NationStates Jolt Archive

I wrote this when I first realised that by some miracle the Common Sense Act II was being voted on by the UN, but stopped myself from voting it, feeling that the act was bound to get sorted out anyway. Now that the act seems to be winning (How!?), I've decided to post it anyway, and see what happens. :roll:

First and foremost I must say that I agree, in part, with what the act is trying to achieve. There are an appalling number of what could only be considered as ridiculous cases that are taken to court and are generally just a waste of time and money.

However, what this act does is effectively legalises several things which should not be. The name itself 'idiotic negligence' (whilst not spelt correctly, I digress) is, whilst in jest, not really in line with it's definition. An example of this is number 3, "Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco." This puts the onus of ensuring goods are safe for human consumption in the hands of the consumer, not the company that produced them. Why is this a problem? Because the companies are no longer responsible, if they have mislabelled their product, it's not their fault; it's yours for assuming that what was 'on the tin' was correct, when you have no control over it.

Cigarette packets, for example, have things such as "SMOKING KILLS" written clearly on them; anyone who smokes is aware of what it does to them. Of course, they weren't when cigarettes first became common, but then cigarette manufacturers were forced to put warnings on cigarettes, because it is this that should transfer responsibility, not because no law exists to protect the consumer. This brings me back to my main problem with the resolution; it is removing rights from the consumer, to defend themselves in court. Under this new law, people who smoked cigarettes, unaware of the health problems that they would suffer from, would be classed as being "idiotically negligible". This, I find, to be frankly laughable, and the complete opposite of 'Common Sense'.

This lack of clarity in its terms is followed as the act itself does not even appear to properly match its definition (and thus it's actual effect on a nation). Being set to significantly "improve worldwide human and civil rights." How is this going to be achieved? By removing their rights to defend themselves in court? All this under the banner of common sense.

In closing, it's resolutions like this that made me leave the UN, I saw this resolution when it was still a proposition, to its credit it was probably one of the better ones that were available. Others seemed to have managed to write their proposition whilst bypassing their brain. For this reason, I'm tempted to bring up the suggestion that was made a while ago for allowing delegates to both vote for and against UN propositions.

Rant over, thank you. ;)

*bump*

At this time, as Altum as stated earlier we do not agree with this resolution. We feel it is ill written, and is going at this type of ethical law completely wrong. We urge all United Nations members to vote against it.

Steven,
President of Altum

I wrote this when I first realised that by some miracle the Common Sense Act II was being voted on by the UN, but stopped myself from voting it, feeling that the act was bound to get sorted out anyway. Now that the act seems to be winning (How!?), I've decided to post it anyway, and see what happens. :roll:

First and foremost I must say that I agree, in part, with what the act is trying to achieve. There are an appalling number of what could only be considered as ridiculous cases that are taken to court and are generally just a waste of time and money.

However, what this act does is effectively legalises several things which should not be. The name itself 'idiotic negligence' (whilst not spelt correctly, I digress) is, whilst in jest, not really in line with it's definition. An example of this is number 3, "Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco." This puts the onus of ensuring goods are safe for human consumption in the hands of the consumer, not the company that produced them. Why is this a problem? Because the companies are no longer responsible, if they have mislabelled their product, it's not their fault; it's yours for assuming that what was 'on the tin' was correct, when you have no control over it.

Cigarette packets, for example, have things such as "SMOKING KILLS" written clearly on them; anyone who smokes is aware of what it does to them. Of course, they weren't when cigarettes first became common, but then cigarette manufacturers were forced to put warnings on cigarettes, because it is this that should transfer responsibility, not because no law exists to protect the consumer. This brings me back to my main problem with the resolution; it is removing rights from the consumer, to defend themselves in court. Under this new law, people who smoked cigarettes, unaware of the health problems that they would suffer from, would be classed as being "idiotically negligible". This, I find, to be frankly laughable, and the complete opposite of 'Common Sense'.

This lack of clarity in its terms is followed as the act itself does not even appear to properly match its definition (and thus it's actual effect on a nation). Being set to significantly "improve worldwide human and civil rights." How is this going to be achieved? By removing their rights to defend themselves in court? All this under the banner of common sense.

In closing, it's resolutions like this that made me leave the UN, I saw this resolution when it was still a proposition, to its credit it was probably one of the better ones that were available. Others seemed to have managed to write their proposition whilst bypassing their brain. For this reason, I'm tempted to bring up the suggestion that was made a while ago for allowing delegates to both vote for and against UN propositions.

Rant over, thank you. ;)

:!: With your rant now being over, I must point out that in fact the words "idiotic" and "negligence" are both spelled correctly indeed. :!:

"Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:"

Both the correct and incorrect spelling are used within the resolution's text, though initially I quoted the mispelt version, Word must have picked it up in a spellcheck without me realising.

If the only problem with the above rant is spelling something correctly, then I've not done too bad, thanks. :)

"Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:"

Both the correct and incorrect spelling are used within the resolution's text, though initially I quoted the mispelt version, Word must have picked it up in a spellcheck without me realising.

If the only problem with the above rant is spelling something correctly, then I've not done too bad, thanks. :)

"For Cato and his little Senate laws,
as he sits attentive to his own applause."

You could implement a "reasonable person standardard" that would limit negligence to what a reasonable person would agree.

At first, our government agreed with this proposal. But then we thought about it, and realized that it is not something that the UN should even be voting on. This is a NATIONAL issue, not an INTERNATIONAL one. The UN cannot dictate policy at the national level, nor should it. That is up to the national governments.

As for Gelin's concerns, they are also valid. While people should be responsible for their own safety, they should also be given information that will help them decide whether or not their safety is in danger. This resolution takes it out of the companies' hands as far as giving this information is concerned.

This is truly a poor resolution, and Sparkinia is debating whether or not to issue a counter-proposal calling for its repeal (provided the resolution is passed, which seems likely).

Sincerely,
The President of the Republic of Sparkinia

This resolution isn't worth the toilet paper on which it is written.

You could implement a "reasonable person standardard" that would limit negligence to what a reasonable person would agree.

See Gelin, even the Oppressed Possums can spell negligence correctly. You must be from outside the continental U.S. to have other spellings than us here in the U.S. I even noticed the "s" instead of the "z" in many words. (That is understandable though, for they are spelled differently elsewhere)

:D http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neglegence

You could implement a "reasonable person standardard" that would limit negligence to what a reasonable person would agree.

See Gelin, even the Oppressed Possums can spell negligence correctly. You must be from outside the continental U.S. to have other spellings than us here in the U.S. I even noticed the "s" instead of the "z" in many words. (That is understandable though, for they are spelled differently elsewhere)

The United States of Oppressed Possums will spell words however we see fit.

You could implement a "reasonable person standardard" that would limit negligence to what a reasonable person would agree.

See Gelin, even the Oppressed Possums can spell negligence correctly. You must be from outside the continental U.S. to have other spellings than us here in the U.S. I even noticed the "s" instead of the "z" in many words. (That is understandable though, for they are spelled differently elsewhere)

The United States of Oppressed Possums will spell words however we see fit.
I'm glad you see it fit to spell correctly, or not spell incorrectly.......whichever you see fit. :!:

No matter what you do, some companies are willing to hurt people. They estimate how much money they will lose from lawsuits and injuries from their products.

It must be that way. If you intentionally create something harmful that is not supposed to be THAT harmful, then you be accountable.

The Grand Duchy of Chars Neo Zeon has agreed to support the reappeal.

The People of Apleisiastaclesia wish that the Tobacco industry be removed from this bill. We still want someone to blame when everything goes horribly wrong.

If that change is made, you will have our support.

But I make billions of dollars a year off tobacco. How about alcohol instead. Its not as large an industry as tobacco.

Here's an idea for a resolution:
---PENALTY FOR LOST LAWSUITS---
WHEREAS the resolution "Common Sense Act II" was, in principle a good idea, and
WHEREAS it has major flaws in that it is too specific for general application, and
WHEREAS there are ways of cutting down the number of lawsuits besides banning them, be it
RESOLVED that the proposal "Common Sense Act II" is hereby repealed, and be it further
RESOLVED that the plaintiff in a lawsuit that is dismissed by the presiding judge must pay all legal expenses that the defendant incurred due to the lawsuit.
---------------
Of course, you may want to change it. I would post this resolution myself, but I only have one endorsement. This would successfully cut down the number of "idiotic negligence" lawsuits, while at the same time avoiding the definition of the term. What do you think :?:

This is a pointless proposal. Why do we feel we must go and do this. People will get hurt either way, and they will want money if they get hurt from something that isn't their fault, even if it is stupid on there part. I find it disturbing we even have to make such a proposal.

It appears that no matter how many seething rants are posted at this late stage (and I will admit, I'm a bit ranted-out at this point) that the resolution will pass.

There have been some indications for a rearguard action to occur in this case. We can only hope that it will be more effective than the reams of verbal outrage that have failed to stop the member states from accepting this drivel.

Once again, though, we here in Stakanovia would like to see a tightening of the process that allows propositions to go to a vote of the General Assembly.

Proposals should be clearly articulated: the ongoing defence of "you know what I mean", etc, is completely unacceptable and does nothing more than reflect the initial proposer’s personal bee-in-bonnet approach. Unfortunately this whimsical approach seems to appeal to the humour of many nation states. Stakanovia, itself, voiced some support for such a proposal in general discussion, but was appalled by the thoughtlessness of the ensuing motion.

Proposals need more endorsements and amendments at the pre-vote stage to ensure a more balanced and thought out motion later.

Proposals should have to achieve 2/3 of all votes cast to pass, not a mere simple majority.

Peoples Commissar
Internal Security and Foreign Affairs Department
CPOWSOS
(Central Politburo of Workers Soviets of Stakanovia)

The Resolution has no merit as written.

It would take a court case to determine if Idiotic neglegence (sic) is indeed present, automatically doubling the case load of national court systems.

If not, legal precedent has been thrown out the window as an autocrat would determine what cases may be taken to court. Not only does this defy the spirit of jurors prudence, it virtually invites corruption as businesses or others of means co-opt the autocrat or pre-court court in an attempt to avoid legal expenses and/or blame.

The tax burden, therefore, increases significantly. The jobs of judges and juries is complicated to the point of grid-lock or are made pointless. Common sense is relegated to automatic, knee-jerk legislation instead of thoughtful deliberation, destroying the role of the judical system at the expense of the administrative system (in countries that have seperate systems).

The issue of tobacco has been brought up; our research centers have shown that many people take up smoking when still classified as children (i.e. not adults). Usually emulating media stars and/or as acts of rebellion against authority. Once hooked it is almost impossible to stop using tobacco, even as the person ages and becomes an adult. A child cannot be held responsible for what is a relatively innocuous action (rebellion) and therefore condemned as a neglegent idiot (and therefore made part of an official underclass that does not enjoy the legal rights of the majority).

This is not serene, is not sensical, and is indefensible. The Judicial Forum of Berhampore rejects this measure out of hand and would like to see anyone try to defend it. Go on, we dare ya

One Hand O’Brian
Head Tiger Handler
Ultronic Megazoid of Berhampore

Will the Common Sense Act II bring ruin to the global economy because of the citizens' idocy? The government shouldn't have to tolerate stupid behavoiur!

I vote against 50% of the resolutions, but not this one. This Common Sense Act II is fine and I fully support it.
Cotswold Morris will vote against the repeal of it though. This is a certainty.

The republic of WNA's position has already been stated and will not be changed

We think it is an idiotic piece of Legislation taking the judgement of what is frivolous and what isn't out of the hands of the courts and into the hands of this act.

IF the resolution is passed and no others are forthcoming WNA will submit a proposal to repeal this piece of overbearing legislation.

Darren Maskell
UN Ambassador for the Republic of WNA

I cant belive that this "travisty" will get voted through. I think that this should defintely be repealed and amended.

This is all blah blah blah. We would all really suck at this government thing were we all real government officials. We're all too serious. You need sex and mysteries, and murder more often than pure honesty to fit in you know. :twisted:

Will the Common Sense Act II bring ruin to the global economy because of the citizens' idocy? The government shouldn't have to tolerate stupid behavoiur!

The All Behampore Citizen's Judical Oversight Committe (ABCJO), the Patriotic Behampore Vetran of Furen Wars (PBVFW) and the Saber Sharpener's Union (SSU) all want to know who will decide what is idiotic, neglegent behavior? One of them? Do they get to pick who decides? Is this an elected post each UN nation must provide in their nations? Is it selected? Who selects and how? What oversight does this post have?

Of course, some behavior is obviously dangers and to bring such action up as a case against an otherwise innocent party is wrong - and should be dealt with in nuesiance lawsuite laws after the original case is thrown out.

What if a manufacturor decides a minor defect, that would only cause failure in rare cases but is otherwise expensive to fix, can be better dealt with by calling cases against it idiocy?

This act also seems to put all drug users (tobacco, alcohol, even medications) into a second class citizen status of negligent idiot. Anyone trusting anyone else to distrubute a substance not natural to the Human body is potientially acting in an idiotic manner. Users are therefore negligent idiots whether harm comes to them or not, but under this act have no recourse in the legal system of any UN nation.

Unless you are abandoning, or never had, democracy or a history of a free judicary, this mandate is destructive to democratic ideals.

One Hand O'Brian
Head Tiger Handler
Ultronic Megazoid of Behampore

Will the Common Sense Act II bring ruin to the global economy because of the citizens' idocy? The government shouldn't have to tolerate stupid behavoiur!

The All Behampore Citizen's Judical Oversight Committe (ABCJO), the Patriotic Behampore Vetran of Furen Wars (PBVFW) and the Saber Sharpener's Union (SSU) all want to know who will decide what is idiotic, neglegent behavior? One of them? Do they get to pick who decides? Is this an elected post each UN nation must provide in their nations? Is it selected? Who selects and how? What oversight does this post have?

Of course, some behavior is obviously dangers and to bring such action up as a case against an otherwise innocent party is wrong - and should be dealt with in nuesiance lawsuite laws after the original case is thrown out.

What if a manufacturor decides a minor defect, that would only cause failure in rare cases but is otherwise expensive to fix, can be better dealt with by calling cases against it idiocy?

This act also seems to put all drug users (tobacco, alcohol, even medications) into a second class citizen status of negligent idiot. Anyone trusting anyone else to distrubute a substance not natural to the Human body is potientially acting in an idiotic manner. Users are therefore negligent idiots whether harm comes to them or not, but under this act have no recourse in the legal system of any UN nation.

Unless you are abandoning, or never had, democracy or a history of a free judicary, this mandate is destructive to democratic ideals.

One Hand O'Brian
Head Tiger Handler
Ultronic Megazoid of Behampore

I vote against 50% of the resolutions, but not this one. This Common Sense Act II is fine and I fully support it.
Cotswold Morris will vote against the repeal of it though. This is a certainty.

Why support it?

There are lots of reasons not to support it but I don't see one reason TO support it.

It is simplistic and idiotic. By it's own standard it should be thrown out. Hey, there you go. Just declare this legislation a piece of idiotic negligence and have it nullified.

One Hand O'Brian
Head Tiger Hander
Ultronic Megazod of Behampore