NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the Egalitarian Commision?

The Egalitarian Alliance is a new alliance formed by the Democratic Arcologies of Feline.

What are its goals?

To ensure an equal opportunity to secure the natural rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as other natural rights, to all sapients regardless of national origion, family lineage, species, religious identification, political beliefs, sexual orientation, past crimes which they have carried out the sentence for sucessfully, cultural or ethnic identifcation, wealth, or social status.

How can I join?

You must be approved either by the Chairman or by a vote of the members. The grounds for entry should be: A good role-play record, sustained support over time for the goals of the organization, political and civil rights above average.

Could I see a formal constitution?

Article I: Goals and Enforcement Thereof

WE, the countries united in The Egalitarian Commision, hereafter known as TEC, hereby resolve to dedicate our nations to the following goals:

1. All sapient beings possess natural rights. These rights are:

Freedom of Speach
Freedom of Opinion
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom to vote either through fair direct democracy or through fairly elected officials
Freedom to choose their religious beliefs
Freedom from search of computer files, property, telephone lines, or any other personal belongings without a legal warrant
Right to own property
Right to file lawsuits
Right to legal representation
Freedom from arrest or imprisionment without court order
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture and execution
Freedom from discrimination on any basis
Freedom from slavery and forced labor
Right to recieve just compensation for all labor
Right to presumption on innocence
Freedom to go where one wants (within reason) as long as one is not legally incarcerated
Freedom to choose a spouse from either sex
Freedom to divorce said spouse at any time
Freedom to a cultural and ethnic identity
Freedom to choose one's occupation, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others
Right to join a trade union
Right to holidays from work, reasonable hours, and overtime pay of at least 1.5 times normal rate if they work above forty hours a week.
Right to a reasonable standard of living
Right to participate in the culutral life of the community, enjoy the arts, and share in the benefits of scientific and technical advancement.
Right to recieve healthcare, regardless of wealth.
Right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness


2. Only nations that respect these rights may enter TEC. Nations in TEC abridging these rights shall be removed after a warning. It requires a simple plurality to rule a nation in violation the first time. It requires a two-thirds vote to rule a nation in violation of these rights the second time.

3. These shall be enforced by Commision Mandates, legally binding resoulutions voted upon by the entire TEC. A plurality is sufficient to pass.

4. The Chairman shall recieve two votes in all such debates.

5. These can only be enforced by military action if three-fourths of the alliance agrees. Nations not voting in favor of military action are not required to donate combat troops, but must assist in some way.

6. Debates shall last until two-thirds of TEC is in favor of ending them on Commision Mandates. All members must agree to end a debate for military action.

Article II: Office of the Chairman

1. A chairman shall be elected for one-month terms. A chairman may serve as many times as can be elected, but the terms may not be consecutive.

2. The first chairman shall be the Democratic Arcologies of Feline, for the sake of assembling the alliance together. Once the month is up, he will become a normal member.

3. The chairman calls all meetings to order, decides when votes will be held, and represents TEC in negotiations with countries outside the organization.

4. The chairman may be recalled by one-third of the TEC. To be removed, three-fourths must vote for his removal.

Article III: Membership

1. To be admitted, a member requires approval either by the chairman or by a vote of all the members.

2. They will judge the application for membership on the following grounds: A good role-play record, sustained support over time for the goals of the organization, political and civil rights above average.

3. Nations with new democracies, or new overall to the world community, may be admitted as associate members. Their votes count as half a vote. It requires only a simple plurality, and meeting of the above, to convert a nation to full member status.

4. Nations may be expelled for reasons other than spelled out in Article I with a two-thirds vote.

Article IV: Obligations

1. No member nation may attack another without approval of the TEC.
2. Members much assist eachother if attacked.
3. Member nations must establish embassies with one another.
4. Member nations are encouraged to give fellow TEC members discounts on purchases, favorable trade status, etc. but it is not required.
5. However, no TEC nation may impose a tariff over 10% or a quota of under 5,000 on the goods of other TEC nations.

OOC: Are you planning on going after elitist countries and making them change?

We will see how the commision votes. Feline, however, is in favor of trying to get them to change through peaceful means.

bump

tag.

bump

bump

tag for later consumption.

We are intrigued by this proposal, but find several problems or uncertainties in the text that we would like to see addressed by the authors.

The Egalitarian Alliance is a new alliance formed by the Democratic Arcologies of Feline.

Please clarify the term ‘alliance’; what kind of alliance is conceived of?

What are its goals?

To ensure an equal opportunity to secure the natural rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as well as other natural rights, to all sapients regardless of national origin, family lineage, species, religious identification, political beliefs, sexual orientation, past crimes which they have carried out the sentence for successfully, cultural or ethnic identification, wealth, or social status.

First, the issue of natural rights must be addressed. We will leave the issue of ‘rights,’ which are solely a legal construction, aside in order to focus on the idea that these rights are natural. As this alliance seeks equality regardless of religious orientation we assume the authors will not argue that rights are divinely sanctioned, since this would violate the rights of atheists; rather, we assume the authors mean these rights are a priori, rationally deduced rights derived from meditation upon the issue.

We cannot support this definition of natural rights as it is ethnocentric and historically rigid; the assertion that this current set of legal guarantees are not only permanent but will apply without regard to the specific material and historical conditions within a country make them unworkable.

Furthermore, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are so nebulous that they are not useful in a true legal sense. Are these positive or negative rights? Liberty to do what or from what? Pursuit of happiness but not happiness itself? Further clarification is necessary to give meaning to this phrase.

Finally, the notion of equality is not fully explored or explained. Equality is not a straight forward idea; in states where minorities are discriminated against informally, is it equal to treat them as if they are not discriminated against or to give them advantages to balance out the discrimination? Furthermore, equality of opportunity is a typical negative rights approach taken in lieu of granting what is actually being sought; rather than guarantee that each person be fed, they are guaranteed the equal opportunity to be fed, which in fact leaves millions hungry even in developed economies.

In addition to the ambiguities and undeveloped ideas, we object to the statement choosing to use ‘equality of opportunity’ in favor of simply working to guarantee the needs of each person.

How can I join?

You must be approved either by the Chairman or by a vote of the members. The grounds for entry should be: A good role-play record, sustained support over time for the goals of the organization, political and civil rights above average.

On a technical note, it is not just to require a Political Freedom rating of average or better since this, in fact, discriminates against nations that favor authoritarian models, such as benevolent dictatorships or monarchies, both of which are just as capable of respecting equality as a democratic society.

Regarding the constitution, our issues regarding natural rights are state above; we now move to the individual points.

Freedom of Speech

The authors have not sufficiently defined this idea to be legally useful; is racist speech protected? If so, will there be a fighting words exception? What about harassing speech? Will this also be an equal opportunity right to speech or will there be guarantees that all may have their message heard?

Freedom of Opinion

This idea is perplexing; is it possible to remove the right of people to have their own opinion? What would a society that revoked this right look like?

Freedom of Assembly

As with free speech, too much is assumed here; is this a blanket freedom to the point that assemblies may obstruct traffic as they like? If this will be a ‘your rights end where my nose begins’ issue, how will the two be balanced? Is not all protest an infringement upon one right or another?

Freedom to vote either through fair direct democracy or through fairly elected officials.

We have strong objections to this clause. Democratic Republics or Direct Democracies are not the only nor necessarily the best ways to run a country, and both are born out of the liberal tradition, which many just and egalitarian nations reject. The guarantee sought here should be for a government that redresses grievances, not a government that holds elections; one need not think long to find examples of hideously unequal societies that held free and fair elections on a regular basis. Hitler was democratically elected.

Freedom to choose their religious beliefs.

We assume this will also protect religious practices. If this is the case, will the state be allowed to regulate hallucinogenic substances used in some religions? To return to the free assembly issue, how will the balancing act be regulated?

Freedom from search of computer files, property, telephone lines, or any other personal belongings without a legal warrant.

We notice that there is no right to privacy in this constitution, which seems to be the issue at hand here; would it not be more effective to grant the right to privacy in all forms of communication?

Right to own property.

Define property; property is an old concept, though modern forms share little in common with ancient forms of property seen in Greece or Africa. Does this mean the right to own private and exclusive property in the means of production, or merely the right to hold personal property, such as a pair of pants? Is this to protect the individual from the state seizing their belongings?

Right to file lawsuits.
Right to legal representation.
Freedom from arrest or imprisonment without court order.
Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture and execution.

We agree in full.

Freedom from discrimination on any basis.

Please see the above note regarding preferential treatment of minorities discriminated against in society, and clarify this clause accordingly.

Freedom from slavery and forced labor.

Please define, for clarity, forced labor? How direct must the coercion be? For instance, if a migrant laborer was told to work or he’d be turned into the immigration services, is that forced labor? How much of a threat is required?

Right to receive just compensation for all labor.
Right to presumption on innocence.

We agree in full.

Freedom to go where one wants (within reason) as long as one is not legally incarcerated.

The use of the phrase ‘within reason’ confuses this issue; exactly what is this meant to guarantee?

Freedom to choose a spouse from either sex.
Freedom to divorce said spouse at any time.
Freedom to a cultural and ethnic identity
Freedom to choose one's occupation, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others
Right to join a trade union
Right to holidays from work, reasonable hours, and overtime pay of at least 1.5 times normal rate if they work above forty hours a week.

We agree in full.

Right to a reasonable standard of living.

The world ‘reasonable’ is unclear; would this mean a living wage?

Right to participate in the culutral life of the community, enjoy the arts, and share in the benefits of scientific and technical advancement.
Right to receive healthcare, regardless of wealth.

We agree in full.

Right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic production of which he is the author.

Is this a guarantee for intellectual property rights? If so we must object on the strongest terms; there are many alternate legal and ethical standards by which property, especially intellectual property, are viewed as social or communal products, and therefore cannot be claimed as private property. To list this as a ‘natural’ right is fallacious and ignores a great diversity of legal, ethical and moral approaches that have equally valid, though radically different, stances on this issue.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

See comments above.

2. Only nations that respect these rights may enter TEC. Nations in TEC abridging these rights shall be removed after a warning. It requires a simple plurality to rule a nation in violation the first time. It requires a two-thirds vote to rule a nation in violation of these rights the second time.

A sensible structure.

3. These shall be enforced by Commission Mandates, legally binding resolutions voted upon by the entire TEC. A plurality is sufficient to pass.

4. The Chairman shall receive two votes in all such debates.

As a nation firmly operating within the network paradigm, SeOCC is not in favor of a Chairperson and cannot support giving the Chairperson additional voting power. It’s a little too ironic to have a ‘some are more equal than others’ situation in this constitution.

5. These can only be enforced by military action if three-fourths of the alliance agrees. Nations not voting in favor of military action are not required to donate combat troops, but must assist in some way.

Exactly what military action is being conceived of here? Would this alliance go to war against other nations to enforce the ideals of equality?

6. Debates shall last until two-thirds of TEC is in favor of ending them on Commission Mandates. All members must agree to end a debate for military action.

This last clause is an invitation for filibuster by military minded nations, and is unlikely to garner the support of pacifist minded nations. We certainly cannot support such a clause, given that it is unjust to force a conversation to continue because one representative refuses to be swayed.

Article II: Office of the Chairman

1. A chairman shall be elected for one-month terms. A chairman may serve as many times as can be elected, but the terms may not be consecutive.

2. The first chairman shall be the Democratic Arcologies of Feline, for the sake of assembling the alliance together. Once the month is up, he will become a normal member.

3. The chairman calls all meetings to order, decides when votes will be held, and represents TEC in negotiations with countries outside the organization.

4. The chairman may be recalled by one-third of the TEC. To be removed, three-fourths must vote for his removal.

As stated above, we object to Chairpersons and cannot support such a position. It serves no purpose and creates unnecessary hierarchy without the accompanying structural benefits one would need to justify such a choice.

Article III: Membership

1. To be admitted, a member requires approval either by the chairman or by a vote of all the members.

To what purpose is the building of this velvet rope for membership? Should not all that meet the criteria be welcome?

2. They will judge the application for membership on the following grounds: A good role-play record, sustained support over time for the goals of the organization, political and civil rights above average.

Again, see above.

3. Nations with new democracies, or new overall to the world community, may be admitted as associate members. Their votes count as half a vote. It requires only a simple plurality, and meeting of the above, to convert a nation to full member status.

Beyond the favoring of democracies over other forms of governments, to what end does creating this second class rank?

4. Nations may be expelled for reasons other than spelled out in Article I with a two-thirds vote.

A sensible structure.

Article IV: Obligations

1. No member nation may attack another without approval of the TEC.
2. Members much assist eachother if attacked.
3. Member nations must establish embassies with one another.
4. Member nations are encouraged to give fellow TEC members discounts on purchases, favorable trade status, etc. but it is not required.
5. However, no TEC nation may impose a tariff over 10% or a quota of under 5,000 on the goods of other TEC nations.

This alliance seems devoted to mutual defense and economic free trade, but there is no clause regarding the furthering of an agenda of universal egalitarianism. This seems vaguely contradictory, to join so many egalitarian nations together under one banner then fail to make a pushing of their common goals an obligation or goal of the organization.

On a whole, the constitution suffers from a limited viewpoint regarding the legitimacy of diverse political, economic and cultural structures, and seems rooted in a traditional European liberal paradigm that has shown itself more adept and inequality than at equality. This alliance would be best served by focusing on material conditions related to equality rather than the philosophical positions taken by the authors; this would be both more inclusive and more effective, as it would encourage members to examine practical approaches rather than those that are merely consistent with the dominant philosophy of their government.

MSA Frontdesk

TAG

1. The alliance that is concieved of is basically an international organization of nations united with a common goal of liberty and equality.
2. This is just intended to illustrate- for more detail, see the constitution of the alliance. I will consider revising equality of opportunity, however- that is an excellent point.

And you assumption is correct.

3. This alliance is intended to support political and civil freedoms, ergo we only wish those with high freedoms in.
4. In my opinion, all speech is protected. However, what exactly is promoted by the alliance is up to the alliance as a whole.
5. It's in there because some states do try to force their people to hold certain opinions.
6. See number four.
7. Roosevelt was democratically elected. So was Churchill. Your point? Otherwise, see number three.
8. In my opinion, as long as the substances do no permanant damage to the body, and the religious practices harm no one not involved in the religion, they should be allowed. But otherwise, see number four.
9. That's what it does. Means of communication are property, and are covered. The ones above were just used as examples.
10. In my opinion, all of the above. Otherwise, see number four.
11. Good to see you agree in full.
12. It will be clarified in an updated draft. Thank you for the suggestion.
13. Any form of coercion, in my opinion. Otherwise, see number four.
14. See number eleven.
15. This is so a person can't say something like "I want to go to a beachfront resort! You have to pay for it, government, because you signed this document!" At least in my opinion. Otherwise, see number four.
16. See number eleven.
17. In my opinion, yes. Otherwise, see number four.
18. See number eleven.
19. Yes, it is a guarantee of intellectual property rights. In Feline, fair use laws are very lax, but are enforced strictly. Intellectual property laws foster innovation by giving people the incentive to create, but wide-reaching fair use laws at the same time give people the ability to create inventions stemming off our the invention.
20. Used as a phrase. That's all. See number four.
21. See number eleven.
22. The multiple vote for chairman is intended to break ties, although it is exercised in all votes. The TEC could admend this, however, if a plurality of members voted upon a Commision Mandate to do so. An executive branch is needed to represent the alliance in negotiations with other alliances, other nations, and to govern debate per standard parlimentary procedure.
23. Three-fourths of the alliance must agree. We would not support military action except as an absolute last resort when all diplomatic means are exhausted, no compromise can be reached, etc. The point is, everything is up to the members on interpreting this constitution.
24. The military debate limit is actually intended so pacifist minded nations can fillibuster, rather than military. That part is intended, again, to make it extremely hard to go to war.
25. See number twenty-two.
26. The chairman or the members decide if they meet the criteria, and if so, vote them in.
27. To ensure that spy nations created and those who only give lip-service to the ideals of the alliance do not hold signifigant sway.
28. See number eleven.
29. The obligation to further equality and freedom is outlined in the goals section. These obligations are here only to guarantee that the nations in the alliance are protected, and to avoid creating unneeded economic and/or military conflict within the alliance.
30. Correct, it is based on a European liberal paradigm. That is what it is intended to promote. The reason that it has failed so far is because the wealthy have typically found ways to manipulate the power strutures.

After reading through the Consitution of The Egalitarian Comission most thoroughly, the United Socialist States of Lietuveska must state that TEC's goals and Constitution are most impressive. Our nation has long been searching for the "perfect" alliance, or the closest as possible, and TEC has shown us that it is worth the effort.

Therefore, the USSL must proudly announce that it will apply for membership. We are in the bounds of all regulations, goals, and requirements. The goals of Lietuveska have forever been to promote freedom, equality, and happiness, and hope our application to The Egalitarian Comission may prove that we are dedicated to peace, democracy, and freewill.

We eagerly await a response from the Democratic Arcologies of Feline. It is most assured that our record will prove we are worthy, but we will admit to one particular instance regarding The Reich and several other organizations. We have corrected our wrongs in that situation, and no longer sought. :)

http://home.earthlink.net/~chipcomp/mfa.jpg

Err..bump. :wink:

We found your reply incredibly difficult to read on account that the authors refused to reference the original remarks, nor be specific in their replies.

13. Any form of coercion, in my opinion. Otherwise, see number four.

Therefore, should not your alliance be against wage markets, which force people to work in order to buy food? Would a devotion to non-coercive economic models require the guarantee of food, housing, clothing, education and healthcare?

Also, it is troubling that your alliance is so exclusive as to admit only European liberal models of egalitarianism.

MSA Frontdesk

We are currently having an election. Depending on its outcome, the next foreign minister may wish to apply for membership. The draft declaration is, at any rate, a promising beginning, on which we hope later comments will be welcome.

Seocc: I don't like putting a large number of quotes in my posts.

As for wage markets being coercive, they are not. You only have to work, not work at a particular place.

And anyway, our government has a unique economic system that hybridizes socialism, capitalism, and a few new elements. I'll try to find the post where I described it and re-post it sometime.

Also, all alliances have to have goals. Ours is the promotion of European style liberalism and modifications thereof.

Lietuveska: Welcome to the alliance.

if you have to work, you are being coerced into working. It's at the heart of Marx's arguments about alienated work.

Marx's philosophies sound good on paper (perfectly equal, classless society, no unemployment, etc.) but they are impossible to implement in real life, just like Plato's Republic state, ruled by philosophers (Possibly some ambition on Plato's part :?: ). Ideal societies cannot be created, at least not at humanity's current state of social development.

Marx, like Plato, was a philosopher, not an organizer.

First, Marx was an economist, not a philosopher, as is clear in his writing. When comparing by volume, Marx wrote very little on society and intentionally never talked about government structure, sticking to historical materialist analysis of economic development and, with Engels, who was the sociologist, the sociological effects of those changes.

Second, our Cirdani allies are correct, being forced to work, at whatever place, in order to gain access to the basic biological needs of all living things is very coercive. The essence of coercion is the removal of choice by direct or indirect means; holding a gun to someone's head is coercion as much as withholding food from a prisoner to gain their compliance. Withholding food from a worker who does not work, for whatever reason, is equally coercive, as it leaves them with no legal recourse other than to do as their are told, to work.

Please point out how the above scenario is not coercive.

MoP Frontdesk

[OOC: SeOCC, actually Marx was first a philosopher. In the cours eof his philosophy he was drawn into economics and the only major 'mature' works he completed are economic, though he did actually write alot of philosophical stuff (although it was left incomplete and unpublished, except for his earlier works, such as those from the 1842-1844 period when he was a Feuerbachian)]

It is not a coercive situation. It is a trade-off situation.

Alternative 1:

Choosing not having a job. Consequences:

Positive: More free time
Negetive: Either have to die of lack of food or turn to crime.

[b]Alternative 2:

Choosing to have a job. Consequences:

Positive: Able to buy things you want and need
Negetive: Less free time

--------

And even if Marx was an economist, he is still not an practical organizer.

Equally, choosing not to give your money to a man with a gun. Consequences:

Postive: Keep your cash.
Negative: Get shot.

Or, choosing to give the man with a gun your money.

Positive: Not shot.
Negative: No money.

You'll note that there is no fundamental differance, since both include threatening the well being of the moral agent in this situation.

Also, this does not address those unable to work nor those who are structurally unemployed because a labor market cannot support full employment.

MoP Frontdesk

ooc: re: Marx and philosophy, i reprint his Eulogy, read by his only friend, Engels:

On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep -- but for ever.

An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt.

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.


nuff said.

We are thrilled to become members of The Egalitarian Comission! It is hoped that through this organization, Lietuveska can help millions around the world, and help millions more prosper under the great doctrine of TEC.

OOC:

Don't you think it's a little rude to hijack someone's thread? I'm sure Feline would love to take your little debate somewhere else. :?

The United Socialist States of Resistencia (USSR) will be honored to become part of the TEC. It is clearly an organization that can be of help to the world as a whole. Even if some of the constitutional details aren't clear, those can always be smoothed out later. What is most important is that an organization like this is being planned and acted on. This shows that nations who are interested in helping the world can unite and form a strong alliance. Hopefull, all of the nations concerned can agree on the core points of the constitution.



United Socialist States of Resistencia

Welcome to the alliance.

And Seocc, we do have social welfare programs to protect people in situations where they are unemployed. However, it is rare in Feline. Like I said, I will repost (as soon as I can find it saved on my computer) a description of Feline's economic system.

bvmp

tag

Lietuveska is officially withdrawing from The Egalitarian Commission. We feel that it's inactivity has forced us to no longer claim membership.

Lietuveska will still be bound by UnAPS charter to help Feline when it is need, but we will only do so according to that charter and none else.

http://home.earthlink.net/~chipcomp/mfa.jpg

bump

Feline,

While we believe the goals and vision therein defined in the The Egalitarian Commission are lofty and worthwhile, Tarqysian culture dictates most of these 'laws' are inalienable and do not need to be protected by an agreement - however, we do see the validity in defining them.

Furthermore, we find TEC to be a bit pro-war as one stipulation is that members must defend other members if attacked. First: If we were all 'brothers/sisters,' wouldn't we acknowledge the same rights for all sentient beings - regardless if the nation is a member in TEC - and thus attempt not to wage war with them? Also, since you proclaim freedom of opinion, I would argue not defending another member based on this clause. Perhaps it shouldn't be so much of an alliance as a Universal Promise to strive to treat all nation's citizens with respect in a fashion of brotherhood/sisterhood.

However, we must stress that we do not criticize out of the sheer ability to do so. We genuinely want what we see as best for this Egalitarian doctrine. We are very proud to see that peace seems to be on many more nations' minds than merely the Tarqysian Government's.

Regards,

C Edward Adams
Director of Tarqys
Commonwealth of Tarqys

OOC: I did that to help bind the alliance together, or in a situation of genocide or something like that where we might want to send in a small peacekeeping force. But I made it very unlikely by requiring a 3/4 majority, and in 99% of cases I would vote against it.

You are probaly right about the requirement to defend- once we get a few more members, we can have a vote about taking that out.

The purpose of TEC is to encourage and actively (although not through war) promote the principles contained in the charter.


I would have done an IC response, but I had trouble coming up with one that gave you all this information and sounded right.