The 4 WA Questions: NatSov, Nukes, Regulation, Freedom?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not entirely sure about the appropriateness of this forum for this, but Ambassadors of the World Assembly, what is your general position on the four questions: NatSov, Nukes, Industrial Regulation, Political Freedom? (that is: are you in favour of NatSov, Nukes, Regulation, and Freedom?)

I feel that these questions pretty much summarise each ambassador's world-view on things (like the Political Compass or the four-letter personality type) and the major subjects of NatSov and Nukes. Perhaps it can blossom into something entertaining.

My answers are: Yes, Yes, No, Yes.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

NatSov yes, Nukes yes. "Regulation" and "Freedom" are far too broad subject areas to make a definitive statement on. What particular kinds of regulation and freedom are you referring to?

[Imperium Anglorum]

NatSov yes, Nukes yes. "Regulation" and "Freedom" are far too broad subject areas to make a definitive statement on. What particular kinds of regulation and freedom are you referring to?

Thanks. Changed it to industrial regulation and political freedoms.

[Ainocra]

yes

yes

some

no

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Answers reflect the Dark Star Office of WA Affairs, not my own personal views."

• NatSov: completely meaningless term, don't believe it has any intellectual validity in the modern WA.
• Nukes: the WA should regulate but not ban them.
• Industrial Regulation: what kinds of regulation? if they have an international scope then they should be within the WA's mandate to pursue.
• Political Freedom: it is unfair for the WA to micromanage democratic nations' elections while permitting non-democratic nations to vote on those resolutions.
• These questions: utterly specious

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Alternate Universe 912]

• NatSov:
  
  • In theory, Nations can leave the WA at any time, so they have full sovereignty.
  • However, in order to maintain officially sanctioned "regions", some nations have little choice but to remain in the WA or abandon established regions and found new ones. As a result the WA has an extra moral responsibility to treat the sovereignty of such nations with great care and respect.
• Nukes: AU912 opposes international regulation of strategic weapons and energy sources as long as nations do not allow such assets to adversely affect other nations.
  
• Industrial Regulation: AU912 opposes international economic regulation as long as nations do not allow their economic growth to adversely affect other nations.
  
• Political Freedom:
  

  it is unfair for the WA to micromanage democratic nations' elections while permitting non-democratic nations to vote on those resolutions.

  
  
  • agreed.

~ President Keith Beldan

[Kaboomlandia]

Yes. Yes. Capitalist, so no. Authoritarian, so no.

Viewpoints reflect the nation, not me.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I don't think you can give easy yes or no answers to these questions, it always depends on the context.

Natsov: I believe in subsidiarity, government always at a level as close to the people as practically possible. Some issues should not be addressed by the international body, or the national body, or the regional body but at the local village / town level. Others need to be addressed at the higher levels.

Nukes: I don't particularly like them. However, there are plenty of wars that occur without them. I do find it odd that nuclear materials can only be found under rainforests (much like gold is only found under lakes but I digress).

Industrial regulation: See Natsov. Is the issue of a real international scope? Or do you just want to mess with other people's nations and other people's problems?

Political Freedom: (Is Friar Cadfail reading this?) I'm always for political freedom.

[Sciongrad]

Not entirely sure about the appropriateness of this forum for this, but Ambassadors of the World Assembly, what is your general position on the four questions: NatSov, Nukes, Industrial Regulation, Political Freedom? (that is: are you in favour of NatSov, Nukes, Regulation, and Freedom?)

I feel that these questions pretty much summarise each ambassador's world-view on things (like the Political Compass or the four-letter personality type) and the major subjects of NatSov and Nukes. Perhaps it can blossom into something entertaining.

My answers are: Yes, Yes, No, Yes.

NatSov: The idea - to an extent, yes. My personal leanings are slightly different from my IC nations, but generally, I fall fairly close to the center of the GA political spectrum. The current, mainstream "movement" on the other hand, is really just a populist ideology that exploits the GP-sphere's political clout to pass repeals and blockers that don't explore any greater depth than whether or not the resolutions or issues are "NatSov" enough. But I digress.

Nukes: I think the GA's current nuclear weapons policy is fair, but my nation generally supports stronger regulations on WMDs.

Industrial Regulations: Of course.

Political Freedom: Again, of course.