but maybe that is for the best. Look at the United States and what is happening over there. They have the highest murder rate in the WORLD. Poltergeist prides itself in having a very low murder and crime rate. We vote NO!

As a free, capitalist nation, I reject the notion that government should tell businesses they cannot advertise a certain way on the grounds that people are not able to make rational decisions. People have the capacity of rational thought, the ability to accept or reject ideas by the process of reasoning, and the ability to turn off a television set.

I'd also point out that what and what is not "subliminal" could be highly open to interpretation. As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Your whole proposal advocates choice, yet the anti-sublimal advertising bit seems to assume that people are unable to make their own decisions.

In case of point, the resolution is by far discrimitory in it's wording to all nations and regions. I can understand if the wording of the resolution specifically stated, The freedom of choice, UNBURDENED by the use of propaganda or subliminal messages.

The Terran Assemblage is a nation built on the foundations that voting is an earned right. A citizen is afforded only one extra freedom beyond those he or she is born with. The right to vote is a freedom given upon completion of military service within our national borders.

The proposal of Freedom of Choice opens up the doors to those freedoms which have not been earned by our national laws.

If however your speaking of Freedom of choice, unburdened by the use of propaganda, subliminal messaging, or false statements contrary to known inherent truths, then your proposal should say such.

In it's current format, the proposal is highly inflamitory to all government bodies in question. In essence it forces many nations to change their government political body to something which is against many of their original foundations. It forces us to rewrite our just laws and change or governmental ethics to something that lessons us.

As representative of both my nation and the Terran Assembly region, I ask that the proposal be rewritten to more accurately portray the intent of the message you are trying to carry across to us. In it's current state it is highly impossible to show any other meaning that every nation must give freedom beyond what our own laws dictate.

You do not see the Irazzia contingent telling the Brookmier Axis contingent that every citizen has the right to scream their bloody lungs out at 3 o'clock in the morning hailing allah do you, since loud noises passed the 10 o'clock curfew hour of the Brookmier Axis national laws forbid it.

As you can see your Universal Freedom of Choice, effectively stomps down on the laws of choice and freedom of another sovereign state. Reword the resolution, but do not keep it in it's current format.

At the risk of sounding (and feeling) like a broken record, let me once again reiterate my previous arguments in favor of this proposal. But I will do it in a very simple manner.

WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES:
* Enshrines the inalienable right of people to make choices. Only in very rare cases does this conflict with ANY form of government. The one case that does come to mind is a horrific leap away from even vague concepts of human rights wherein citizens are unable to make ANY choice.

* Suggests that nations permit their citizens to make choices about how to live.

* Places a temporary ban on subliminal advertising (with the amount of time obviously up to the Nations themselves... HINT HINT). For those who insist that all advertisements are subliminal in some form, you're wrong. I went over specifically why in another thread, but it comes down to the fact that if something can be consciously recalled, it is by definition not subliminal. The only case where all advertisements WOULD (not could) be argued as being subliminal would be in the case of a nation DESIRING to ban all advertisements. Otherwise, why not use the strict definition, and not ban any ads? The UN isn't going to invade you for that, nor will we notice, and I dare say most of us probably wouldn't care.

WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT DO:

* Remove national sovereignty more than any other UN Resolution. Anarchy will not result from this. Your citizens will simply have the choice to do whatever they want (though this proposal will not endorse the choice to cause harm to people). This means your police have the choice to arrest them, and the judges have the choice to convict them, etc. Yes, citizens who have not served their military service will be able to choose to vote... and you have the choice to ignore their vote/lock them up.

* Ban all advertising (unless you want it to). This was just explained.

* Remove power from your judicial system(s). English may not be the first language of many of our delegates, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't learn it.
4) Expresses its conviction that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make, provided these decisions meet the condition set in Clause 5a of this document;
What does this mean? Well, it means that "it" (the UN, in this particular case) is asserting that it believes that society should not judge a person by their actions. It does not mention a judicial system, nor does it say a person shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. This protects someone who made a poor choice in their history from becoming a pariah for the rest of their lives, and being denied employment, etc. Try thinking "Double Jeopardy Clause" instead of "Holy crap! Tactical Grace is trying to turn the UN into one big Anarchist State!"

"Remove national sovereignty more than any other UN Resolution. Anarchy will not result from this. Your citizens will simply have the choice to do whatever they want (though this proposal will not endorse the choice to cause harm to people). This means your police have the choice to arrest them, and the judges have the choice to convict them, etc. Yes, citizens who have not served their military service will be able to choose to vote... and you have the choice to ignore their vote/lock them up."

We have laws against drugs, if drugs is something a citizen wishes to do by their own freedom of choice, then they are breaking our national laws.

Like I said previously, the essence of the proposal is flawed in it's wording. It is vague, it is at points incoherent, at points it repeats itself in section 1 and 6. If I was reading into the intent of the paraphrasing of the proposal, then the proposal has nothing to do with freedom of choice. It the proposal is based that the decisions that a citizen makes should be free of any bias caused by propaganda, subliminal messages, or the inherent falsehood which is openly known to be something untruthful.

In which case, the entire proposal MUST be rewritten to show this as the intent of the message being stated. In it's current written form it is allowing freedom of choice even beyond what any nations laws may currently uphold or which is allowable. By accepting the proposal in it's current format and wording, it has to be accepted that certain forms of governement would be inherently illegal in their political bodies.

It needs to be rewritten and revoted upon. It is a proposal with errors of intent and misleading to the public forum at large. By the show of votes, the proposal will not even pass by a landslide mark, and shows how many have not voted upon it, probably because the proposal's wording has lost to many representatives with it's lofty but ambiguous message.

We have laws against drugs, if drugs is something a citizen wishes to do by their own freedom of choice, then they are breaking our national laws.
Um. Enforce those laws, then. :?

By the show of votes, the proposal will not even pass by a landslide mark, and shows how many have not voted upon it, probably because the proposal's wording has lost to many representatives with it's lofty but ambiguous message.
Its majority looks slim, but it is early days as far as the number of votes cast is concerned, and given the controversy surrounding it, I expect 20,000 votes to be cast by the end of voting.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Grrrr...

:finally snaps:

I've seen enough of the English language being butchered!

It's and its mean completely different things!

It's means "it is"

Its means "belonging to it".

For the Love of Non-existing God, get it right!

"Um. Enforce those laws, then."

...The law can not be enforced to stop a citizen from taking drugs, if the law had to be changed due to a reforundum proposal of the UN that states that they have the choice to take those drugs as a personal freedom. If the courts and laws enforce that law, the pertaining parties who broke the law could say that their freedom was given to them by UN mandate. Hence the problem. The proposal should have not been brought up as it stands.

And this is what any court of real law would have to abide by under UN mandate. You may get a kick that this is a game, and that these decisions have no lasting real life value to them...but realistically speaking if it was proposed and passed, it would effectively change absolute national laws under any court system. The freedom of choice UN law would effectively destroy or rewrite ANY nations or regional laws pertaining to, but not excluding, gun control, drugs, voting, abortion, gambling, free speach, and any number of issues at hand.

When I say the proposal was vague in it's wording, I meant that it has far ranging consequances that you havn't even perceived of when it comes to an individuals rights, freedoms, and choices. The issue leaves far to much room for people to read into. If there is 3,700 odd some votes against, then they are not reading your proposal as you intended. And by the above slur that anyone disagreeing is ignorant, your calling nearly 3,000+ some odd voters ignorant. And I'd call that a slap in the face again.

You want to play politics by UN standards, then you better be prepared to play hard ball. Since the number of dissenting votes has increased faster now, than the number of pro votes. Probably because they now have an advocate in their corner which can type more than one paragraph arguements, and do it very succinctly. Expect to see me a lot on any issues as grandoisely as this one. I will not make it easy for you. If you want your proposals, your going to have to put them together better than this.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Moogi's duly assigned cooperative panelists signal their appreciation and approval of the Terran Assemblage's erudite discussion of the issue at hand.

We applaud the intention of the proposal's drafter, but remain gravely concerned about the aforesaid reservations. We urge all Member States to stay their support of the resolution pending redrafting, and, in lieu of such redrafting, to vote this resolution down.

SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brian's United Nations Delegate

I do believe that of all the arguments against and in favour of the current proposal that this is the one that really struck a positive cord with my nation. A redrafting does seem in order.

There currently is a debate going on in the North Pacific forums (with no server lag issues), and to date the majority of nations agree with the SCOS OJ position, that the proposal is noble in design, but bears a bit more work.

That said, I will apologize for not having taken part in the obvious and public draft period. The resolution *did* have plenty of time for us all to provide input, and it is no fault of the proponents that those of us who now are bringing up objections did not come forward earlier.

I suspect in the case of many of us (like those in my region) that we were too busy debating the previous resolution on ballast water to have had the luxury of time to give this resolution the attention it deserves as well.

10kMichael

The Terran Assemblage and region seconds the motion put forth by SCOS OJ, Hawaiian Brian's United Nations Delegate. That the proposal at hand was noble in it's efforts, and that the draftee had good intentions. But the afformentioned proposal still needs more work before it is drafted into law.

:D

Great job, Tactical Grace.
We support the resolution!

The Armed UN Ambassador from the Armed Republic of Best and Brightest supports our Regional Delegate, Terran Assemblage.

The Armed Republic strives for responsible democracy based on an electorate of proven civic commitment. To further that end the Armed Republic has joined the Terran Assembly region and the United Nations. This is proof that the Armed Republic of Best and Brightest looks towards peaceful interaction in the furtherance of responsible democracy. However the Armed Republic must denounce the resolution currently before the members.

"Individual morality' is an oxymoron with null semantic content. A morality unshared by others is indistinguishable from amorality. The Armed Republic believes the responsible democratic state will consult the public and guide it in the formation and codification of a public morality.

This resolution, while attempting to establish a basic public morality, erodes any capability for responsible democratic development. Instead of civic commitment, mere existence will become the basis of public morality. Civil service, the prime test of civic commitment, will become morally equivalent to desertion.

The Armed Republic feels that individual liberty has already been codified by prior UN resolutions, and that it is not only permissible, but necessary, that the state perform the duty of evaluating individual choice according to public morality. This resolution would restrain the state from performing this duty. The Armed Republic of Best and Brightest votes against this resolution and urges fellow UN members to reject it as well.

:roll: I'm finding these objections a little amusing now. Some people say this will cause anarchy, others that this will ultimately do nothing...while in truth neither are the case. The most astute ambassador from Simpering Socialists put it most concisely when he said:

There have been two main schools of argument against this proposal. The first declares that the proposal will do too much, others complain it will do nothing at all.

To those who oppose the spirit of the proposal, I can only point out that if you believe your philosophy is the best - then why do you choose to impose it on your people rather than letting its merits guide the people towards you? Your desire for total control is evidence that you know your philosophy is not in everyone's best interests.

Those who complain that the proposal does not include specific measures in order to enforce the concepts laid out are missing a vital point. If you want to enforce these concepts, then this can be done through follow up legislation as Tactical Grace has suggested. This proposal is still important, though, as it lays the foundation for such legislation. Once there is a consensus that personal liberty needs to be protected, then UN members can go about finding a way to make it happen. But the consensus needs to come first.

But of course if people had read the proposal, and the draft and the points raised by the draft then they would realise that already wouldn't they? :roll:


Secondly I'm disappointed that so many nations are seeing fit to post objections in new topics rather than the one that has been created since day one, has had all the issues associated with this resolution back when it was a draft proposal....Please please please try and keep it all in one tidy place? It's much easier for various nation states such as myself to keep our train of thought if we can see everything in one easy place rather than hopping from topic to topic.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

i have several issues with this proposal, 1) the idea that one cannot be judged for their choises, what is it then that we are to judge people by, their appearance? this is the one main issue i have however there is also 2) the idea that you can enforce this proposal on other nations for this is merely a contradictio of the ideas held within the proposal for it is up to the leaders to decide the best for their nations, which brings me to 3) those that have stated that:

" you choose to impose it on your people rather than letting its merits guide the people towards you? Your desire for total control is evidence that you know your philosophy is not in everyone's best interests."

the reason this does not work is simply due to the fact that the populace does not think of the greater good, those who choose to be dictators have done so because they feel that their views will benifet the greater good, as is their right as a nation head, but will not be accept by those who do not see the complete picture. to use the old image they are on one side of the loom while we are on the other, us leaders can see what we have done clearly and have an image in our mind of that which we are weaving while they only get the blurred and basic picture as it happens

Here is what this resolution sounds like to me:

You can decide how you like as long as it doesn't go against criminal laws.

We won't be able to make new laws or enforce old ones if it goes against personal freedom at all, except in cases of possible harm. So if I decided to ban harry potter books it would be null and void, becouse it will not harm you, and goes against personal freedom.

Children can decide as they like as long as it doesn't harm them physically or pychologically no matter what the parents think.

A person can not be judged by any decision he makes that is lawful under this new resolution concerning personal freedom.

It is not the governments responsibility to erect new services for furthering rights and freedoms.

This is what it sounds like it is saying to me, is my thinking right?

I find it extremely irritating that nations like Cherry Coke Island and Terran Assemblage duplicating posts on this and other threads that discuss the current proposal. Now, I have no objection to you opposing the proposal - indeed, I have some sympathy for some of the views being expressed - but is there any need to swamp the forum with repetitive bickering?

Nations on both sides of the argument have very good points to make, yet each in turn drown these points with needless lambasting of the opposition. Talk to rather than at each other and act with the appropriate decorum for representatives sitting at the United Nations.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

There's an interesting article in the April 2004 issue of Scientific American that says that an abundance of choices actually leads to unhappiness. Where some choices are better than none, more is not always better than less.

Thus I disagree with
1) Urges all members of the United Nations to recognise that a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society; and will vote against the resolution.

The country of Great Atlantida would like to voice its objection to the Resolution at its current form. We are concerned about the economic implications of banning subliminal messages in advertising. We strongly believe that that this will supress the Marketing industry and have adverse economic effects. At its current form we will vote against the resolution. We will be more favourable if the article no 6 gets removed.

Intriguing. Did this article refer to choice in general or was it relating specifically to consumer/luxury choice?

Bear in mind that this is a scientific study that I doubt is yet accepted by the scientific community at large. I'm not denying that it may be correct but at the same time it is certainly not an absolute. Consequently, you don't have to refute article 1 as you have. Please also bear in mind that you can choose not to base your opinions on one single study.

Personally, I feel that choices can lead to happiness, unhappiness, elation, misery, contentment, discontent and complete indifference. It's all circumstantial. So, yes, perhaps article 1 is incorrect.

Intriguing. Did this article refer to choice in general or was it relating specifically to consumer/luxury choice?

Choice in general, I believe, although consumer choice was given as an example of how unhappiness results when an individual's overwhelmed by so many options that there's no possibility of making a genuinely rational choice between them. The fetishisation of "choice" by rampant consumerists was one of our main problems with this resolution, but it's clear from TG's responses that that wasn't what he was aiming at at all so we're happy to support it.

My only grief with this proposal is that it basically forces any communist, dicatorship or non-democratic nation to become democratic in nature. To force member states to comply by granting their citizens the right to choose (vote, express discontent with their Gov. etc.) even if such choice is an "illusion," is akin to the UN telling nation states how to run its Government. I know several Nationstates that tell their people what to do and their nation is triving.

What makes the UN work is it's diversity and willingness to work together. The UN should not be instructing the nationstates how to govern its people, but resolving conflicts/ promoting intrests that affect THE WORLD in general.

Whether or not that is the writer's intent, it should be cleared up in writing before such a memorandum is put before this assembage.

Two things, Ichi Ni:

1) True communism is democratic.

2) The resolution encourages dissent rather than forcing the overthrow of non-democratic systems of government.

While you are correct Ecopoeia in that true communism is Democratic. What about the nations that are Dictatorships, King/Queendoms and those nations that are not TRUE Communists? Is the UN going to become so exclusive that only a select few can join and be heard?

Your second point confirms my fear. Can you honestly say that you want the UN to CAUSE dissent and unrest leading to riots, revolts and meyham in YOUR nationstate? Such dessent can and more often than not lead to governmental overthrow (see US History, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, The former USSR...). And even if an overthrow is unsuccessful, the waste of human life, property, and liberties would be staggering.

In my region, some of the Nations are communists yet they look after their people. While they (the people) are not given the luxury of choice, they seem happy and content. If not, they can move to nationstates more to their liking.

A resolution to facilitate such population shifts may be more in order but to force UN Nations to conform to what may become a violent situation within their boarders is WRONG.

Oh, dear - you can tell I'm tired. I'm writing gibberish. I'll try and clarify.

"What about the nations that are Dictatorships, King/Queendoms and those nations that are not TRUE Communists? Is the UN going to become so exclusive that only a select few can join and be heard?"

I disagree that this is the case, especially with this resolution (strength: mild).

"Your second point confirms my fear. Can you honestly say that you want the UN to CAUSE dissent and unrest leading to riots, revolts and meyham in YOUR nationstate?"

I should have said may encourage dissent. Are the peoples of an oppressive regime likely to have access to documented proof of this resolution? If they don't see it, how do they know they have freedom of choice?

Anyway, dissent can take many forms; it can be very mild. It doesn't necessarily equate to unrest and disorder. Also, are revolutions always wrong, even if they cause suffering? I'm simply putting the question to you.

The resolution is gentle enough to make no real difference to UN member states. It's simply an affirmation of principles that perhaps the majority of the UN will share, perhaps not.

I find it extremely irritating that nations like Cherry Coke Island and Terran Assemblage duplicating posts on this and other threads that discuss the current proposal. Now, I have no objection to you opposing the proposal - indeed, I have some sympathy for some of the views being expressed - but is there any need to swamp the forum with repetitive bickering?

Nations on both sides of the argument have very good points to make, yet each in turn drown these points with needless lambasting of the opposition. Talk to rather than at each other and act with the appropriate decorum for representatives sitting at the United Nations.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations

I posted my reply in two posts to get a reply back as to the correctness of my thinking. You are the first, though the critique of my posting ettiquete is not the correction I was looking for. If my thinking is correct I plan to vote no, though I just wanted to make sure I was correct in my thinking before hand. So instead of berrating me would you care to make a reply on my post? :)

WE CANNOT LET THIS RESOLUTION PASS!

I must voice my extreme concern about a resolution so vague and ambiguous. The extent of this resolution's effect is enormous and it is impossible to fortell the exact rammafications of passing it.

Although it is noble in intent, it is garbled and confused somewhere between subliminal messaging, book-banning and non sequiters.

Re: "Universal Freedom of Choice"

Clause 1: A populace that can choose not to be productive may possibly be happier than a nation in which citizens are forced or encouraged to be productive, but it cannot be nearly as productive as the latter. Thus this ultimatum is not always true, and therefore I urge delegates to disagree to acknowledge it.

Clause 2: Once leaders have imagined this world, what then? Though addressed most eloquently, this clause is pointless and of little importance.

Clause 3: It is alarming that this clause gives the people of every Sate Government the <b>unlimited power and right<b> to ask questions and recieve answers, without any reserves as to personal or national security, rights to privacy, etc. (The power of free speech is already protected by Article 2 of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, passed 8 August 2003, which held "Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."
If, indeed, this was the intended meaning of this clause.)

Clause 4: In regards to Clause 4, I must agree with SCOS OJ who wrote the following in the section of the UN Forum relating to this resolution:

"INTERFERES WITH JUDICATORY POWER OF JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS
Clause (4)'s statement that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make is overly broad and imprecise in its language. One of many reasonable interpretations is that it would prevent courts from rendering judgment in cases dealing with the acts of a litigant. While the resolution includes a caveat for physical and psychological harms, to be governed by "Normal Criminal Law", it purports only to apply criminal law to physical and psychological acts. Criminal law is far more inclusive, involving, inter alia, property rights, privacy rights and procedural rights (e.g. American Constitutional protections). The proposed resolution also makes no mention of a caveat for local civil tort law, and instead, with one broad stroke, would eliminate the power of adjudicatory tribunals to render judgment on any controversy."

Clause 5: As this clause advocates the freedom of choice in response to one's own conscience, it must inquired as to what becomes of cases where one's conscience and/or morals differ from another's conscience and/or morals, these two choosers' choices are at odds, and neither violates any of the following subclauses? Whose choice prevails? Totally unlimited choice is a danger and an explosive situation simply waiting to erupt. One can choose to infract upon another's choice in a manner which is not criminal. Conflicting, non-criminal choices would then lead to populaces that are not happy, content or productive, which would then conflict with Clause 1.

5a: Re: Clause 4.

5b: Complaint 1. It is deeply disturbing that children (minors) have absolutely no free choice for themselves, and must instead abide unquestioningly by the choices made by their parent or legal guardian on the child's behalf. How can we expect to raise generations of healthy adults with free choice when they themselves were never allowed free choice as children?

Complaint 2. It is absolutely appauling that physically-handicapped adult individuals lose their freedom of choice to a legal guardian. It is highly discriminatory and ridiculous. What does one's paralyzed legs, amputated arm, or blind eyes have to do with one's freedom of choice?!

Clause 6: a moratorium on subliminal advertising (which is advertisement, whether subliminal or no) is in direct violation with the affore-mentioned Article 2 of the Universal Bill of Human Rights and would require ammending of this article.

I urge all UN deligates with any foresight and respect for humanity to VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION!!

Wrong, Ecopoeia. The strength is significant, not mild. Due to the charter saying any resolution adopted will be adhered to, this is an attack to all non democratic nations. Some of my regions are not democratic in nature.

in this day and age, information is readily available. oppressed nations are not always 3rd world countries where high tech is anything made from plastic. To pass such resolution is still paramount to the UN dicating how each nation should act.

Dissent can start mildly but they rarely stay so. Violence is inherent to any revolution, unless the leaders have a very tight control over their people. and all revolutionaries are just and right. maybe not to the majority but to those carrying it out, they are justified. after all One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. By your agreeing that this resolution MAY cause dissent means that you can see that this resolution is nothing more than to force non-democratic nations to the majority line of thinking.

If you are right and that this is just an affirmation or a feel-good resolution, then it should not be voted upon. It alienates nations who do not share your world vision and places them on the defensive.

oh and if you DP, please edit one out so that it does not take too much space... Thanks.

this bill is very obscure, leaving it open to interpertation , which is crap, parts of it raves that goverments have to accept that their people have ideas about "things" its moronic and it should not pass

I should have said may encourage dissent. Are the peoples of an oppressive regime likely to have access to documented proof of this resolution? If they don't see it, how do they know they have freedom of choice?

Anyway, dissent can take many forms; it can be very mild. It doesn't necessarily equate to unrest and disorder. Also, are revolutions always wrong, even if they cause suffering? I'm simply putting the question to you.

The resolution is gentle enough to make no real difference to UN member states. It's simply an affirmation of principles that perhaps the majority of the UN will share, perhaps not.

Are revolutions always wrong? That is not a choice or a decision left up to your personal morality or that of your own nation. You are pointing out another nations belief of what governments are wrong and which governments are right. I can easily say that democracy may be inherently bold in it's conception, but lacks firm comitment in order to lead people to happier lives. There are many democracies across the world with high crime rates, inability to feed their people, rampant disease, or no law enforcement. I would consider it a poor choice of government, and a very immoral choice in governing body.

There are those governments who do not have these problems and which are not democracies, who through their governing body, the people live rich and fruitful lives as it is now. They are allowed choices as it is. But I can only stress again that this proposal gives far to much freedom to the nations people, where their laws allow only a limited form of freedom in one way or another.

Do not enforce your nations personal ethics and codes of morality of choice upon those nations who do not wish it. With the advant of this resolution you will be tearing down the governing systems and replacing them with cold hearted democracy, which will lead to dissent, which will lead to power struggles, and this will cost lives. You may not see it, but the disasterous consequances of this resolution loom on our collective horizons.

For those nations who have these freedoms of choices beyond the measure of others, we who dissent against this resolution do not force our belief of our governments on you, or our laws of morality and ethics. But YOU can decide to force your governmental form upon other nations? It is not your right as nations, under past UN resolutions, to force your choice of government and the laws and ethics of said government upon any member of the UN.

This new resolution forces many goverments to unilaterally give up their sovereign power and hand it to the people outright, with no recourse of objection from any nation that is not a democracy. You are forcing a change of government to all nations.

Under past UN resolutions, under the laws of sovereign power, I declare this new resolution an illegal attempt to overthrow the government of not only the Terran Assemblage, but every nation who has cast a vote of no.

"Anyway, dissent can take many forms; it can be very mild. It doesn't necessarily equate to unrest and disorder. Also, are revolutions always wrong, even if they cause suffering? I'm simply putting the question to you."

We do not agree with this blatant rebuke who clearly states it is better to have a revolution, then a working government system of nation with no problems of it's own. Forcing this democratic morality is hypocritical, and this is what this resolution is calling for. It is calling for dissent, revolution, of our citizens to rise up against our governments.

this bill is very obscure, leaving it open to interpertation , which is crap, parts of it raves that goverments have to accept that their people have ideas about "things" its moronic and it should not pass

Aya! The fact that it's so open to interpretation makes it completely useless, and a blot on the record of the UN, all it would do is delude fantastic idealists into thinking that they were better people than they were

I haven't decided to vote for or against, but I have a couple of thoughts to share.

Firstly, there's a subtle but real difference between "freedom" and "liberty". Think of the usage "taking liberties"; it almost implies going too far.

Also, because as human beings we live in families, communities, nations and so on, I think there needs to be a balance between "freedom" and "responsibility". I know you have included clauses which restrict "freedom" when it becomes harmful to another, but I am convinced that because we are essentially social beings, our freedoms need to be balanced with our social responsibilities and I don't see any of that balance in your resolution.

When you think about it, we can only have any individual freedoms at all if we basically communally agree to a restriction of individual freedoms -- embodied in a code of law. By assenting to that code we gladly "sacrifice" our liberty to be absolutely unrestricted. But because we communally accept certain restrictions, it allows freedom. Example: we submit our "right" to drive when, where and how we want to a code of traffic laws. These laws make orderly transportation possible and without them and my (and everyone else's) agreement to the restrictions, I could get nowhere for the chaos which would ensure.

While I appreciate the work that went into this resolution, we need to finally escape this rut of passing every resolution that isn't complete trash. Contrary to popular belief, a resolution can indeed be well written, but not passage material. It's not personal, it's business.

In this case, I would like to chime in on a couple of points that force my vote against:

subliminal advertising--not to beat a dead horse, but to force the UN to take a position on something in an admittedly temporary manner is reckless. If the UN is to make policy that affects member nations (as they all do, since there is never any by choice opt-in), it should do so only AFTER all deliberation and research. Since the author admits that this issue is still unclear and not supported by a preponderance of research, the UN should delay passage of any resolution that references it.

child parenting--what exactly is an "informed decision"? I'm willing to bet that if you poll 10 people on the definition you'd get a myriad of differing answers. This is a perfect example of the vague wording that pervades this resolution. Nice try, but we should not pass any legislation that is then forced on member nations that is not clear and direct. Enforcement, after all, depends on it.

And lastly, as a final thought on what I hope was a frustrating retort by Tactical Grace, I reject any argument that says "support this resolution or exercise your right to quit the UN." As the delegate says, the UN does indeed impact on national sovereignty, which is EXACTLY why we need to be EXTREMELY careful that what we pass is absolutely necessary.

This resolution does not pass muster on any of these points and thus needs to be rejected. A better, more concrete version can always come back up at a later date.

Andrew St. Fallsworth
Human Rights Delegate
Republic of Dunlend

I am resubmitting this in an effort to engender commentary. I hold my objections to be reasonable and feel they are worthy of discussion. Thank you.

Andrew St. Fallsworth
Human Rights Delegate
Republic of Dunlend

Two things, Ichi Ni:

1) True communism is democratic.

2) The resolution encourages dissent rather than forcing the overthrow of non-democratic systems of government.

But a more important question is does this resolution even have international standing? Why is it that a uniform international action is necessary? Why is this resolution more important than each of our nations finding the balance between freedom of expression and responsibility to society?

What many proponents of the current resolution are missing is that many of us have drastically different governments than others here. In our societies the saying, The good of the many outweighs the good of the one. may have more weight than in other societies.

While everybody understands that part of joining the UN is to agree to give away your sovereignty, many of us are still wondering how our nations passing laws that say ... outlaw biggotry (one form of expression) in the interest of establishing equality.

The truth is, the current resolution is a trade off (OOC: Not in game mechanics sense, for game mechanics it is a complete free ride). In order to gain the political freedom of the right for thought and expression, it is often the case that the civil freedom of being treated equal is taken away.

Unlike the ballast water resolution, there are no cold hard facts. I've yet to see a single fact posted in any of the threads. And the reason for this is we are allowing a majority (but in no way a super majority) opinion to rule upon a minority. This is a dangerous thing to do.

Personally, my nation would have voted yes if the third clause was better defined. As it is currently stated it sounds like governments can't protect the poor and disadvantaged to hate styled crimes. I can go at lenght about this, but the simple fact is that my nation is a democratic nation with a strong tradition of protecting its minorities and their civil liberties. Even if this at times means that people don't have complete political freedoms.

10kMichael

This issue is crap. Please don't vote for it.

This issue is crap. Please don't vote for it.

But why does your nation consider it crap?

This is a personal pet peeve, but if you feel so strongly about something to call it crap, then explain why.

I've voted no, but I reserve the right to change my nation's vote, and honestly a sincere position will bring over more swing votes like my nation's vote, than just a quick fire-n-forget reply like the above.

This abomination of a resolution is despicable, trivial, inane and idiotic.

Proposals devoid of practical relevence should not reach the UN, the system by which proposals are approved is corrupt.

The imbecilic resolution on ballast water is another example.

Simply put, it is needlessly restrictive, and incredibly ‘good natured’ while at the same time eliminating democracy. Democracy requires that some part of the minority bend in their decision to choose their own destiny to the majority, providing that the restrictions of law are still in place. However, equality of minority to majority is destruction of the democratic principle that a school, a library, even a video rental, should be under the purview of society at large. Some non-‘damaging’ materials, like pornography, like violence, should be detainable by society at large if it chooses to do so. The UN cannot declare all things acceptable to society, and each nation must have the right to prevent, if it chooses, such degredation from entering its boarders, and its domain.

Oh look, still about 1000 votes ahead of the opposition. And its the night before right? Well, I am in the southern hemisphere, so by today's date (Thurs) and t'moz's, (Friday) then it looks like it will slip through by the skin thick-ness of a tooth.

Hurrah for democracy and that sane current majority.

Best of luck to T.C. your proposal will be a corner-stone in many things I feel, much to the detriment of those whom oppose human rights and equality, the enemies one would think of the U.N. and while still not hitting our nation. sov. with the big stick some seem still to think it would...

A hurrah for Freedom of Choice. A call I predict I will be making yet again t'moz, one hopes.

- The Rep of Komokom.

Although extremely well written and prepared, this bill troubles me. First, is it really necessary?
It seems to me that the passage of a bill for “Universal Choice’ is not only redundant, it takes the
choice out of the hands of individual nations. What if your nation is totalitarian, a father knows
best state, a corrupt dictatorship? While the Peoples of Yavanna are none of these, I would hate
to see the choice to be so taken out of the hands of the nations that are. And this bill will do just
that. It would force free will on all, including the nations that may not necessarily want it. It
takes the choice out of our hands, and puts it in the hands of a UN bill that, if made law, will
bring all nations in line with its mandates. Most importantly, I feel it interrupts game mechanics.

Our nation already has an excellent civil rights record. We do not need a UN resolution to tell us
how best serve our own people; indeed, be are a bit insulted by the notion that we need the UN
to mandate how we should take care of our own.

This resolution is disturbingly vague and, in our opinion poorly drafted. While we agree with the intention it needs to be revisited and should never have reached the stage where the members vote on it.

We will be voting against and petitioning our delegate to do likewise.

I would like to urge you to vote against the resolution on the table. One may or may not agree with the general idea, There are some faults in this resolution that cant be tolerated; it is contradicting itself. Clause two indicates that people should be allowed free choice on young age, while clause 5.b takes this away.
As if that wasnt bad enough, look what happens if you take out clouse 2 and 5.b: you are left with nothing, with a load of blabla. plus clouse 6

Now clause 6 clearly does not belong in this resolution. The issue of subluminal messages do not belong in a resolution on freedom of choise. maybe not at all in the UN, but thats of later concern.

I hope you will not vote for this resolution as it leads to more bureaucracy and in no way enhances peoples freedom.

Cherry Coke Island - I named you in my criticism of those who had duplicated posts as you were the latest I had seen. My subsequent comments were not specifically aimed at you.

"So instead of berrating me would you care to make a reply on my post?"

I wasn't commenting on the content of your post (which was valuable) and have nothing to add hereto it that hasn't already been said before.

Ichi Ni - I take it your post was written while I was editing my double post. And apologies, I was clearly mistaken in my belief that the strength was 'mild'. You other comments were thought-provoking.

Terran Assemblage - In response to my comment on resolutions, you wrote (if you'll excuse my 'parroting', sigh):

"We do not agree with this blatant rebuke who clearly states it is better to have a revolution, then a working government system of nation with no problems of it's own. Forcing this democratic morality is hypocritical, and this is what this resolution is calling for. It is calling for dissent, revolution, of our citizens to rise up against our governments."

'Blatant rebuke'? Did I 'clearly state' that is is better to have a revolution? No, I merely questioned the implicit belief in previous postings that revolutions are wrong. It's all shades of grey, my hot-headed young friend. I have no intention of 'forcing democratic morality' (please see my final comment before hammering out your response).

And finally...

After much thought and analysis of the various points made by a multitude of contributors to this debate, Ecopoeia hereby retracts its vote of 'aye' for this resolution and abstains.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

Ouch. An aimless, rambling, astonishingly vague resolution that, sadly, looks like it will pass.

The category here really ought to be changed from 'human rights' to 'fluff.' The spam I find in my inbox every morning has more constructive, relevant content than this drivel. Sad, really.

A resounding nay.

This resoultion is flawed on the simple basis that to force people to have a choice, or force governments to allow one, is inherently confused logic. To promote the idea of choice is to say it is better to allow an individual to self organise, but then to force a government takes an opposing logical position. This has all the same flaws as J.S. Kill's "On Liberty".

Vote against it.

The spam I find in my inbox every morning has more constructive, relevant content than this drivel. Sad, really.
Hehe, lucky you, you should see most of the stuff I have been getting about this! :lol:

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

The more resolutions we continue to pass, the less freedom that we have to run our own nations.

Further, it seems all of the resolutions that are brought up for a full vote, is overwraught with "feel-good" language that panders to the delegates. What's next, "The Happy Puppies and Fluffy Clouds Resolution to Save The Children"?

It has come to the point where certain people just want to see an amendment of theirs at a full vote. The result is that we're passing all of these resolutions that further encroach upon National sovereignty.

My perogative then is to first, vote against this resolution, and second, only endorse delegates that are selective with their endorsements of queued resolutions.

I've been thinking again.

It seems the only real power that the resolution designers claim they want to give is for people not to be judged based on the legally made decisions, nor to be unduly influenced in those decisions. I really don't agree that the language of the resolution actually says this, but ignoring that, I don't agree with that principle either. I believe my government should have the right to not outlaw a product or activity, but influence in favor of a particular choice over another in the cause o probable national interest. I also believe that freedom means that individuals have the right to be judgemental and berate someone over their choice of music. I believe this can ultimately apply to religion and politics. It's not the most intelligent response to disagreement, but in the long run, it's their freedom to be an idiot.

I'm still voting no for Bask and for the Region of Procrastania (of which I am the UN Rep)

Oh look, still about 1000 votes ahead of the opposition. And its the night before right? Well, I am in the southern hemisphere, so by today's date (Thurs) and t'moz's, (Friday) then it looks like it will slip through by the skin thick-ness of a tooth.

Hurrah for democracy and that sane current majority.

You are implying anybody who doesn't see things your way is not sane. And you know, your style of debate is as disgusting as those who only post to say, "This is crap." or "You are all morons."

I'm a bit disappointed to see seasoned representatives falling to this level.


10kMichael

Och! ah know he's a skillet short the noo (mebbe a skillet short o' a breakfast tae, bye the way), but are ye no' bein' a bit o' a brave wee man ,10k Michael? Ye know he'll get his wee gang ontae ye, an' ye'll be ostracised frae polite society :D

Even were the issues, glaring and certain as they are, not in play, this resolution creates an immeasurable strain on the UN. Simply put, the United Nations cannot be allowed to disintegrate into a club for anarchists.
The UN is to be representative, although many nations are kept out because of their recalcitrant and backwards ways. However, the UN is not intended to be a club of hyper-liberal, anti-government ivory tower intellectuals. Some of us actually have to deal with the issues of government and the desires of our people when they are at odds rather than constantly deferring to the right of choice. This resolution will cause a gathering of representative nations to dwindle to a tiny core of anarchists, which cannot be allowed. We must not let the United Nations fall by the wayside, as did its predecessor, the League of Nations. It must remain representative of the nations within the game, or fall away into obscurity.
Within my own county, the rights of fringe groups to ‘choose’ have become vitally important. Many groups, like prostitutes or sadistic/masochistic fanatics would be given the right to ‘choose’ public displays of affection or the right to choose their mode of business, unless proscribed by law. Thus, publicly funded prostitution would be destroyed. It is a slippery slope into bedlam!
Some order must be maintained by government. The reason democratic government exists is to provide control of the majority into lawful society. Look at what occurs without majority government. No restrictions can be put into play that would harm the ‘choice’ of another unless that choice causes direct harm? Not only is that impossible to enforce without the creation of new systems, which makes the resolution completely contradictory, but also it prevents the majority from declaring that one should not wash their car in a water crisis, that one should not slaughter animals in a mindlessly cruel way. Your resolution leads to anarchy and restriction of governmental power beyond the limits of any possible government.
I urge those of you who are not hard-line pressed to destroy democracy to reconsider your votes for this resolution.

ye'll be ostracised frae polite society

Does that mean he'll have no-one to talk to but the Nac Mac Feigle? *looks innocent*

If this resolution is as harmless as the author insists, then I shall still place my vote AGAINST it as it is then, in my opinion a waste of time.

Although I heartily agree with most of this proposal, I feel compelled to vote against it. Clause (6) is completely out of place here, adding an unnecessary restriction to a bill intended to promote individual liberty.

In addition, the moratorium on the use of subliminal advertising opens wide the door of possibilities welcoming government censorship of political speech. After all, it will be up to the UN and/or the individual states to determine exactly what is considered "subliminal." The potential for abuse of this law is enormous, especially by those seeking to silence candidates campaigning (through advertisements) to remove them from office.

Unless clause (6) is struck from this bill, it deserves to be defeated.

first of all Ecopoeia, the DP comment was not meant for you... sorry if you got that impression. I'm glad you're thinking on my comments (and many others) but abstaining is, sadly, not enough. If the resolution fails, it can be re-written, improved upon and then resubmitted. if it passes... it stays excatly as it's written.

PaoGenua, the fact that it is contradictory, faulty and IMHO, oversteps the bounds of the UN is excatly why we need to vote no. after it's passed voting and approved, you cannot go and change it. By allowing these mistakes to stay in it will, in effect be carved into stone.

Tactical Grace: It's a noble cause, and while I am a democratic nation, I have a nasty habit of looking at things from the other perspective.

Komokom: This resolution will DESTROY the democracy you hold dear. If this resolution passes then, the UN can and will force nationstates to become democratic... even if it's against their wishes! Their right to choose will be taken away and the UN will be nothing more than a Dictator disguised as a democratic union... and not a Union of Nationstates

P.S. My firewalls acting up again... so if this ends up being a DP... sorry.

Our small nation is new to this venue and not entirely familiar with the proper manner in which to debate such issues so please excuse any errors in protocol.

Our government admires the thought and effort put into composing this proposed resolution. That being said it is our position that it compromises the sovereign right of a nation to govern its people. Individuality of nations is the basis for their existence in the most basic sense. It is this multitude of variety that provides citizens the opportunity to relocate to a nation or area that best meets their needs and political/moral beliefs. However immigration and such is another issue entirely.

There are basic human rights that should be recognized by international law, some of which are addressed in this resolution, however, many of the other articles bundled in the resolution are too far reaching in affect.

The Grand Duchy of Graustarker must vote against this resolution and has petitioned our areas representative to do so as well.

I voted yes on this because I generally agree with it and the basic princples are sound. My only complaint is that I'm convinced there is no such thing as "subliminal advertising" but I suppose if it did exist I'd be against it.

But Zanadiq, if the subliminal messages tells you there is no subliminal messages, hw would you know it’s there?

In fact. How do you know that there are no hidden messages embedded into the resolution itself?

"'Blatant rebuke'? Did I 'clearly state' that is is better to have a revolution? No, I merely questioned the implicit belief in previous postings that revolutions are wrong. It's all shades of grey, my hot-headed young friend. I have no intention of 'forcing democratic morality' (please see my final comment before hammering out your response). "

No you stated along the lines of, "are revolutions wrong?" as if they had good intentions in themselves?

Young? Young? (checks birthday, and looks in the mirror.) Hmmm... Glad to know that 32 years old is still young.

Freedom of choice and democracy go hand in hand. Which is why I stated that if the resolution passes, then the only government form which will be allowed in the entire world will be Democracy. As previously stated in the passed resolutions, all sovereign nations can do as they please, but have to abide by all UN resolutions, past and present.

If this resolution passes then all people around the globe, no matter what government form there is, will have freedom of choice. And in order to have that freedom of choice, all governments will be unilaterally overturned and by rule of thumb, change to a democratic government.

Hence why I'm calling this new resolution illegal by it's very nature, changes all forms of government to something they don't want to be.

How many have declared the war in Iraqiaz, as an illegal seizure of land. By it's very nature their government is forcibly being changed by an outside influence.

This resolution is no more than an act of war on the legal governments of the United Nations members who vehemently disagree with the Freedom of Choice Act. It will not be useing force of arms, but by it's very essence is forcing a change of government and it's own internal policies, which you have all stated will not happen. I believe, along with many others, that it will happen.

"'Blatant rebuke'? Did I 'clearly state' that is is better to have a revolution? No, I merely questioned the implicit belief in previous postings that revolutions are wrong. It's all shades of grey, my hot-headed young friend. I have no intention of 'forcing democratic morality' (please see my final comment before hammering out your response). "

No you stated along the lines of, "are revolutions wrong?" as if they had good intentions in themselves?

Young? Young? (checks birthday, and looks in the mirror.) Hmmm... Glad to know that 32 years old is still young.

Freedom of choice and democracy go hand in hand. Which is why I stated that if the resolution passes, then the only government form which will be allowed in the entire world will be Democracy. As previously stated in the passed resolutions, all sovereign nations can do as they please, but have to abide by all UN resolutions, past and present.

If this resolution passes then all people around the globe, no matter what government form there is, will have freedom of choice. And in order to have that freedom of choice, all governments will be unilaterally overturned and by rule of thumb, change to a democratic government.

Hence why I'm calling this new resolution illegal by it's very nature, changes all forms of government to something they don't want to be.

How many have declared the war in Iraqiaz, as an illegal seizure of land. By it's very nature their government is forcibly being changed by an outside influence.

This resolution is no more than an act of war on the legal governments of the United Nations members who vehemently disagree with the Freedom of Choice Act. It will not be useing force of arms, but by it's very essence is forcing a change of government and it's own internal policies, which you have all stated will not happen. I believe, along with many others, that it will happen.

But the resolution actually siffles freedom. Think of the section about "subliminal" advertizing. Any lawyer worth his weight in cocaine knows how he could abuse this to do two things... 1. make his own personal wealth grow, and 2. destroy the rights of others by claiming they used "subliminal" techniques.

This law does not help democracies... it impedes democracies. The Holy Church of Psychotropics is steadfast in it's opposition to this horridly written piece of legislative garbage!

Bishop Hassan, Minister of Intollerance for all Psychotropics

*ding*
[pulls Terran Assemblage back into his corner. Changes his mouth guard, gives him water to rise and massages shoulders. Places Mouth guard back into mouth and...]
*ding* :lol:

Whoa, glad your on my side on this one dude.

The Kingdom of Fea View is also new to debate and also appologizes for any mistakes in typing or protocol.

That said we beleive that the proposed legislation has its strengths but there are also a few points which (having already been addressed) are far too restrictive on governments which are not democratic in nature. We beleive that clause 5a disagrees with our own legislation just passed about assisted suicide. This proposal cannot pass the way it stands and so we are changing our vote to 'against'.

While we agree that it is a good idea for people to make their own decisions based on the legislation and laws of their own countries, we do not agree that it should be manditorily forced upon all nations.

Upon reading the proposal through a second time, these concerns raised some disturbing questions and we feel that the proposal should not be passed as it stands. People will chose for themselves what they want no matter what legislation there is and so we beleive that this proposal is not only unnecessary but also a bit redundant (as is my speech).

*gets down off the soap box and back to running her country*

Terran Assemblage: "No you stated along the lines of, "are revolutions wrong?" as if they had good intentions in themselves?"

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here. Essentially, one should not say in blanket terms that 'revolutions are bad' or 'revolutions are good'. They can be both, either or neither.

As for your 'youth'... I can only go on the age of your nation (which is relatively new) and the manner of your posting (hot-headed, perhaps youthful). So you're 32? I'd call that pretty young. I'd hate to feel old at 32.

Ecopoeia is still choosing to abstain. Just because we have chosen to withdraw our support does not mean that we have been persuaded to oppose the resolution. Yet.

First of all, welcome to the headache that is the UN.

Secondly...
We beleive that clause 5a disagrees with our own legislation just passed about assisted suicide.

Although I don't know your nations policy on assisted suicide, we'd assume it would comply with the previous resolution "Legalise Euthanasia" as such we disagree with your idea that this proposal would go against that resolution, not only on the basis of our understanding of the two resolutions, but also that if this proposal did result in an effective repeal of "Legalise Euthanasia" then it would have been removed by the mods...

People will chose for themselves what they want no matter what legislation there is and so we beleive that this proposal is not only unnecessary but also a bit redundant

This proposal would act as a important foundation towards future resolutions to protect human rights...in itself it's pretty harmless, but it's the resolutions that could be proposed on the back of this one that are promising...As for being a bit redundant, well we have nothing better to vote on at the moment :)

But it looks like this resolution is going to pass, with a pretty low turnout.. :? :?

I'm not going to quote (because I don't know how yet) but clause 5a states something like 'if that decision does not inflict harm on the individual making it'. If I have bone cancer or any other painfully terminal illness and I want to decide to end my life either with assistance or without, I beleive I should be allowed to make that decision. If I want to damage my brains with cocaine or crack it's my own decision. I'm not harming others, only myself. If I want to have an abortion because of any one of a million reasons it's my body my choice but then you get into the religious and scientific debate of 'is it a child (and therefore another person) at conception'? No. I beleive clause 5a limits these freedoms and choices far too much. There are other things being addressed that bother me as well but this is my 2 cents and I think that the proposal should not pass as it stands. I'm not sure how this proposal could be bettered but as has already been said in several other posts, this proposal limits too many governments and should not pass the way it stands. I will not pass it and urge other governments to change their votes to 'AGAINST'.

If I have bone cancer or any other painfully terminal illness and I want to decide to end my life either with assistance or without, I beleive I should be allowed to make that decision.
I'll just paraphrase the afformentioned resolution:
I propose that euthanasia should be legalised. Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice.
As you can see, euthanasia is already covered, this current proposal being voted upon cannot overturn that

If I want to damage my brains with cocaine or crack it's my own decision.
Of course you can; if it's legal in your nation. If it isn't, you can anyway, just as long as you don't get caught.

If I want to have an abortion because of any one of a million reasons it's my body my choice but then you get into the religious and scientific debate of 'is it a child (and therefore another person) at conception'? No.
Again, this resolution does not make an issue of abortion (if it is illegal in your country then this does not change that, and if it is legal it makes no changes)

I beleive clause 5a limits these freedoms and choices far too much.
It's very interesting how some people have expressed concern that this proposal does too much to allow freedom and choices (resulting in anarchy) while others are concerned this actually restricts personal freedoms...And then there is the directly opposing arguements that this does too much to affect nations, and that the proposal does nothing at all? I personally never expected such a wide and directly opposing series of arguments against this proposal...

This proposal is really, really not going to turn nations into anarchy/police states at all. If anything, this proposal is a small step in the direction of personal liberty. But what this proposal does do is create a preamble towards protecting personal liberties, and open the way for resolutions in the future to build upon those liberties. The nation who proposed it has said as much already.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Ladies and gentlemen, my closing argument.

Every day we face choices, and the decisions we make shape our lives forever. It is the act of choosing that defines us as human beings. We are a product of the choices we have made and the world we inhabit is truly the world of our own creation. Rarely are we confronted with the opportunity to instantly shape our destiny. It is the way we address seemingly trivial choices, concerned with literature, art, entertainment, social interaction and countless other subjects, that makes each individual and their life unique. It is the individual's right to make such choices that this resolution seeks to protect. - Introduction not in final version.

The above is part of the original Proposal which did not make it into the final Resolution. There were a few other bits and pieces, edited out along the way due to space constraints, while ensuring as far as possible that the spirit of the legislation remained unchanged. Had more people read the above, perhaps there would have been less controversy. I will now do my best to clarify the intended message.

Why did I write this Resolution? The answer is quite simple. I did not seek to pass permanent laws reforming the political, economic and judicial systems of UN member nations, as so many Proposals openly try to do. I only wished to enter into the record of the United Nations an affirmation of the libertarian / social democratic ideal that individuals should be free to make the everyday choices they face in life without coercion, acting on the best information that they can obtain, which they should be free to try and find for themselves. The recognition by the United Nations of this ideal would then hopefully provide a stimulus for more Proposals written with the betterment of humanity in mind, whilst making a positive incremental change to this effect in itself.

This aim, and my method of executing it, have lent themselves to 6 main criticisms which have been consistently made of this Resolution. I will now address each one in turn.

This Resolution undermines National Sovereignty!

Virtually all Proposals submitted, and a very large proportion of Resolutions passed, affect the domestic status quo of UN member nations. The United Nations in the NationStates World has the power to affect domestic legislation in a way that the real life UN cannot. Aquiring membership of the UN amounts to a de facto acceptance that it can influence the running of your nation. Having said this, the actual effects of this Resolution on UN member nations would not be particularly significant. Its aim is the declaration of some human rights and a benevolent ideal, not the wholesale rewriting of domestic laws.

This Resolution means that Democracy will be the only way!

Not at all. The people's freedom to choose, as set out in this Resolution, does not compel governments, by force of UN law, to grant the people free elections. Yes, the people should be free to make an informed choice as regards their worldview, political philosophy, and so on. For some rulers, this is already too much. However, the government does not automatically have to grant the people elections. This Resolution emphasises the freedom of independent thought, rather than electoral reform (though not at its expense). The two are separate issues. Perhaps the first is a prerequisite for the second, but it is only the first of the two on which I wish to concentrate.

This Resolution means Anarchy!

Absolutely not. If it passes, the day after it passes, the proportion of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes in NS will not have noticably changed. The style of your government is unlikely to undergo a dramatic transformation. The political and judicial structures of nations will not be fundamentally altered. No-one will be free to commit crime without escaping the usual consequences. No-one will be forced to divulge national secrets if asked, for although the individual could have the right to ask, the official would not be legally bound to answer. The affirmation by an international body of the ideal of a freedom to choose will not in any way be sufficient for the world to slide into violence and chaos. To say otherwise is pure hyperbole.

This Resolution means Tyranny!

The opposite case has been made. And yet, as stated, the proportion of dictatorships and authoritarian regimes will not change. The freedom to choose does not mean the freedom of the State to choose to crush the people on a feeble pretext revolving around subliminal messages. Some excellent common sense definitions of subliminal messaging have been written this week, which completely destroy the sensationalist prophesies of doom which have been made. I welcome all attempts to pass a Resolution defining subliminal advertising, as a supplement to this Resolution, should it pass.

This Resolution is a waste of time, it does nothing!

From the destruction of national sovereignty, to compulsory democracy, to anarchy, to tyranny, we come to the curious idea that this Resolution does nothing at all. Truly is the range of opinion diverse! The direct effects on UN member nations will indeed be modest - an increase in civil rights being the main, and possibly only, effect. Also, the other aim of expanding on the freedoms currently endorsed by the United Nations will have been realised. I have deliberately tried to strike a balance between saying much and doing nothing, and going too far and rewriting the political models of nations and altering the UN Charter, such as it is. The fact that I have been accused, in equal measure, of doing both, is strongly indicative to me that I have struck the balance correctly.

This Resolution does not make sense!

I have done my best to sell what is essentially a philosophical argument and a certain abstract ideal which by its very nature does not easily lend itself to exhaustive definition to the 39,000 member nations of the UN, and so far, I have succeeded. If it does not make sense to you, then I can only say that I have done my best to consult the members of the UN regarding the wording of this Resolution prior to its submission, address all arguments posted in the 6 different threads in this forum and answer individually the dozens of telegrams I have received this week. The message of this Resolution is summed up as concisely and clearly as I can manage in the paragraph in italics at the top.

For ease of reference, I reproduce it below. But first, I wish to thank all those who have given me their feedback, made suggestions, many of which have been incorporated, and supported the final fruit of our labour during the course of this debate. Whatever the outcome, you know who you are, and I thank you.

Every day we face choices, and the decisions we make shape our lives forever. It is the act of choosing that defines us as human beings. We are a product of the choices we have made and the world we inhabit is truly the world of our own creation. Rarely are we confronted with the opportunity to instantly shape our destiny. It is the way we address seemingly trivial choices, concerned with literature, art, entertainment, social interaction and countless other subjects, that makes each individual and their life unique. It is the individual's right to make such choices that this resolution seeks to protect.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I only wished to enter into the record of the United Nations an affirmation of the libertarian / social democratic ideal

This aim, and my method of executing it, have lent themselves to 6 main criticisms which have been consistently made of this Resolution. I will now address each one in turn.


I'm a bit troubled by the fact that you (and the other proponents) have repeatedly ignored perhaps the most important question (not criticism) that has been asked:

Does this resolution have standing?

The ballast water resolution and the moon base did. Both resolutions seeked to reduce international tensions. Pollution is a transboundary problem, and clearly within the interests of all nations to work together on to limit. Space travel again crosses boundaries.

But your ideals? At the risk of asking what is a very Orwellian question? What is to suggest that your libertarian / social democratic ideals are going to be better than those who voted no?

Again, perhaps I'm missing something here. Perhaps the UN does have standing. But I've yet to see a single proponent, including Tactical Grace, answer what really is the first question that should be asked of every UN proposal.

"Why does my neighbor's problem become mine?"

10kMichael

DP

my nation is happy with their freedom's but to let them have uncontroled freedom of choice would be unfair to them. the thing we need to see is the difference between freedom and liberty, what is freedom? you ask
think about this you have a wild animal in a cage on day you open the door to the cage and let the animal out that is freedom it can run away OR
turn around and bite you in the ass and hurt you real bad! NOW liberty
what is liberty look at it this way ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE
WITH LIBERTY (OHHHH LOOK AT THAT, WHAT DOES IT SAY,,LIBERTY)AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL
you need some government control for liberty and justice
in closing if you have freedom of choice then the mafia would be runing the world we must not give this resolution a green light
thank you
if you agree with me let me know send a message to jaspercw

think about this you have a wild animal in a cage on day you open the door to the cage and let the animal out that is freedom it can run away OR
turn around and bite you in the ass and hurt you real bad! NOW liberty
what is liberty look at it this way ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE
WITH LIBERTY (OHHHH LOOK AT THAT, WHAT DOES IT SAY,,LIBERTY)AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL
you need some government control for liberty and justice
in closing if you have freedom of choice then the mafia would be runing the world we must not give this resolution a green light

Err...have you even read Tactical Grace's message two posts up, let alone the rest of this thread?

I understand what you are saying, but I only wished you would of put some more definition to it, cuz this is giving me a heart attack! lol It would of been nice if it said that this resolution will not affect old laws or signing in new ones, that a persons freedoms will be limited to the law, weather it be old or new laws. Which I believe you and others say that is the case. Cuz I'm terrified that my legistaltion will mean diddleysquat becouse people have the right to do as they please anyway.

We believe that it is self evident that all sentient creatures are endowed by their creator with natural liberties.

No government can legitimately deprive the individual of these liberties.

Many governments however will from time to time nevertheless attempt for a variety of motives to limit these liberties. This is the problem which I believe this proposal addresses.

Leix greatly abhors this proposal.The LNA is not pleased.

E.Broderick.Supreme Commander of The LNA states.

:!:
To Faldawi, et al:
Your comments about anarchists taking over the UN --

Show me ANY anarchist that would even cast votes / hold UN status.

Anarchism is life without rulers. There are many admirable attributes about it, but anarchists the world over cast a NAY! about voting at all. They are not active in the UN!

Further, any nation that doesn't not want to be subject to this or any UN rules can simply withdraw its UN membership. They are free to subliminally project advertising to their citizens all they want then!

:!:
To Richardelphia, et al:
Per Clause #6--

Too much I have read here about this clause is simply nitpicking.
As a one-time advertising executive outside NS, this resolution would not limit ads outside NS nor inside it. It only demands accountability for their projection. Certainly anything or product or service worth advertising can be accountable enough to be checked out by potential customers, huh?

This resolution was amazingly put together and adjusted for days before it was submitted and approved for our vote today. I salute Tactical Grace for putting it forth.

Vote FOR Universal Freedom of Choice!

:D :D :) 8) :wink:

Hooray!!!

THe Universal Freedom of Choice resolution passed in the UN!

Great job Tactical Grace!

Thanks to ALL (even to the opponents!)

Time to break out the Guinness Extra Cold!

I voted against it, but right now I'd like to point out one thing, which I hope hasn't been pointed out yet... Clause 5a states " The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies"

Most of us missed that point in the debate on it being restrictive of the right to commit suicide, euthanasia, have abortions, use drugs, etc. This clause clearly says that the normal law of the country would still apply if harm is being done.

Therefore, for nations which don't have a law against abortion, abortion would still be legal there, because the nations' laws would still apply. Nations would also still retain the authority to throw out frivolous lawsuits alleging psychological harm or subliminal advertising.

Thank you everyone who helped me compose and pass this Resolution! Today is a great day for the United Nations, as from this day forward, it officially recognises the rights of individuals to Freedom of Choice.

I did promise some time earlier that I would give credit where it is due, and I am true to my word.

I wish to thank the following individuals who helped me radically revise my Resolution through 6 drafts, and must in all fairness be credited with suggesting or writing several key parts of it:

Komokom
Hirota
Gethamane
East Hackney
Rehochipe
Ecopoeia
Catholic Europe

I am also grateful to them for supporting it during the subsequent debate, and to Collaboration and Enn for doing likewise. It has been 17 long days in the making, and you guys stuck with it. Feel free to call upon my help with your own legislation any time.

I also thank LadyRebels for giving me a huge number of votes during the last hours of voting, and all the residents of Role Play University for their encouragement and support, particularly The Isle of Orleans, Guinness Extra Cold, Stephistan, Wolfish, Hatchibombitar and My minds eye.

And of course, all those thousands who voted in favour and spread the word have my sincere appreciation as well.

What can I say? It was the second most hotly contested Resolution in NationStates history, but we did it! :D

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

Well done.
This thread and the related debates might go in the archives as a good example of how the Un is meant to operate.

Well done.
This thread and the related debates might go in the archives as a good example of how the Un is meant to operate.

I disagree. The UN should be about consensus building and not alienating hosts of nations. Finally, many of the proponents conducted themselves with the same lack of grace as many of the oponents. The course of the debates was disappointing.

That said, my nation will honor the resolution.

[OOC: If you look at real UN resolutions, the majority are adopted without a vote. The few GA resolutions that are called to a vote don't come to 9 to 7 margin. I'll be happy to show you the link to the UNs GA voting records, but it is only a few clicks away.]

10kMichael

Congratulations, Tactical Grace, for a hard fought battle. Now, if only the same would happen now with Habeas Corpus...

Congratulations to Tactical Grace. Though your resolution only passed, with only 9314 votes for vs. 8213 votes against. Looking back at past resolutions, this one didn't even come close to passing anywhere near a landslide amount as any previous resolution. I believe you were expecting "20,000" votes. Though I can only guess you were lightly joking on that many votes even being cast in favor.

17,527 votes were cast, with only 53% of the votes in favor. That's barely over half, which leads this resolution to be one of the most contraversial issues to date, coming nowhere near a 2/3rds majority as in past issues.

I still disagree on the wording of the resolution, space considering, and believe that a more precise wording could have been applied. Portions entirely repeating themselves could also have been cut from the final draft. Paragraphs engendering the reader to use their 'imagination', compassion, or trying to illicit an emotional response to make a decision should have been left completely out of the resolution.

I hope the next resolution will be something more specifically worded, to the point, without any preamble and something that won't have more than one interpretation to its meaning by its form or structure, or try to make the national delegates make a choice based more on emotions and assumption.

What can I say. I'm a nitpicker to detail when it comes to tightly weaving together rock solid cases.

Didn't the Euthanasia one have only about 51% supporting? Regardless, once it is passed, there's nothing you can do about it. Let's just move on, discuss the next thing.Unless you really want to get kicked out.

Actually Enn, you are correct. The Euthenasia resolution passed by only a 51% margin. My mistake, which means that the Freedom of Choice act comes in second.

As for the there's nothing that you can do about it portion, like any law or resolution, they can be repealed or altered. Or in some cases a new resolution may be passed which would dilute the meaning, intent or change the context of passed resolutions or even amend them.

Resolutions or laws may be ammended.

Nothing is written in stone. In fact, I would believe any resolution which has not achieved 2/3rd's vote could conceivably be challenged. There's not much weight to a resolution sitting on a 51-53% margin now is there. It's very delicately balanced, and if there was a change in the political climate of some of the larger regions, it could tip the outcome of the resolution could easily lean the other way.

Congratulations Tactical Grace... Good job and nice fight.

See Ya at the next voting!

Nods

* There is the sound only of applause and a 21 I.G.N.O.R.E cannon salute from the lands of Komokom, and The Rep of Komokom dispatches a diplomatic box of celebratory chocolates. :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Well done.
This thread and the related debates might go in the archives as a good example of how the UN is meant to operate.

I disagree. The UN should be about consensus building and not alienating hosts of nations. Finally, many of the proponents conducted themselves with the same lack of grace as many of the oponents. The course of the debates was disappointing.

That said, my nation will honor the resolution.


10kMichael

I enjoyed observing the process this time because :

The proposal was well worded relative to most; it was neither frivolous nor inflammatory in its wording.

The proposal was brought to this forum and, I believe, to the proponent's region for comment and revision before being formally presented;

The debate was vigorous, extending to multiple threads;

explanation and clarification were offered throughout;

The total vote was sizeable (since we do not have the committee mechanisms of the "real" UN, or the constant ongoing dialogue which occurs there, a good vote total is significant. It means people are engaged in the process).

Too often we have poorly worded proposals, poorly thought out, deliberately one-sided or provocative, superficial, negative, I could go on and on...this was a pleasant contrast.

In my humble opinion.

Worst of all are the proposals which are so inconsequential that the overall delegate response is one vast yawn.

The debate was vigorous, extending to multiple threads;

explanation and clarification were offered throughout;

The total vote was sizeable (since we do not have the committee mechanisms of the "real" UN, or the constant ongoing dialogue which occurs there, a good vote total is significant. It means people are engaged in the process).

Too often we have poorly worded proposals, poorly thought out, deliberately one-sided or provocative, superficial, negative, I could go on and on...this was a pleasant contrast.




I never said this resolution was a travesty or a waste, in fact, I agreed with its ideals, but the debate and explanations were far from throughout.

The most valid question of all was (and remains) ignored:

Why did this resolution have international standing?

The reason the proponents ignore the question is they have no answer other than, "I know what is better for my neighbor than me, so let's all adopt my ideals."

There have been a score of better written proposals in the past two months:

- Children in War
- Rights and Duties
- Ballast Water

There are others yet to come, such as the Diplomatic Immunity proposal.

While I agree that there is some fuzziness about the standing of the children in war, even it had more justification for UN action than this proposal. Here is why? War is conflict between multiple states (as addressed by the resolution). International conflicts cross boundaries and there are no longer questions of:

"Hey, I'm smarter than my neighbor, so why don't I just decide how they answer their own issues for them!"

What you and other proponents (including Tactical Grace) fail to acknowledge is that intrusive resolutions that can't answer this fundamental question:

"Why is this problem better solved by the international community than on a domestic or regional basis?"

Is that this failure is exactly why so many nations LEAVE the UN. When a vote hits below the 60% mark, it is a sign of a poorly thought out process.

So congratulations are in order ... but not for passing a resolution with a few percentile margin, but instead for throughing back the hard work of international scoped resolutions and justifying the reasons nations have to not participate in the UN.

More time should be spent on proposals, and more importantly we should be working to bring more nations into the UN.

What good are any of our resolutions if they are only passed by a small fraction of the nations in NationStates? Great, people can choose to study anthrax now because of this resolution (see clause 3) just because they are curious, and yet a non-UN member doesn't have to pass along this same freedom.

The ideal was right. But just like human children aren't born with the ability to walk on two feet, resolutions should start small. Consenus should be sought by aggressive and long telegramming campaigns and activism in the regional boards (the North Pacific was almost completely against this proposal and voted accordingly, hence the close vote). More nations should feel like their voices are address ... and frankly, your response to my post AFTER the debate is the first one of this discussion. And it still didn't address my nation's question on standing.

10kMichael

I wish to thank the following individuals who helped me radically revise my Resolution through 6 drafts, and must in all fairness be credited with suggesting or writing several key parts of it:

Komokom
Hirota
Gethamane
East Hackney
Rehochipe
Ecopoeia
Catholic Europe

Gee, thanks, TG. Not sure we actually contributed that much, but what the hey...

I wish to thank the following individuals who helped me radically revise my Resolution through 6 drafts, and must in all fairness be credited with suggesting or writing several key parts of it:

Komokom
Hirota
Gethamane
East Hackney
Rehochipe
Ecopoeia
Catholic Europe

* Smiles sweetly, waves !

The most valid question of all was (and remains) ignored:

Why did this resolution have international standing?

The reason the proponents ignore the question is they have no answer other than, "I know what is better for my neighbor than me, so let's all adopt my ideals."

There have been a score of better written proposals in the past two months:

- Children in War
- Rights and Duties
- Ballast Water

There are others yet to come, such as the Diplomatic Immunity proposal.

1) Oh, so thats "international standing" the term you used my thread with no explanation. I thought it was some how related to the "standing" of a nation states before its peers, now I see its all about justifying to you why we should do something.

2) Exactly how does one judge a proposal to be better written, was this proposal not well written? Hmmm?

3) And other yet to come which are "better written". I like you use of opinion as argument, its so fresh and... no, I really cannot maintain a straight face now... :wink:

While I agree that there is some fuzziness about the standing of the children in war, even it had more justification for UN action than this proposal. Here is why? War is conflict between multiple states (as addressed by the resolution). International conflicts cross boundaries and there are no longer questions of:

"Hey, I'm smarter than my neighbor, so why don't I just decide how they answer their own issues for them!"

Actually thats pretty much all proposals, "lets resolve what we think is an issue" is more likely an explanation to the thinking though. I think your being a little over-cynical of peoples motivations. You certainly where in my thread. Show-boat indeed... :)

What you and other proponents (including Tactical Grace) fail to acknowledge is that intrusive resolutions that can't answer this fundamental question:

"Why is this problem better solved by the international community than on a domestic or regional basis?"

All resolution to some degree are intrusive, but thats laws for you. And to your "question" perhaps its a case of some one thinking, "geee whizz, I think this would be best solved with international law? (Eye brows raised)

Is that this failure is exactly why so many nations LEAVE the UN. When a vote hits below the 60% mark, it is a sign of a poorly thought out process.

Yes, they leave. Your point? And as for below the 60% point, exactly what point do you mean? Actual voting turn out? Majority percentage of passing? Hello?

So congratulations are in order ... but not for passing a resolution with a few percentile margin, but instead for throughing back the hard work of international scoped resolutions and justifying the reasons nations have to not participate in the UN.

Oh yes they are, its definately congratulations are in order time on all counts, for those who voted yes, for those who helped in its writting, to T.C. for writting it and sticking to their guns, and for the proponents and T.C. for sticking to their guns plus T.C.'s guns and convincing enough to get it passed, even by a margin.

Pfffrt, you must mean "throwing" my my, not perfect after all, what a shock... Get over yourself, its not our fault for making a decision and you not liking it, maybe you should re-examine your motivations. And if they don't participate, then stiff. You pays your monies and you takes your choice. If you see what I mean good people.

More time should be spent on proposals, and more importantly we should be working to bring more nations into the UN.

1) In comparison to most, alot of time was spent here on this proposal.

2) Maybe more nations should motivate themselves, we should not need to lure them in with the equal of text based candy.

What good are any of our resolutions if they are only passed by a small fraction of the nations in NationStates? Great, people can choose to study anthrax now because of this resolution (see clause 3) just because they are curious, and yet a non-UN member doesn't have to pass along this same freedom.

I find it said you judge the proposal on its votes rather then its content.

Whats wrong with studying anthrax? I am looking at several web sites with data on it right now. Am I some how violating some law, or moral? Should I be locked up for having looked up?

The ideal was right. But just like human children aren't born with the ability to walk on two feet, resolutions should start small. Consenus should be sought by aggressive and long telegramming campaigns and activism in the regional boards (the North Pacific was almost completely against this proposal and voted accordingly, hence the close vote). More nations should feel like their voices are address ... and frankly, your response to my post AFTER the debate is the first one of this discussion. And it still didn't address my nation's question on standing.

It is right. It passed. Ergo enough found it right to "make" it right over-all with international law. Resolutions, if done properly like this one do start small, its the support of those wiling to participate who make them grow.

"Consenus should be sought by aggressive and long telegramming campaigns"

Oh great. Exactly how many delegates want to be spammed with wonky-shonky proposals? Huh, if you'd like to be, become a delegate and make the offer. Do not make the mistake for speaking for all delegates. I am not speaking for mine here, might I add, but I personally doubt they'd enjoy being asked to help repeal the same sex marriage protection laws... :wink:

Might I add, in my noting you've never clearly defined your views on "standing" what-ever you think it is...

- The Rep of Komokom.

My Resolution enjoys international standing because the UN passed it by a democratic majority vote. Total turnout may have been only 45%, but then it has been falling steadily for some time, from the 20,000 level reached several times in the past, which I was hoping for once more, to roughly 17,500 last week. It should also be remembered that in any given vote, half the UN always abstains. So while only 24% of the UN voted for my Resolution, that is quite sufficient for it to enjoy international legitimacy. A look at the election figures of any real-life democracy will show you that this is a perfectly normal situation. It is the El Presidente with his 90% vote on a 70% turnout that is the more damaging phenomenon as far as freedom and legitimacy are concerned.

In answer to your other question, this issue may not be automatically best addressed internationally rather than nationally, but I offered the UN the opportunity, and it accepted it. Again, democracy in action. And my personal opinion is that Human Rights issues are too universal and important to be left to governments. Some would say the principle of national sovereignty reigns supreme even in this area - I respectfully disagree.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

My Resolution enjoys international standing because the UN passed it by a democratic majority vote.


No, standing doesn't mean did my resolution pass. For a court, somebody can only bring any issue to the court if they are a party to the dispute.

For international standing the question is:

Why is this an international issue?

Not:

I won by 1,100 votes!

Simply put, before creating a resolution, you (anybody who writes a resolution) should ask: why am I creating a UN resolution instead of a national issue?

If the answer is, because I seek to solve a problem that physically crosses from different countries, then your issue has standing:

Children in War: targeted children in wars between countries.
Moon: an unclaimed territory that several nations are racing to colonize.
Ballast Water: Invasive species from one country violating the habitat on another.

But your defense is But I won!

r should really understand what international standing is. Sure the rules of the game are, you can do whatever you want. But that does not translate into, do whatever you want because it is a good idea.

Seriously, do you see the real world doing anything like this? The prostitution resolution, which you've indirectly said that your resolution was better than, really had the same problem. Many people really don't care about the issue, but voted against while noting that while they feel prostitution should be legal that it isn't the UNs business.

Frisbeteeria's Rights and Duties resolution clarified the rules on sovereignty to say that the UN can override sovereignty, but he was wise enough to also add in there a section saying that the UN should not do so when the issue was clearly a domestic issue.

I asked several times during the debate why there was a pressing need for you to solve this problem with a resolution and not an issue. Issues can be choosen by nations.

The reason why so many nations leave the UN isn't because they don't mind losing a debate. It is the nature of the debate and point of view of many, apparently including yourself, that international standing is something determined after a vote. I really think a forum moderator should understand the need to compromise on things and encourage more nations to be a part of the UN ... and that the best way to do this is to only use the power of the UN to over ride national sovereignty on issues that clearly cross international boarders.

[quote="Tactical Grace"] So while only 24% of the UN voted for my Resolution, that is quite sufficient for it to enjoy international legitimacy. A look at the election figures of any real-life democracy will show you that this is a perfectly normal situation. It is the El Presidente with his 90% vote on a 70% turnout that is the more damaging phenomenon as far as freedom and legitimacy are concerned.


Or perhaps the President Bush with his mandate of 48% or whatever, who when he became the American president started bringing back a much more conservative agenda than a 50-50 margin (which really is much more what your resolution is like) would indicate.

However, it doesn't matter if the vote was for or against. I mean, one nOOb nation, Terran Assemblage (who added flavor to this forum, because there is a growing idea being telegrammed around that there is a "cool club" that you can't publically disagree with -- or gasp, they'll be offended) felt necessary to bring up the recall issue. He / she got booted out for violating the UN rules, and I think that was the right call, but why did a nOOb do that?

Simple, he was frustrated by the same thing I am. Seeing a moderator, somebody who should know better, basically ignore not only valid questions (like why is this even an international issue) and really aggressively moving forward at a pace that 45+% of the voting UN members weren't ready for. If you want more nations to join the UN, you're going to have to start to respect the fact that not everybody agrees the same way *and* that just because the rules say 50% is good enough, that maybe there is political cost to ramming stuff through and ignoring arguments.

I know I've lost respect for more than a few PLAYERS. Their posts were rude, hostile, and for silly reasons too. It would be one thing if people were posting facts back and forth, but all too often resolutions that don't have a real international focus really are about one side imposing their OPINIONS on another side.

It alienates people, and that is why in many democracies you'll be taught in school that not only must a majority rule in a democracy, but minorities should still have protected rights. If they don't, they really are disenfrancised and eventually won't consider themselves part of the democracy, but instead under the dictatorship of a democracy.



In answer to your other question, this issue may not be automatically best addressed internationally rather than nationally, but I offered the UN the opportunity, and it accepted it. Again, democracy in action. And my personal opinion is that Human Rights issues are too universal and important to be left to governments. Some would say the principle of national sovereignty reigns supreme even in this area - I respectfully disagree.


I know I just said I've lost respect for many, but a response like this actually gains respect in my book.

This should have been said. But at the same time here is what I would have said. Your resolution was said to be a declaration of rights. No more. But its impact was significant and to be honest, very few of the arguments against it were based on the ideal, but instead on the wording. It did not look at all like a declaration, but really read more like the legalization of prostitution resolution. Sadly, I think if one of the first clauses said that the resolution was non-binding, but instead a declaration of ideals, that many of us who voted no (including the North Pacific, which counts for hundreds of votes) did so on this basis.

Human Rights are a tricky issue. If you push your agenda too far, the people who are the most in need of those rights will live in countries that LEAVE the UN.

Take Joccia as an example. Joccia warned the UN that the legalization of prostitution would not protect these people the way we thought. We ignored that nation, and now hundreds of thousands of prostitutes were killed. Now Joccia technically is still a member of the UN in good standing, and to be honest, as the nation that wanted to censure Joccia, I have always felt that the blood of those prostitutes lied not only on the hands of that dictatorship, but also on those of us in the UN that pushed too hard.

Consider it this way. You're a high school guy. You have a crush on a girl. If you walk up to her, never having talked to her before and ask her out, she'll probably tell you to get lost. But if you are her friend first, she may grow to like you and when you ask her out on a date, she is probably more likely to say, "Why not?"

Or another analogy. You are a parent. Your teenager is going to go to a party and there will probably be drugs. Though you trust your son / daughter to do the right thing, you don't trust everybody else at the party. Do you forbid him / her to go? Do you sneak along or ask one of his / her friends to spy on him / her and report back to you?

The irony is you can't ever really be everywhere at all times, and in the case of human rights, the people who most need them really aren't ready for everything to hit them at once.

Hell, this is the same with environmental protection. I had a major roll in writing the ballast water resolution. It passed with a much more significant vote than yours did. Why?

Lot's of reasons. First, it had a basis in science not opinions. Second, it honestly was watered down. I wanted more strict controls and standards (as did others), but I realized that there is a tradeoff. For a larger economic impact on the shipping industries, that I would have fewer votes and in the real world, less nations willing to put the resolution into practice in good faith.

In other words, I didn't want to create another Joccia.

Your resolution I don't think will do that, but the attitude resulting from it will. Look at Kor's resolution on civil unions. That is a step closer to the legalization of prostition than your declaration. I predict that if that proposal passes it will be again close to 50-50.

Finally, your comment that a resolution that passes with a 70 margin comes off as sounding like a dicatorship, um do you really think intelligent people looking at the Children in War or Ballast Water resolutions are going to think that the 70% was manipulated? More so than the 50-50 on your resolution?

I really encourage you, as a moderator and somebody many of the younger nations look up to, to really draw a line and recognize that the Rights and Duties resolution's concept on sovereignty is not about "Whomever wins the vote, writes the rules", but is a principle of respect and a way to make the UN stronger over time.

10kMichael

For international standing the question is:

Why is this an international issue?
I believe that human rights are an international issue. I believe that the freedom of choice, as outlined in the Resolution, falls under the umbrella of human rights. I believe that this should be treated as an international issue because I believe that human rights are too important a thing to be entrusted to national governments. I feel that human rights transcend national sovereignty. This is basically my answer. You will notice that I use the word "believe" a lot, because this is not a scientific or purely legal issue, our understanding of human rights is ultimately shaped by ideological considerations. I simply offered the UN a supplementary solution to the issue, agreed upon by myself and several nations here in this forum. And it was accepted, albeit by a narrow margin. What else can I say? My proposed solution was coloured by the ideologies of the nations that created it, but the UN did not have to accept it, it could have waited for another. Ultimately, this piece of legislation, rather than some other, passed. The question it addresses is undoubtedly an international issue. Whether the legislation is respected, well, that is another story.

I really encourage you, as a moderator and somebody many of the younger nations look up to, to really draw a line and recognize that the Rights and Duties resolution's concept on sovereignty is not about "Whomever wins the vote, writes the rules", but is a principle of respect and a way to make the UN stronger over time.
I was one of its strongest supporters, when it was voted on, at least three times as a Proposal, and finally as a Resolution. I voted in favour each time, and agree that UN business should be conducted in the spirit of mutual respect. I reject your assertion however, that I have a "winner takes all" attitude to this. I believe that this argument is really due to a confusion of the concepts of international standing and legitimacy. Perhaps I am at fault there. But ultimately, I believe that my Resolution addresses a legitimate international issue fairly.

1) Oh, so thats "international standing" the term you used my thread with no explanation. I thought it was some how related to the "standing" of a nation states before its peers, now I see its all about justifying to you why we should do something.


International standing is a common term used in real life international politics. It shouldn't need explanation.


2) Exactly how does one judge a proposal to be better written, was this proposal not well written? Hmmm?


According to what Tatical Grace (whom you've been calling TC right?) might suggest, all that matters if the vote.

His earlier post suggested that a 50-50 vote is better than a 70-30 vote, because it is more democratic. I'd say the exact opposite.

When the vote is close, it is because fewer people agreed. Let's be honest, people aren't FORCING other nations to vote, so the whole El Presidente thing really is a lame argument in the case of the UN. The election is tracked electronically, and with I.G.N.O.R.E. canons around, nobody can threaten anybody else.


Actually thats pretty much all proposals, "lets resolve what we think is an issue" is more likely an explanation to the thinking though. I think your being a little over-cynical of peoples motivations. You certainly where in my thread. Show-boat indeed... :)


There is a difference.

If you are gonna swing your elistist frying pan of nOObie smiting +2 around at home, I don't give a damn, and it isn't the UN's business to say anything about it. If you want to start swinging your pan around in public (international space), the UN does have a say.

In English: unless you guys can explain why an issue is not just a domestic problem, then it comes down to telling other people how to live their lives at home.

I have ZERO patience for people to tell other people what to wear, what sort of music to listen to, what sort of people they should be physically attracted to, what their religion should be, etc.

I also recongize that all too often well meaning people who share my nation's distrust for the above, become hypocrites and use the exact same sort of logic to force people to agree with them.

The irony is we just FORCED a freedom of Choice resolution on everybody. While I agree people are free to choose, forcing people to agree to that is different than them just realizing this on their own. And since self learning is the best way to solve problems, I think the point "But we'll pass this because we can, type of mentality" needs to stop.

The difference is when somebody has standing with regards to a prejudgement. A prejudice is a freedom of thought. As stupid as those kind of thoughts are, they only have standing AFTER a crime has been committed.

I'll reference Rehochipe's position on international terrorism (in part, because I'm hoping you'll respect his / her opinion more than mine). Rehochipe stated that terrorism can't be used to justify a pre-action against people. In other words, my country can't just arrest somebody before they've done something just because my country THINKS the group may attack my population.

NOTE: Rehochipe had more to say as well, but that doesn't matter here.

Anyway, Rehochipe's position really is a standing issue.

It makes no difference to my people if you're people want to have same sex or different sex civil unions. It ins't going to impact them.

But let's look at a different issue. If your nation wants to travel to the moon using rockets that risk polluting the environment, then my people having standing. Your nation's decisions to establish a lunar colony can harm my people. The UN should strive to solve these conflicts.

If it can't do these, why stick around? But at the same time, if it is going to tell people what sort of music to listen to, it is going to see most nations leaving. Maybe you don't want these people around, but look around ... my nation is LEFT of most, and the laws you and Tactical Grace proposed aren't going to make a difference in my Confederation. The people you need to help the most are tired for your resolutions and left.



Oh great. Exactly how many delegates want to be spammed with wonky-shonky proposals? Huh, if you'd like to be, become a delegate and make the offer. Do not make the mistake for speaking for all delegates. I am not speaking for mine here, might I add, but I personally doubt they'd enjoy being asked to help repeal the same sex marriage protection laws... :wink:

Might I add, in my noting you've never clearly defined your views on "standing" what-ever you think it is...

- The Rep of Komokom.

Actually I have, many times in many threads, including the debates on this resolution.

If a problem doesn't cross borders it should be left as a national issue. If you want help making issues, there is another forum for that.

Furthermore, I didn't say people needed to telegram all delegates. But as somebody who cares, I've been telegramming Hirota and I joined another regional forum to work on proposals with Rehochipe. Ask them both. Their ideas are frankly really good. Some of the best I've seen around, and their nations and mine have an excellent diplomatic relationship where we conduct business via telegrams or outside of the UN halls. I also worked on the other resolutions that have passed.

That is what I mean by aggressive telegrams.

I really don't give a damn if nations like yours really understand how much work my nation does. The point isn't to build international reputations. The point is to build a solid base of international law and bring more nations into the UN so they'll agree to those laws.

Running around acting like a high school kid and hitting people with frying pans is not going to help that. It is stupid frankly.

Meeting people half way and listening to their objections and saying, "I'll change that" instead of "How dare you call me out on my mistake" will work.

I don't mind if people think I'm an ass or opinionated. My government pays me to be so. But I do respect nations like Rehochipe, Hirota, Sydia and many others that like mine come here to work and work hard to make the world better by taking baby steps.

I believe that human rights are an international issue. I believe that the freedom of choice, as outlined in the Resolution, falls under the umbrella of human rights. I believe that this should be treated as an international issue because I believe that human rights are too important a thing to be entrusted to national governments. I feel that human rights transcend national sovereignty. This is basically my answer. You will notice that I use the word "believe" a lot, because this is not a scientific or purely legal issue, our understanding of human rights is ultimately shaped by ideological considerations. I simply offered the UN a supplementary solution to the issue, agreed upon by myself and several nations here in this forum. And it was accepted, albeit by a narrow margin. What else can I say? My proposed solution was coloured by the ideologies of the nations that created it, but the UN did not have to accept it, it could have waited for another. Ultimately, this piece of legislation, rather than some other, passed. The question it addresses is undoubtedly an international issue. Whether the legislation is respected, well, that is another story.


I really wish you would have addressed my question during the debate itself instead of waiting until afterwards.

Because things like saying, "the UN did not have to accept it" are exactly why I later advocate that in fact, you and others are operating under the rule that "winner takes all".

And by doing so, you are giving nations reason to not join the UN.

Worse, the nations you cause to leave are the ones that are most in need of proposals for Freedom of Choice.

Before my nation joined the UN, I was assigned three tasks:

1. Review Existing UN Rules

I did. I concluded that to join the UN ran the risk of the body passing laws without international standing on subjects like "Safe Sex" or "Legalization of Prostitutes" or "Fighting the Axis of Evil". The rules are clear. "Winner Takes All".

2. Review UN Rules in Practice via Resolutions

We all know that rules and how they are enforced are two different matters. Just because the UN could pass a resolution by a 50% margin saying that everybody must walk around naked, doesn't make it a wise thing to do.

So I was tasked with looking at how responsible this body was in practice. It failed. The International Incidents forum seemed to agree as well, that the UN was full of a bunch of nations that didn't like to negotiate with others, but just wanted to push forward their ideals on others.

Looking at the history of UN resolutions, until recently they are amazingly poor. Not just in style of writting, but in thoughtfulness as well.

3. Reviewing the Future Direction of the UN

But as well all know, people and nations change over time. Are old resolutions a measure of this organization? No way. The Axis of Evil is not likely to happen again. The legalization of prostitution ... well that guy Kom might bring something like that up, but it too was a poor resolution. Heck, many Joccians died because of it.

But this only underscored the importance of this third task. I lurked in the forum and found great respect for a few UN representatives. Among them was Frisbeeteria (whos name has come up often as of late). His nation's Rights and Duties resolution looked like a turning point in the history of the UN.

A time when members realized that we are mocked by non-members and that our well intentioned resolutions do no good if they are adopted by already liberal nations.

That said, to say that human rights is an international issue because you think it is, is no better than to say:

The UN should ban cigarettes. Second hand smoke kills. Human health is an international issue and sees no boundaries. I therefore propose we adopt the following: Cigarettes are banned. Anybody caught smoking will have to kiss my mother-in-law, a former smoker.

To be honest, I'm reconsidering my nation's position in the UN. What is the point in staying if people really do put into practice, "This is justified because 50% of us say so!" without listening to the voice on the minority. Take your resolution, you ignored my comments til after the vote. Why should I feel as if my nation has any Rights?

Give me a single reason why I should stay in the UN? Just one reason? You certainly will have an easier time passing anything you like without me? Why shouldn't I go form my own UN? One reason?

I reject your assertion however, that I have a "winner takes all" attitude to this. I believe that this argument is really due to a confusion of the concepts of international standing and legitimacy. Perhaps I am at fault there. But ultimately, I believe that my Resolution addresses a legitimate international issue fairly.

But when you said a resolution passed by a closer margin looks less like El Presidente, you were in fact suggesting that a close resolution is better for the international community than one passed by consensus.

I'll advocate the other, because simply put ... there is no way we can "cheat" votes. Or am I wrong? Is it possible to have a fixed vote? If so we should fix it.

Frankly, I am insulted that you would suggest that a vote on the other of 70% in favor is less democratic than a vote of 50%. If anything the "will of the people" is stronger when a true democratic election is held and shows a high vote. Even in replying to my post here you said international standing is determined when people vote yes. That is by its very definition a "Winner Takes All" approach.

Seriously, how do you convince your neighbor states to join the UN? What incentive is there?

[OOC: If you look at the real UN the vast majority of votes are adopted with no vote by consent. The real politics happen behind the scenes. Also, no nation has ever joined the real UN and just said, "OK, I'll join and do whatever you say, because the world knows what is better for India and India does!" If that was the case, nobody would join the UN.

Looking at history, the Second World War may not have been avoided by the League of Nations, but it could have been slowed down. In the 1930s the United States refused to join the League of Nations because the League did not recognize sovereignty the same way as the UN later did. The US had annexed Panama and dug a huge canal through it in the early 20th century. Later when Japan attacked China and invaded Manchuria (1931), it created the puppet state: Manchukuo. The League of Nations debated the Manchuria invasion and the end result was Japan left the League of Nations and the U.S. sent the American Volunteers Group (AVG) to help China resist invasion by Japan ... an undeclared war started. BTW Japan left the League by stating "If the US can dig a canal through Columbia and call the new country Panama as a puppet state, if we dig a canal through Manchuria would our invasion then be legal?"

Ironically it was prehaps one of the most pointed (and truest) things an international diplomat has EVER said. The League could have prevented the deterioration between US and Japanese relations. And that would have allowed other nations to divert their political attentions to the problems in Europe. Granted the Second World War had many causes, but the League of Nations totally and completely failed in part, because its members did exactly what many of you now do ... they pass laws without thinking about political stability.

see the following for the failing of the LoN and the Manchuria Incident
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/China/JapanManchuria.CP.html

I say all this, but I'm going to try to lead by example. I'd rather see more NationStates nations join the UN than driven away ... and with that in mind, I plan to follow the spirit of the Rights and Duties resolution. It basically addressed this concept in a very well written fashion.

/OOC]

10kMichael

What incentive is there for nations to hold UN membership? For me, it is about the ability to carry out various technical maneuvres and hold Regional Delegacy. I refer to a sort of Gameplay RP which is not to everyone's taste. And of course the secondary matter of voting on UN legislation. Regarding IC reasons for being in the UN, that is not how I play the game, so I have never given it much thought. Everyone will have their own reasons to hold UN membership or not, to which they are entitled.

I could not address every argument posed, because I was unable to log into the forums for a day and a half during voting, and last week was a pretty busy time IRL as well. I did what I could. I had a lot of telegrams to answer too, dozens in fact, and I answered almost every one. That takes time.

The reason I said that a 53% vote in favour is in a way better than a 90% vote in favour is this: a 90% vote shows that there was no real debate, and that everyone voted for something in unison. This does not make for interesting proceedings. Closely-fought legislation is more interesting. This is a game, after all. Someone once made a Resolution banning child sexual abuse. Now who was going to argue or vote against that? Exactly. And its passing majority reflects the total lack of debate that surrounded it. This is what I mean by my reference to totalitarianism. When a legislative assembly is passing one law after another with virtually no dissent, that risks the foundations of democracy - disagreement and debate. My Resolution, in not being yet another 3-1 (or worse) vote, made things interesting. Controversy is good. It has a way of waking people up and forcing them to take an interest.

And despite your arguments to the contrary, I do not see my Resolution driving people out of the UN. The UN had 39,000 members before, it still has 39,000 members now. The proportion of players with nations in the UN has not changed significantly (ie by more than a few percent) since autumn. Frankly, my Resolution is quite mild and is easily ignored by those who disagree with it. It would take something far more uncompromising, such as the relaxation of slavery laws, to cause widespread resignations.

I really do not see a problem.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I believe that human rights are an international issue. I believe that the freedom of choice, as outlined in the Resolution, falls under the umbrella of human rights. I believe that this should be treated as an international issue because I believe that human rights are too important a thing to be entrusted to national governments. I feel that human rights transcend national sovereignty.


I also belive that human rights transcend national sovereignty.
But this proposal works to completely undermine national sovereignty.
Humans will always think as they wish, and if this were to be about allowing free speech everywhere, I could have even supported that.

But it wasn't about that.
It was about taking away the government's freedom to do as it chooses, and it's ability to choose to restrict a person's actions, and to judge someone by thier actions.

I'm all for free speech, but not telling someone else how to run thier government.

Also, I'm all about democracy, but not about forcing good, fuctioning governments that they're wrong and bad because they aren't a democracy, which is what this bill did.

"Yes, they leave. Your point? And as for below the 60% point, exactly what point do you mean? Actual voting turn out? Majority percentage of passing? Hello?"

The proposal passed by a slim 53% margin, which DOES NOT mean it was universally accepted. If anything it shows that certain delegates had far more power by gaining votes from their regional members who were also part of the UN. Those same extra votes coming from endorsements by your own members who I just recently found out, DISAGREED with your policies. It was only by the action myself, stating that if a regional member, who was part of the UN, who has endorsed their delegates, did not agree with said delegate in their vote to at least drop their endorsement. And some members of the UN did exactly that. They dropped endorsements, otherwise you would have had quite a few more votes before the very end.

And I will repeat. If you are a member of the UN, and you have endorsed someone, you are giving an additional ballot in their voting when it comes to UN proposals. If you do not agree with your delegate in their choice of reforundum or voting on a certiain position, you are urged to drop your endorsement to that delegate.

And I'd have to agree with M. The proposal was not thought out, the reasoning behind the explanations were heresay, the proposal comletely overshadows another resolution that was passed on the sovereign rights of all UN member nations, forces democratic decisions on those governments which are not democratic in any way, shape, nor form. It retroactively destroys the choice of governments by any member nations ruling body and allows freedom of choice in all events and or privalages far in the norm for those governments which are not a full democracy.

I also noticed how many jumped for joy when I was ejected from the UN for challenging this proposal by offering a proposal which would have called this to issue. During that ejection, certain votes and endorsements of other proposals in which myself and my region agreed on, were systematically removed at a critical timing.

I could not address every argument posed, because I was unable to log into the forums for a day and a half during voting, and last week was a pretty busy time IRL as well. I did what I could. I had a lot of telegrams to answer too, dozens in fact, and I answered almost every one. That takes time.


Then you have my most sincere apology, because I totally did not consider this, and yet I have experienced similar time conflicts in the middle of a debate. :)
I hope you forgive my earlier assumption that my comments were being ignored, because you are right: we do have tasks besides responding to everything.

Cheers,
10kMichael

The proposal passed by a slim 53% margin, which DOES NOT mean it was universally accepted. If anything it shows that certain delegates had far more power by gaining votes from their regional members who were also part of the UN. Those same extra votes coming from endorsements by your own members who I just recently found out, DISAGREED with your policies. It was only by the action myself, stating that if a regional member, who was part of the UN, who has endorsed their delegates, did not agree with said delegate in their vote to at least drop their endorsement. And some members of the UN did exactly that. They dropped endorsements, otherwise you would have had quite a few more votes before the very end.


One thing to consider about regional delegates ... like our opinions and ways of dealing with things are completely different from nation to nation, the way UN Delegates act is too.

I agree that Delegates have great power. And that your endorsement of them can weigh in on UN issues.

But I will say that my Delegate reads the UN debates on our forum and then tends to go with the majority. And I'll add that those that participate in the discussions actually have been seeming to come to consensus.

[OOC: It is kinda neat to see a bloc actually agreeing on things. Part of it could be do to the fact that we tend to chat and respect one and other. I've not seen snotty debates pop up nearly as much as they do here. With that in mind, more OOC threads in the UN might be a good thing.]

10kMichael

* Reads Mikitivities reply to his post in several threads....

: Blinks :

* Reads some more...

: Further Blinking :

* Decides not to loose his sense of humor, though he wonders if it is heavy enough to launch a blow to someone's head with. j/k :wink:

(Edit; I did a long winded reply and maybe some here did manage to read it in the ten minutes it was up here, but no, I took it down, quite frankly I don't think such personalised debate is suitable here, its simply I've had enough with people trying to have a go at me today, and I apologise if I am not as willing to take it as the next person, sorry.)

- The Rep of Komokom.

Hey you, bigjob Komokomomokomokom!

Dinnae tak' it tae heart so much mon. It's no as if ye've nae skillet tae hide behind.

10kMikkie disnae mean onny hurt agin ye personal-like, he just rides a white horse, an' mebbe thinks ye breathe fire noo an' then, so ye must be a Dragon!

Ye get yersel' doon in yer big chair at the Strangers Bar, ye've friends there, an no-one'll come for tae gi' ye hassle.

As suggested in the thread, archived as a fine example of the UN working as it should.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)