NationStates

In light of recent discussions taking place in this thread, I'm wondering if the time has come for the National Sovereignty Organization to become active once again. National Sovereignty is, I feel, a philosophy which has been long neglected here, much to the detriment of the World Assembly and the overall quality of its legislative efforts.

There are many routes which could be taken here, ranging from the reactivation of the NSO "as is", to the establishment of a new NatSov-oriented organization, to doing absolutely nothing and allowing the WA to continue ramming its internationalist agenda down our throats.

So, what say ye, fellow members of the WA? Is there any interest in this? Is it a move which would be beneficial to our nations and our people?

Comments please.

National sovereignty is an issue that needs advocates. come speak loudly and I will on behalf of the people of Ainocra join you

We would like to inquire what exactly is being proposed?

Our Senior Rabbis of the Order of the Most Secret Knowledge have concocted an army of golems which, in case this utter inanity comes into fruition, shall raze the NSO Headquarters & the lands of all its associates:



Might I add a single one of these single handedly banished both Cthulhu and Mothra out of our sacred and most precious lands.

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Might I add a single one of these single handedly banished both Cthulhu and Mothra out of our sacred and most precious lands.

How did you get on/a to only use one hand?!

Linux and the X wrote:

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Might I add a single one of these single handedly banished both Cthulhu and Mothra out of our sacred and most precious lands.

How did you get on/a to only use one hand?!

See? They are that efficient!

INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM!!!

Freeoplis wrote:We would like to inquire what exactly is being proposed?

I am trying to assess how much interest there is in a revival of the National Sovereignty Organization. If you would like to learn more about national sovereignty, a good starting place might be this historical document. Granted, the terms are a bit outdated. It was written about NatSov in the NSUN, but the basic concepts remain valid to this day.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM!!!

Stop spamming.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.

That's not spam. It's an opinion on the matter of national sovereignty and reintroducing the National Sovereignty Organization. It's just more entertaining to scream INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM, than to write 10 paragraphs on the necessity of the World Assembly to not be preemptively limited in what it can do.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.

That's not spam. It's an opinion on the matter of national sovereignty and reintroducing the National Sovereignty Organization. It's just more entertaining to scream INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM, than to write 10 paragraphs on the necessity of the World Assembly to not be preemptively limited in what it can do.

No, it's spam. If you don't have any substantive arguments to make then please go somewhere else.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.

That's not spam. It's an opinion on the matter of national sovereignty and reintroducing the National Sovereignty Organization. It's just more entertaining to scream INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM, than to write 10 paragraphs on the necessity of the World Assembly to not be preemptively limited in what it can do.

No, it's spam. If you don't have any substantive arguments to make then please go somewhere else.

While I often disagree with Dr Castro, I have no choice her but to find that the Doctor's statement, while brief, is a reasonable point. I also note that, by your own standard, Ambassador Arororugul, of requiring 'substantive arguments', makes your claims themself spam.

The WA is a voluntary association. Isn't the point, giving up some national sovereignty, in exchange for a say in a federation of parties?

Linux and the X wrote:While I often disagree with Dr Castro, I have no choice her but to find that the Doctor's statement, while brief, is a reasonable point.

His "statement" consisted entirely of screaming INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM!!!

I also note that, by your own standard, Ambassador Arororugul, of requiring 'substantive arguments', makes your claims themself spam.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you diagram that sentence?

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:Stop spamming.

That's not spam. It's an opinion on the matter of national sovereignty and reintroducing the National Sovereignty Organization. It's just more entertaining to scream INTERNATIONAL FEDERALISM, than to write 10 paragraphs on the necessity of the World Assembly to not be preemptively limited in what it can do.

No, it's spam. If you don't have any substantive arguments to make then please go somewhere else.

Firstly ... Not the spam. Not the spam. You might also want to watch who you are telling to "go somewhere else". While we frequently disagree with Dr Castro and the Glen-Rhodes delegation, they are indeed one of the more learned, thoughtful and articulate opponents we have, whereas we have never before even heard of you.

Second ... While we are one of the leading voices of the National Sovereignty side of most arguments here, we also believe we do not require any specific organization telling us how and when and why to vote on any particular issue. Our arguments and votes are based solely on what we believe is best for our region and what is best for our nation, not on what some organization deems is best for us. To our way of thinking, that is little better than the International federationists, who mostly seem to want the WA to hold everybody's hand for them. How is having a national sovereignty organization which determines the issues for us that much better?

Sagatagan wrote:The WA is a voluntary association. Isn't the point, giving up some national sovereignty, in exchange for a say in a federation of parties?

But does it make sense, in each and every case, for the WA to violate national sovereignty? Just because it is a voluntary organization and it is accepted that you give up "some" sovereignty upon joining, does that mean that there should be no restraints? Are there not some instances where it makes sense to handle things at the national level? I think we all understand that some sovereignty is surrendered at the door, but does that mean that we all become puppets of the WA? And as for this "federation of parties", what are the advantages of that? Collective security? A common market? Neither of those things exist in the WA.

Grays Harbor wrote:Firstly ... Not the spam. Not the spam. You might also want to watch who you are telling to "go somewhere else". While we frequently disagree with Dr Castro and the Glen-Rhodes delegation, they are indeed one of the more learned, thoughtful and articulate opponents we have,

It was spam. Trust me, I've smelled it cooking before.

whereas we have never before even heard of you.

Bullshit.

Second ... While we are one of the leading voices of the National Sovereignty side of most arguments here, we also believe we do not require any specific organization telling us how and when and why to vote on any particular issue. Our arguments and votes are based solely on what we believe is best for our region and what is best for our nation, not on what some organization deems is best for us. To our way of thinking, that is little better than the International federationists, who mostly seem to want the WA to hold everybody's hand for them. How is having a national sovereignty organization which determines the issues for us that much better?

The purpose of the NSO never was, and hopefully never would be, to tell you how to vote.

Thank you for taking part in our discussion.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:

Sagatagan wrote:The WA is a voluntary association. Isn't the point, giving up some national sovereignty, in exchange for a say in a federation of parties?

But does it make sense, in each and every case, for the WA to violate national sovereignty? Just because it is a voluntary organization and it is accepted that you give up "some" sovereignty upon joining, does that mean that there should be no restraints? Are there not some instances where it makes sense to handle things at the national level? I think we all understand that some sovereignty is surrendered at the door, but does that mean that we all become puppets of the WA? And as for this "federation of parties", what are the advantages of that? Collective security? A common market? Neither of those things exist in the WA.

I Think The NSO is a Good Idea, even through it could be reformed and more modernized for the 2010s.

Sionis Prioratus wrote:

That's not a golem. That is a collection of child's babydoll body parts which some disturbed individual has arranged to look like an insect. Do not trifle with me Ambassador Saint-Clair.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:

Sagatagan wrote:The WA is a voluntary association. Isn't the point, giving up some national sovereignty, in exchange for a say in a federation of parties?

But does it make sense, in each and every case, for the WA to violate national sovereignty? Just because it is a voluntary organization and it is accepted that you give up "some" sovereignty upon joining, does that mean that there should be no restraints? Are there not some instances where it makes sense to handle things at the national level? I think we all understand that some sovereignty is surrendered at the door, but does that mean that we all become puppets of the WA? And as for this "federation of parties", what are the advantages of that? Collective security? A common market? Neither of those things exist in the WA.

Well, no, it doesn't mean that the WA should perpetually be violating national sovereignty. But, a lot of resolutions would be meaningless without violating sovereignty in some way. I usually oppose a resolution that violates national sovereignty unless it has to do with human rights or environmental issues that effect the whole world because they're a fluid commons, like the ocean or the atmosphere. I would argue that we have a common market (with or without the WA) and agree that the WA gives little security, while arguing that perhaps it should NOT give a great amount of security, except to stop invasions. Otherwise, we get a near-monopoly of violence, and that's a whole new super-state. Anyway, yes, a nation should have sovereignty over its own lands and commons, and in all other fields unless human rights become a concern. However, some gratuitous infringing of sovereignty is to be expected, which is why the WA is voluntary, just like many other voluntary pacts and arrangements a nation can enter into that may violate less. Overall, I'd say, if you want to make sure that the largest pact in the world is both voluntary AND respects national sovereignty to a grater degree, go for it. I might even read your manifesto and support some of your actions.

Sagatagan wrote:Well, no, it doesn't mean that the WA should perpetually be violating national sovereignty. But, a lot of resolutions would be meaningless without violating sovereignty in some way. I usually oppose a resolution that violates national sovereignty unless it has to do with human rights or environmental issues that effect the whole world because they're a fluid commons, like the ocean or the atmosphere. I would argue that we have a common market (with or without the WA) and agree that the WA gives little security, while arguing that perhaps it should NOT give a great amount of security, except to stop invasions. Otherwise, we get a near-monopoly of violence, and that's a whole new super-state. Anyway, yes, a nation should have sovereignty over its own lands and commons, and in all other fields unless human rights become a concern. However, some gratuitous infringing of sovereignty is to be expected, which is why the WA is voluntary, just like many other voluntary pacts and arrangements a nation can enter into that may violate less. Overall, I'd say, if you want to make sure that the largest pact in the world is both voluntary AND respects national sovereignty to a grater degree, go for it. I might even read your manifesto and support some of your actions.

Well, in the past the NSO was never a monolithic organization in which all of the members were expected to march in lock-step. There were always members who tolerated breaches of sovereignty in the interest of advancing human rights and trade, for instance. I'm certain that any new incarnation of the group would have a similarly wide range of views rather than some enforced orthodoxy.

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:

whereas we have never before even heard of you.

Bullshit.

Seriously? Are you really that ego-centric that you believe that everybody has heard of you? Until this topic, we had no clue you even existed, therefore our respect level for what you may or may not have to say is at the "neutral/zero" level as we have nothing to base our opinion on other than this topic. And judging by what you have posted so far, we are not very impressed.

But, oh well, thats how the cookie bounces.

Hell, I'VE never heard of the original poster.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Hiriaurtung Arororugul wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:

whereas we have never before even heard of you.

Bullshit.

Seriously? Are you really that ego-centric that you believe that everybody has heard of you? Until this topic, we had no clue you even existed, therefore our respect level for what you may or may not have to say is at the "neutral/zero" level as we have nothing to base our opinion on other than this topic. And judging by what you have posted so far, we are not very impressed.

But, oh well, thats how the cookie bounces.

Well I'm terribly sorry that we haven't been introduced and I'll try to make myself more available to you in the future.

Now then, do you have anything to say about the matter at hand, or shall we continue discussing who is and isn't listed in the Grays Harbor Social Register?

Our opinion of this organization has already been posted here, and we are not in the habit of repeating ourself.

Also, allcaps and multiple exclamation points does not make you seem more strident or more thoughtful, so it would be recomended you try to refrain from doing so in future, especially when it comes to topic titles.