NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, please support my proposal, "The Cato Acts". These acts will curtail the arbitrary power of oppressive government and help to improve the lives and liberties of us all. I thank you for your consideration.


Description: Reaffrming our undying commitment to liberty, be it resolved by this honorable United Nations that the following measures shall be passed in all member nations:

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.
Article II- That in all legal matters, the prosecutor or plantiff shall carry the burden of proof, and all accused persons shall enjoy a presumption of innocence.
Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot).
Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs.
Article V- That all persons shall have the right to petition the government and assemble nonviolently.
Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion.
Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will, nor be forced into involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime for which the said individual shall have been duly convicted.
Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.
Article IX- That inventors shall be entitled to protection from international patents for a period of no less than eighteen months from the time of invention.
Article X- That government shall neither abridge nor expand the rights or responsibilities of any citizen on account of "race".

All legislation in conflict with these acts are hereby null and void.

These acts named in greatest honor of Marcus Portius Cato the Younger (95-46 BC), who died valiantly trying to protect the Republic from the yoke of Caesar.

I will support this proposal.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Thank you.

Upon reviewing this proposal the High Council of Nevermoore either fell over in hysterical laughter or began to profusely vomit. This proposal should NEVER reach UN-wide vote. If this passed the entire government of Nevermoore would be disbanded and anarchy would break out, not that we would abide by it anyway.

Besides, who are YOU to suggest our form of governance is inferior to this pathetic "democracy"? What about Nevermoore's rights as a sovereign nation? What about our rights to make decisions for OUR country? The UN was never meant to have this kind of power over its members! You cannot decide their entire form of government!

Nevermoore's Slightly PO'ed Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

Just as I would rather be a free man in my country than a slave under the UN, I would rather be a free man under the UN than a slave in my country

To reprhase: a nation is a free association of individuals. Only rights are sovereign. A nation exists to protect the inalienable rights of the individual. Once it no longer does this, it loses its sovereignity.

Our noble people are wealthy and powerful, they are not "slaves" as you imply. They are not burdened by the weight of politics, which they have little knowledge about. The High Council makes the political decisions here and we are quite pleased with our way of life.

Our will is our own; your ideals about what a government should be mean NOTHING to us. The UN will never steal away our way of life!

Nevermoore's Lovely and Gracious Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

Again quoting the lovely and omnicient Stephistan: "According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."

If this proposal fits any of the four criteria, it simultaneously contradicts others. If the UN passes this proposal, then by alienating non-democratic states we have failed to maintain international peace and security, instead sowing seeds of resentment. In rejecting as a matter of policy non-democratic means of government we have failed to develop friendly relations among nations as surely as we have failed to become a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. And, once again, we will have passed a resolution that looks, smells, and tastes like law to all who are forced to swallow it.

As spokesman for the great land of Idumea, I stand firmly against the passage of this resolution, not because of its politics, which we stand in favor of, but because it presumes to elevate one political system over all others. This, we believe, can lead only to more divisions in a world already far too divided.

8)

It has this delegate's support, although...

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.

...we would have preferred a broader definition of franchise than "taxpaying citizens"

It has this delegate's support, although...

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.

...we would have preferred a broader definition of franchise than "taxpaying citizens"

Article I is an "at least" article. It says that all taxpayers should be franchised. However, it does not say that other citizens should not be franchised. This resolution merely requires you to franchise taxpaying citizens. Of course you can franchise other citizens too, just its voluntary.

Again quoting the lovely and omnicient Stephistan: "According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws."

If this proposal fits any of the four criteria, it simultaneously contradicts others. If the UN passes this proposal, then by alienating non-democratic states we have failed to maintain international peace and security, instead sowing seeds of resentment. In rejecting as a matter of policy non-democratic means of government we have failed to develop friendly relations among nations as surely as we have failed to become a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. And, once again, we will have passed a resolution that looks, smells, and tastes like law to all who are forced to swallow it.

As spokesman for the great land of Idumea, I stand firmly against the passage of this resolution, not because of its politics, which we stand in favor of, but because it presumes to elevate one political system over all others. This, we believe, can lead only to more divisions in a world already far too divided.

8)

Actually the NSUN is very different from the real UN. Read the FAQ. It's a legislative body. And the UN can also pass laws on gambling, drugs, and guns. It's clearly more of a world congress than a united nations.

I have decided not to support this proposal. It would severly compromise the my power as the Kaizer of Aviea.

Article I is an "at least" article. It says that all taxpayers should be franchised. However, it does not say that other citizens should not be franchised. This resolution merely requires you to franchise taxpaying citizens. Of course you can franchise other citizens too, just its voluntary.

perfectly true. we would still have preferred a wider definition, if only to wind up the conservatives :lol:

I have decided not to support this proposal. It would severly compromise the my power as the Kaizer of Aviea.

That's the whole point.

Article I is an "at least" article. It says that all taxpayers should be franchised. However, it does not say that other citizens should not be franchised. This resolution merely requires you to franchise taxpaying citizens. Of course you can franchise other citizens too, just its voluntary.

perfectly true. we would still have preferred a wider definition, if only to wind up the conservatives :lol:

Usually The Global Market is one of the conservatives...

Article I is an "at least" article. It says that all taxpayers should be franchised. However, it does not say that other citizens should not be franchised. This resolution merely requires you to franchise taxpaying citizens. Of course you can franchise other citizens too, just its voluntary.

perfectly true. we would still have preferred a wider definition, if only to wind up the conservatives :lol:

Usually The Global Market is one of the conservatives...

Not conservative, not anarchist, LIBERTARIAN

That's the whole point.

It's a bad idea. In order for a government to work well, it needs to have single leader, who has absolute power. The less power the leader has, the more bloated and inneficient the government becomes.

That's the whole point.

It's a bad idea. In order for a government to work well, it needs to have single leader, who has absolute power. The less power the leader has, the more bloated and inneficient the government becomes.

If that's what you think, then why are you in the UN?

That's the whole point.

It's a bad idea. In order for a government to work well, it needs to have single leader, who has absolute power. The less power the leader has, the more bloated and inneficient the government becomes.

If that's what you think, then why are you in the UN?

I'm in the UN so I can exercise infleunce over world events, further the Avian Empire's influence, and try to strike down proposals such as this.

That's the whole point.

It's a bad idea. In order for a government to work well, it needs to have single leader, who has absolute power. The less power the leader has, the more bloated and inneficient the government becomes.

I know what you're thinking... Mussolini was a dictator, but at least he made the trains run on time.

Those trains were used to carry innocent Jews to death camps.

Inefficient government is caused by being big. Make government small. Then it becomes very efficient, and it can't do much. Which is good.

An observation on reading the resolution.

"Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs.

Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion."

Pursuant to Article IV - This would require States to allow any and all political or religious beliefs to exist and be practiced no matter how far fectched, extreme and/or dangerous they may be.

Pursuant to Article VI - As above, this gives 'protected status' to anything any nutball can claim to be their religious beliefs, up to and including live sacrifice.
These two articles give the near perfect 'out' to almost any criminal or terorist act by claiming it's part of their political or religious beliefs, therefor protected form prosecution.
Both articles should be ammended or struck, striking being prefered by this observer.

Hi,
I don't want to go along with this proposal for my nation, The Queendom of Slowpokes.
Signed ...Their Loyal Leader
:?

An observation on reading the resolution.

"Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs.

Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion."

Pursuant to Article IV - This would require States to allow any and all political or religious beliefs to exist and be practiced no matter how far fectched, extreme and/or dangerous they may be.

Pursuant to Article VI - As above, this gives 'protected status' to anything any nutball can claim to be their religious beliefs, up to and including live sacrifice.
These two articles give the near perfect 'out' to almost any criminal or terorist act by claiming it's part of their political or religious beliefs, therefor protected form prosecution.
Both articles should be ammended or struck, striking being prefered by this observer.

I have considered this very long and hard, but the point is that if you practice human sacrifice, the government can prosecute you, FOR MURDER, NOT FOR YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

If you are a terrorist and you kill in the name of Allah, and you are brought to trial, you are on trial for your ACTIONS, not your BELIEFS.

These articles protect only BELIEFS, not ACTIONS.

Pursuant to Article VI - As above, this gives 'protected status' to anything any nutball can claim to be their religious beliefs, up to and including live sacrifice.
These two articles give the near perfect 'out' to almost any criminal or terorist act by claiming it's part of their political or religious beliefs, therefor protected form prosecution.

The proposal says "directly endorse or censure". This means that they could still be prosecuted for other criminal law violations such as murder.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Pursuant to Article VI - As above, this gives 'protected status' to anything any nutball can claim to be their religious beliefs, up to and including live sacrifice.
These two articles give the near perfect 'out' to almost any criminal or terorist act by claiming it's part of their political or religious beliefs, therefor protected form prosecution.

The proposal says "directly endorse or censure". This means that they could still be prosecuted for other criminal law violations such as murder.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

That's why I put 'directly' in there.

That's the whole point.

It's a bad idea. In order for a government to work well, it needs to have single leader, who has absolute power. The less power the leader has, the more bloated and inneficient the government becomes.

I know what you're thinking... Mussolini was a dictator, but at least he made the trains run on time.

Those trains were used to carry innocent Jews to death camps.

Inefficient government is caused by being big. Make government small. Then it becomes very efficient, and it can't do much. Which is good.

Actually, if you had studied your history more carefully, you would have learned that fascist Italy did not send it's jews to concentration camps. True, Mussulinni did pass a few laws against the jews, but nothing on the "Aschwitz" scale. The only time that jews in italy were sent to camps was after mussolini was deposed (1942 or '43, I think), and the germans had overrun part of italy. Also, several of the early fascist leaders in italy were jewish.

Also, a dictatorship is a "small" government, in the sense that it is very streamlined, and with one person in charge, it's very easy to get things done. Just take a look at the stats of some of the totalitarian and democratic governments here at nationstates. The Totalitarian governments are often in better shape.

That's the whole point.

It's a bad idea. In order for a government to work well, it needs to have single leader, who has absolute power. The less power the leader has, the more bloated and inneficient the government becomes.

I know what you're thinking... Mussolini was a dictator, but at least he made the trains run on time.

Those trains were used to carry innocent Jews to death camps.

Inefficient government is caused by being big. Make government small. Then it becomes very efficient, and it can't do much. Which is good.

Actually, if you had studied your history more carefully, you would have learned that fascist Italy did not send it's jews to concentration camps. True, Mussulinni did pass a few laws against the jews, but nothing on the "Aschwitz" scale. The only time that jews in italy were sent to camps was after mussolini was deposed (1942 or '43, I think), and the germans had overrun part of italy. Also, several of the early fascist leaders in italy were jewish.

Also, a dictatorship is a "small" government, in the sense that it is very streamlined, and with one person in charge, it's very easy to get things done. Just take a look at the stats of some of the totalitarian and democratic governments here at nationstates. The Totalitarian governments are often in better shape.

[ooc: Lord Evif is going to get very confused if we keep talking OOC.]

That's the whole point.

It's a bad idea. In order for a government to work well, it needs to have single leader, who has absolute power. The less power the leader has, the more bloated and inneficient the government becomes.

I know what you're thinking... Mussolini was a dictator, but at least he made the trains run on time.

Those trains were used to carry innocent Jews to death camps.

Inefficient government is caused by being big. Make government small. Then it becomes very efficient, and it can't do much. Which is good.

Actually, if you had studied your history more carefully, you would have learned that fascist Italy did not send it's jews to concentration camps. True, Mussulinni did pass a few laws against the jews, but nothing on the "Aschwitz" scale. The only time that jews in italy were sent to camps was after mussolini was deposed (1942 or '43, I think), and the germans had overrun part of italy. Also, several of the early fascist leaders in italy were jewish.

Also, a dictatorship is a "small" government, in the sense that it is very streamlined, and with one person in charge, it's very easy to get things done. Just take a look at the stats of some of the totalitarian and democratic governments here at nationstates. The Totalitarian governments are often in better shape.

I KNOW ITALY DIDNT DEPORT ANY JEWS UNTIL 1942/43, THE WHOLE THING IS METAPHORICAL. "The trains running on time" is metaphorical too. And on nationstates I run a very democratic nation. I have *possibly* the highest aggregate freedom rating in the game. And my country's doing a lot better than yours.

from The Global Market's profile

The Commonwealth of The Global Market is a huge, socially progressive nation, renowned for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 994 million enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

I rest my case.

The Commonwealth of The Global Market is a huge, socially progressive nation, notable for its barren, inhospitable landscape. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 994 million enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

The Empire of Aviea is a large, economically powerful nation, remarkable for its compulsory military service. Its compassionate, hard-working, cynical population of 23 million are ruled with an iron fist by the corrupt, dictatorship government, which oppresses anyone who isn't on the board of a Fortune 500 company. Large corporations tend to be above the law, and use their financial clout to gain ever-increasing government benefits at the expense of the poor and unemployed.

The Republic of Goobergunchia is a huge, socially progressive nation, renowned for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate population of 655 million enjoy extensive civil rights and enjoy a level social equality free of the usual accompanying government corruption.

from The Global Market's profile

The Commonwealth of The Global Market is a huge, socially progressive nation, renowned for its absence of drug laws. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 994 million enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.

I rest my case.

And of course: "Its compassionate, hard-working, cynical population of 23 million are ruled with an iron fist by the corrupt, dictatorship government, which oppresses anyone who isn't on the board of a Fortune 500 company. Large corporations tend to be above the law, and use their financial clout to gain ever-increasing government benefits at the expense of the poor and unemployed."

From your profile

NO COUNTRY CAN BE JUDGED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ITS DESCRIPTION BECAUSE THAT PARAGRAPH IS THE SAME FOR ALL COUNTRIES IN ITS CLASS.

Like ALL anarchy countries say that they are ruled by biker gangs, evfen though some of them have abolished bikes on major roads.'

To judge you have to use the second two paragraphs and the statistics.

The Republic of Goobergunchia is a huge, socially progressive nation, renowned for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate population of 655 million enjoy extensive civil rights and enjoy a level social equality free of the usual accompanying government corruption.

To judge you have to use the second two paragraphs and the statistics.

The Global Market
Civil Rights: Frightening Economy: Frightening Political Freedoms: Excellent

Aviea
Civil Rights: Rare Economy: Powerhouse Political Freedoms: Outlawed

Goobergunchia
Civil Rights: Excellent Economy: Good Political Freedoms: Average

My point is, what right do you have to try to force other nations to comply with your "glorius ideals" when a large part of your population is starving to death?

The Republic of Goobergunchia is a huge, socially progressive nation, renowned for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate population of 655 million enjoy extensive civil rights and enjoy a level social equality free of the usual accompanying government corruption.

I never said that Goobergunchia's perfect...

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Could we get back on topic here?

How can the citizens of The Global Market enjoy all of thier rights, when the majority of them are too busy starving to death?

Majority? Where does it say majority? It just says "unemployed or working class"... which is what? 15% of the population in the US and like 10% in Hong Kong, the most capitalist country on Earth?

Could we get back on topic here?

No the noob Aviea wants to complain about nation profiles.

And I have a better motto than you, so there :lol:

forget it. There are always loopholes to these kind of things, and I can also put fourth resolutions of my own.

forget it. There are always loopholes to these kind of things, and I can also put fourth resolutions of my own.

You have three resolutions already? :twisted:

forget it. There are always loopholes to these kind of things, and I can also put fourth resolutions of my own.

You have three resolutions already? :twisted:

Who?

forget it. There are always loopholes to these kind of things, and I can also put fourth resolutions of my own.

You have three resolutions already? :twisted:

Who?
it was a pun dude- aveia said put fourth ( 4 th) resolutions so goovergunchia made the three resolutions gag.

forget it. There are always loopholes to these kind of things, and I can also put fourth resolutions of my own.

You have three resolutions already? :twisted:

Who?
it was a pun dude- aveia said put fourth ( 4 th) resolutions so goovergunchia made the three resolutions gag.

Oooooooooo, I thought he meant me... cause if my twin resolutions pass then I would have passed 3 resolutions.

Actually the NSUN is very different from the real UN. Read the FAQ. It's a legislative body. And the UN can also pass laws on gambling, drugs, and guns. It's clearly more of a world congress than a united nations.

Thank you for the tip, (although a bit patronizing it could conceivably have been helpful) but of course we have read the FAQ document. We have also read the UN Mandate document. It occurs to us that the NSUN is what we make it; just because nations like Global seem to like the imposition of laws on other NS that make other NS more like Global, and just because one sentence in a FAQ document says that the NSUN is the world's governing body, it does not mean that this is the appropriate manner in which to run the NSUN. It remains our position that the NSUN should not pass laws on gambling, drugs, guns, etc.. The NSUN should not be in the business of making everyone look the same. It should be in the business of embracing differences and promoting peace; in the business, in short, of upholding the UN mandate. Like it or not, that's our position, and we will instruct our delegates to loudly and consistently argue against proposals like this one that move the NSUN in what we believe to be a wrongheaded and dangerous direction.

8)

are you tyring to legalize slavery? "except for a crime he has been duly convicted for" ,indeed!

are you tyring to legalize slavery? "except for a crime he has been duly convicted for" ,indeed!

No I support forced labor for convicts.

The US Constitution's 13th amendment abolishes "slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"

BUMP

are you tyring to legalize slavery? "except for a crime he has been duly convicted for" ,indeed!

No I support forced labor for convicts.

The US Constitution's 13th amendment abolishes "slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"

The country could just make it illegal to be any other race than caucasian.

I recall that I endorsed one of TGM's proposal today but not "the Bill of no Rights". I believe therefore, that this is the one that I endorsed.

are you tyring to legalize slavery? "except for a crime he has been duly convicted for" ,indeed!

No I support forced labor for convicts.

The US Constitution's 13th amendment abolishes "slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"

The country could just make it illegal to be any other race than caucasian.

Read Article X :).

I recall that I endorsed one of TGM's proposal today but not "the Bill of no Rights". I believe therefore, that this is the one that I endorsed.

Yeah it is.

Just a note, thanks for the issue, we can certainly discuss it here in this forum, but According to the Charterof the UN of the Planet EARTH ithas four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations and I think that in NATIONSTATES your proposal is just too limiting...But this a good place to discuss it

new in, delagate power wanted, need back up

Just a note, thanks for the issue, we can certainly discuss it here in this forum, but According to the Charterof the UN of the Planet EARTH ithas four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations and I think that in NATIONSTATES your proposal is just too limiting...But this a good place to discuss it

Well the Nationstates UN is different. It's a legislative body.

Just a note, thanks for the issue, we can certainly discuss it here in this forum, but According to the Charterof the UN of the Planet EARTH ithas four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations and I think that in NATIONSTATES your proposal is just too limiting...But this a good place to discuss it

What Planet EARTH?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: Keep it IC, folks...the NS UN is not the RL UN.]

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

Anacanapuna will not vote until this ambiguous clause is defined.

Anacanapuna would also would like this clause added.

The enumeration in this document, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

Anacanapuna will not vote until this ambiguous clause is defined.

I think it's fairly straightforward. If you want to leave a country, you can. But a country doesn't have to let you enter it.

Lord Goobergunch, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

We will not support this proposal. If it passes, we will leave the UN. Our government is almost fully integrated to our church. You can't take that from us.

new in, delagate power wanted, need back up

You have to work at it to acquire Delegate status.

I founded my region the fourth of July, and despite my efforts to I became delegate only yesterday.

Bananpple became delegate almost immediately, and as I had no intention of unendorsing her she held it.

Finally she stopped playing, I withdrew my endorsement and recieved two more, and well, there you go.

Basically it usually takes patience and dedication to become delegate.

PS: This should have gone on a new thread.

Should we go back on topic now?

BUMP. 20 Hours and 30 more approvals to go.

BUMP. 20 Hours and 30 more approvals to go.Well, I just hope this doesn't pass.

BUMP. 20 Hours and 30 more approvals to go.Well, I just hope this doesn't pass.

Any reason for this?

BUMP. 20 Hours and 30 more approvals to go.Well, I just hope this doesn't pass.

Any reason for this?Raysia's church is bonded symbiotically (sp) with the Government. If we are not allowed to mix church and state, and the Government is not allowed to favor a religion... then we have nothing. We will be forced to leave the UN if this passes.

You can't prove (or disprove) that God exists scientifically. Therefore, you should always take the null claim (that God doesn't exist) on face.

A logical government rules as if God does not exist.

You can't prove (or disprove) that God exists scientifically. Therefore, you should always take the null claim (that God doesn't exist) on face.

A logical government rules as if God does not exist.Well, who is the UN to decide one's beleifs?

You can't prove (or disprove) that God exists scientifically. Therefore, you should always take the null claim (that God doesn't exist) on face.

A logical government rules as if God does not exist.Well, who is the UN to decide one's beleifs?

The UN (and government in general) should operate on the presumption that there is no God.

I support this proposal.

You can't prove (or disprove) that God exists scientifically. Therefore, you should always take the null claim (that God doesn't exist) on face.

A logical government rules as if God does not exist.Well, who is the UN to decide one's beleifs?

The UN (and government in general) should operate on the presumption that there is no God.I oppose this and now I am taking action:

UN Constitution Proposal Brainstorm. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73411)

You can't prove (or disprove) that God exists scientifically. Therefore, you should always take the null claim (that God doesn't exist) on face.

A logical government rules as if God does not exist.Well, who is the UN to decide one's beleifs?

The UN (and government in general) should operate on the presumption that there is no God.but we are a THEOCRACY. That means God leads our country... why would you guys even let us into the UN if you were just going to force us to change our title and entire way of government?

Delegates, please support my proposal, "The Cato Acts". These acts will curtail the arbitrary power of oppressive government and help to improve the lives and liberties of us all. I thank you for your consideration.


Description: Reaffrming our undying commitment to liberty, be it resolved by this honorable United Nations that the following measures shall be passed in all member nations:

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.
Article II- That in all legal matters, the prosecutor or plantiff shall carry the burden of proof, and all accused persons shall enjoy a presumption of innocence.
Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot).
Article IV- That no person shall be censored, sued, or prosecuted for his political or religious beliefs.
Article V- That all persons shall have the right to petition the government and assemble nonviolently.
Article VI- That government shall neither directly endorse nor censure any religion.
Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will, nor be forced into involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime for which the said individual shall have been duly convicted.
Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.
Article IX- That inventors shall be entitled to protection from international patents for a period of no less than eighteen months from the time of invention.
Article X- That government shall neither abridge nor expand the rights or responsibilities of any citizen on account of "race".

All legislation in conflict with these acts are hereby null and void.

These acts named in greatest honor of Marcus Portius Cato the Younger (95-46 BC), who died valiantly trying to protect the Republic from the yoke of Caesar.

I'm uneasy with the "clear and imminent danger" bit of Article III as it, even with the brief explanation, seems to general and open to interpretation. A government official can easily claim any little thing as being a "danger" to the state, as commony happens in totalitarian regimes.

I also disagree with Article IX entirely, as patents are nothing more than a system created to ensure their owners a temporary government enforced monopoly. As a libertarian, I believe that government should be *completely* removed from the economic process...statist corporate welfare and statist corporate protection should be stopped, even if they are only temporary, as they are both contrary to the process of FREE enterprise. Patents are simply a form of corporate welfare in disguise, allowing companies and private individuals to invoke the force of government to limit the free enterprise of other individuals and of the overall economic system. It is especially disheartening that a fellow libertarian could suggest or support such a thing; sacrificing freedom even for economic gain is un-libertarian and frankly way too republican.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

You can't prove (or disprove) that God exists scientifically. Therefore, you should always take the null claim (that God doesn't exist) on face.

A logical government rules as if God does not exist.Well, who is the UN to decide one's beleifs?

The UN (and government in general) should operate on the presumption that there is no God.

Incorrect, as that would be government endorsement of a religion, mainly atheism (atheism makes an unprovable assumption about the nature of god/gods and is therefore a religion), which is contrary to your own articles (mainly #6). :wink:

The proper position is to take no position at all. It isn't any of the government's business what I think or don't think about God.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

Incorrect, as that would be government endorsement of a religion, mainly atheism (atheism makes an unprovable assumption about the nature of god/gods and is therefore a religion), which is contrary to your own articles (mainly #6). :wink:

The proper position is to take no position at all. It isn't any of the government's business what I think or don't think about God.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies
Incorrect, as that would mean that atheism is theism. Atheism means "no god(s)" and is the lack of a religion. Atheism generally means one believes in facts as opposed to faith, and so how does a government operate with neither facts nor faith?

Incorrect, as that would be government endorsement of a religion, mainly atheism (atheism makes an unprovable assumption about the nature of god/gods and is therefore a religion), which is contrary to your own articles (mainly #6). :wink:

The proper position is to take no position at all. It isn't any of the government's business what I think or don't think about God.


Incorrect, as that would mean that atheism is theism. Atheism means "no god(s)" and is the lack of a religion. Atheism generally means one believes in facts as opposed to faith, and so how does a government operate with neither facts nor faith?

The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that atheism is still an unprovable assumption (just because you cannot see it, does not mean it isn't there) that should not be forced on people, just like any theist religion is an unprovable assumption (just because you claim to see it, doesn't mean it is there) that should not be forced on people, and thus is bound by article VI just like any theist religion, thus it would be inappropriate for the UN to take an official position, according to Global Market's own articles. The correct position is still to take no position, reguardless of the technicalities of the nature of atheism.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that atheism is still an unprovable assumption (just because you cannot see it, does not mean it isn't there) that should not be forced on people, just like any theist religion is an unprovable assumption (just because you claim to see it, doesn't mean it is there) that should not be forced on people, and thus is bound by article VI just like any theist religion, thus it would be inappropriate for the UN to take an official position, according to Global Market's own articles. The correct position is still to take no position, reguardless of the technicalities of the nature of atheism.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies
Scientific evidence, which is what I presume that you are trying to say is theism also inckluses Gravity, and Gravity, evolution, and plate techtonics are all proven almost as fully as possible.

The issue shouldn't be whether or not the government takes a stand on the existence or non-existence of a god or gods--the separation of religion and state should just be more clearly defined. I think the proposal is close on this one, but not quite there.

My other problems have to do with Articles VII, IX and X:
Article VII: The use of the draft or other mandatory national service is something that should be left solely to the discretion of the sovereign nation. While I agree that a good argument can be made for a completely volunteer, professional army, the argument should not preclude the rights of the sovereign nation to form a military by whatever means it sees fit to use.
Article IX is worded strangely--inventors should be protected from international patents? Shouldn't that be protected by international patents? And the time frame is far too short--in many cases, 18 months isn't enough time to even get a product to market, much less to be able to reap any benefits from the new invention. There should be a cap on the length of time a patent can be enforced, but it should be at least 5 years, and in cases of dire emergency (i.e. AIDS drugs), sovereign nations should be able to abridge those patents if the holder is unwilling to make reasonable concessions.
Article X is nothing but a slap at Affirmative Action, which is fine if you live in a race-neutral society, but it unnecessarily ties the hands of those countries who are still struggling with issues of racism and economic disparity.

A lot of these are good suggestions, and I hope I'm not being demeaning when I say that I can't support this proposal, but the fact is that this is another example of an attempt to formulate a "one-size-fits-all" approach to governance. TGM, if you're truly a libertarian as you claim, then you would be chafing horribly under these proposals. Of course, if you were truly a libertarian, you probably wouldn't belong to the UN in the first place.

I agree with the proposal and support it entirely.

The issue shouldn't be whether or not the government takes a stand on the existence or non-existence of a god or gods--the separation of religion and state should just be more clearly defined. I think the proposal is close on this one, but not quite there.

My other problems have to do with Articles VII, IX and X:
Article VII: The use of the draft or other mandatory national service is something that should be left solely to the discretion of the sovereign nation. While I agree that a good argument can be made for a completely volunteer, professional army, the argument should not preclude the rights of the sovereign nation to form a military by whatever means it sees fit to use.
Article IX is worded strangely--inventors should be protected from international patents? Shouldn't that be protected by international patents? And the time frame is far too short--in many cases, 18 months isn't enough time to even get a product to market, much less to be able to reap any benefits from the new invention. There should be a cap on the length of time a patent can be enforced, but it should be at least 5 years, and in cases of dire emergency (i.e. AIDS drugs), sovereign nations should be able to abridge those patents if the holder is unwilling to make reasonable concessions.
Article X is nothing but a slap at Affirmative Action, which is fine if you live in a race-neutral society, but it unnecessarily ties the hands of those countries who are still struggling with issues of racism and economic disparity.

A lot of these are good suggestions, and I hope I'm not being demeaning when I say that I can't support this proposal, but the fact is that this is another example of an attempt to formulate a "one-size-fits-all" approach to governance. TGM, if you're truly a libertarian as you claim, then you would be chafing horribly under these proposals. Of course, if you were truly a libertarian, you probably wouldn't belong to the UN in the first place.

I'm sorry about the bad wording on Article IX.

As for Article X, race doesn't exist. Racism only exists if the government chooses to make it exist. Otherwise, it is just statistical variation.

this looks like the rise of communism, so wha your saying is that if Osama attacked America again then he would be , how this proposal even got approved once has to be beyond all Democratic Nations

this looks like the rise of communism, so wha your saying is that if Osama attacked America again then he would be , how this proposal even got approved once has to be beyond all Democratic Nations

What? This isn't exactly a communist resolution. If you mean communist as in "anybody who disagrees with Adolf Hitler", okay then it is communist.

The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that atheism is still an unprovable assumption (just because you cannot see it, does not mean it isn't there) that should not be forced on people, just like any theist religion is an unprovable assumption (just because you claim to see it, doesn't mean it is there) that should not be forced on people, and thus is bound by article VI just like any theist religion, thus it would be inappropriate for the UN to take an official position, according to Global Market's own articles. The correct position is still to take no position, reguardless of the technicalities of the nature of atheism.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies
Scientific evidence, which is what I presume that you are trying to say is theism also inckluses Gravity, and Gravity, evolution, and plate techtonics are all proven almost as fully as possible.

well, your average religious person believes God created Gravity, plate techtonics and perhaps even evolution (I do :wink: ). Have you any proof that God didn't himself create these things? :wink:

The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that atheism is still an unprovable assumption (just because you cannot see it, does not mean it isn't there) that should not be forced on people, just like any theist religion is an unprovable assumption (just because you claim to see it, doesn't mean it is there) that should not be forced on people, and thus is bound by article VI just like any theist religion, thus it would be inappropriate for the UN to take an official position, according to Global Market's own articles. The correct position is still to take no position, reguardless of the technicalities of the nature of atheism.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies
Scientific evidence, which is what I presume that you are trying to say is theism also inckluses Gravity, and Gravity, evolution, and plate techtonics are all proven almost as fully as possible.

well, your average religious person believes God created Gravity, plate techtonics and perhaps even evolution (I do :wink: ). Have you any proof that God didn't himself create these things? :wink:

We don't have to. You are making an affirmative claim, you have the burden of proof.

The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that atheism is still an unprovable assumption (just because you cannot see it, does not mean it isn't there) that should not be forced on people, just like any theist religion is an unprovable assumption (just because you claim to see it, doesn't mean it is there) that should not be forced on people, and thus is bound by article VI just like any theist religion, thus it would be inappropriate for the UN to take an official position, according to Global Market's own articles. The correct position is still to take no position, reguardless of the technicalities of the nature of atheism.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies
Scientific evidence, which is what I presume that you are trying to say is theism also inckluses Gravity, and Gravity, evolution, and plate techtonics are all proven almost as fully as possible.

well, your average religious person believes God created Gravity, plate techtonics and perhaps even evolution (I do :wink: ). Have you any proof that God didn't himself create these things? :wink:

We don't have to. You are making an affirmative claim, you have the burden of proof.

is not the outright claim that God didn't do these things, and there for doesn't exist also an affirmative one? Where is your proof?

is not the outright claim that God didn't do these things, and there for doesn't exist also an affirmative one? Where is your proof?

To say that something doesn't exist or didn't happen is a negative claim.
To say that something exists or happened is an affirmative claim.

I personally do believe that God exists, but politics should run on the asumption that God does not. God is purely a matter of faith.

is not the outright claim that God didn't do these things, and there for doesn't exist also an affirmative one? Where is your proof?

To say that something doesn't exist or didn't happen is a negative claim.
To say that something exists or happened is an affirmative claim.

I personally do believe that God exists, but politics should run on the asumption that God does not. God is purely a matter of faith.What if the government was established BY the church? Or in other words, the church was there first, and they created a government when they made their own nation?

is not the outright claim that God didn't do these things, and there for doesn't exist also an affirmative one? Where is your proof?

To say that something doesn't exist or didn't happen is a negative claim.
To say that something exists or happened is an affirmative claim.


Both claim something to be true ("God exists" == TRUE to theists or "God doesn't exist" == TRUE to atheists). Either way, they are both making an affirmative claim as to the truth of the nature of the cosmos, are are therefore both bound by the requirement of positive proof.


I personally do believe that God exists, but politics should run on the asumption that God does not. God is purely a matter of faith.

Politics should run on no assumption. Why this is even an issue for a government to consiter to any degree, I cannot fathom.

is not the outright claim that God didn't do these things, and there for doesn't exist also an affirmative one? Where is your proof?

To say that something doesn't exist or didn't happen is a negative claim.
To say that something exists or happened is an affirmative claim.

I personally do believe that God exists, but politics should run on the asumption that God does not. God is purely a matter of faith.What if the government was established BY the church? Or in other words, the church was there first, and they created a government when they made their own nation?

Well it's time to get with the times then.

To claim that something DOESN'T EXIST is a NEGATIVE CLAIM. That's like in criminal law the defendant doesn't have the prove anything, he just has to disprove that hte prosecutor's affirmative claim.

Politics should run on no assumption. Why this is even an issue for a government to consiter to any degree, I cannot fathom.

Exactly. They shouldn't make policies based on religion. If you make policy based on no religion, then you are making htem based on the assumption that God doesn't exist...

is not the outright claim that God didn't do these things, and there for doesn't exist also an affirmative one? Where is your proof?

To say that something doesn't exist or didn't happen is a negative claim.
To say that something exists or happened is an affirmative claim.

I personally do believe that God exists, but politics should run on the asumption that God does not. God is purely a matter of faith.What if the government was established BY the church? Or in other words, the church was there first, and they created a government when they made their own nation?

Well it's time to get with the times then.:P Yeah, good response, not. I think we'll just leave the united liberal nations :)

To claim that something DOESN'T EXIST is a NEGATIVE CLAIM. That's like in criminal law the defendant doesn't have the prove anything, he just has to disprove that hte prosecutor's affirmative claim.


making a claim about anything at all is to make a claim about what you reguard as true, and thus it is an affirmative claim and is bound by the burden of proof.

In the criminal trial, the defandant is indeed making an affirmative claim, as he is presenting his version of the truth of the nature of the crime: I AM NOT GUILTY. Thus, he must present proof of this claim of truth, commonly called "establishing reasonable doubt," in hopes of convincing a jury. You said it yourself...by disproving the prosecutor, he is in fact *proving* his own affirmative case.

I grow tiresome of this arguement, because it has entered the spin death cycle. I have presented my case, make of it what you will.

Think about it this way. Let's say neither the defendant nor the prosecutor made his case. Reasonable doubt exists, and the jurors must acquit.

It's the same deal with God.

Haven't we vote on this same thing over and over again. Come on. Why don't we make somthing new and exciting. Like free guns for all.

Haven't we vote on this same thing over and over again. Come on. Why don't we make somthing new and exciting. Like free guns for all.

Becuase nobody would vote for it.

Don't worry the next resolution Bill of No Rights is pretty funny.

Think about it this way. Let's say neither the defendant nor the prosecutor made his case. Reasonable doubt exists, and the jurors must acquit.

It's the same deal with God.

resonable doubt does not exist. The only thing that exists is a stalled jury. Simply because a criminal is not found guilty does not mean he is innocent :wink:

Think about it this way. Let's say neither the defendant nor the prosecutor made his case. Reasonable doubt exists, and the jurors must acquit.

It's the same deal with God.

resonable doubt does not exist. The only thing that exists is a stalled jury. Simply because a criminal is not found guilty does not mean he is innocent :wink:

Yes reasonable doubt DOES exist. In the US, the prosectuor has the burden of proof (unless the defense runs an insanity case or something like that which is called an affirmative defense and gives them the burden of proof)> Of course a criminal can be guilty and acquitted, but if he's acquitted he's not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Think about it this way. Let's say neither the defendant nor the prosecutor made his case. Reasonable doubt exists, and the jurors must acquit.

It's the same deal with God.

resonable doubt does not exist. The only thing that exists is a stalled jury. Simply because a criminal is not found guilty does not mean he is innocent :wink:

Yes reasonable doubt DOES exist. In the US, the prosectuor has the burden of proof (unless the defense runs an insanity case or something like that which is called an affirmative defense and gives them the burden of proof)> Of course a criminal can be guilty and acquitted, but if he's acquitted he's not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.And have you not noticed that our justice system is screwed up? :P I mean, OJ was found innocent, and everyone knows he did it :)

And have you not noticed that our justice system is screwed up? :P I mean, OJ was found innocent, and everyone knows he did it :)

I would rather have a murderer walk away than be an innocent defendant in a trial presided over by Roland Freisler.

And have you not noticed that our justice system is screwed up? :P I mean, OJ was found innocent, and everyone knows he did it :)

I would rather have a murderer walk away than be an innocent defendant in a trial presided over by Roland Freisler.so you acknowledge that every analogy to the justice system you just made has no relevance :)

The issue shouldn't be whether or not the government takes a stand on the existence or non-existence of a god or gods--the separation of religion and state should just be more clearly defined. I think the proposal is close on this one, but not quite there.

My other problems have to do with Articles VII, IX and X:
Article VII: The use of the draft or other mandatory national service is something that should be left solely to the discretion of the sovereign nation. While I agree that a good argument can be made for a completely volunteer, professional army, the argument should not preclude the rights of the sovereign nation to form a military by whatever means it sees fit to use.
Article IX is worded strangely--inventors should be protected from international patents? Shouldn't that be protected by international patents? And the time frame is far too short--in many cases, 18 months isn't enough time to even get a product to market, much less to be able to reap any benefits from the new invention. There should be a cap on the length of time a patent can be enforced, but it should be at least 5 years, and in cases of dire emergency (i.e. AIDS drugs), sovereign nations should be able to abridge those patents if the holder is unwilling to make reasonable concessions.
Article X is nothing but a slap at Affirmative Action, which is fine if you live in a race-neutral society, but it unnecessarily ties the hands of those countries who are still struggling with issues of racism and economic disparity.

A lot of these are good suggestions, and I hope I'm not being demeaning when I say that I can't support this proposal, but the fact is that this is another example of an attempt to formulate a "one-size-fits-all" approach to governance. TGM, if you're truly a libertarian as you claim, then you would be chafing horribly under these proposals. Of course, if you were truly a libertarian, you probably wouldn't belong to the UN in the first place.

I'm sorry about the bad wording on Article IX.

As for Article X, race doesn't exist. Racism only exists if the government chooses to make it exist. Otherwise, it is just statistical variation.

Funny thing is, I agree with you in part--the only race on the planet is the human one. But if you think that discrimination is gone because you've come to this enlightened state of mind, well, you're not looking at the same world I see every day. Racism is a convenient word to use, even though it's not particularly accurate of a term--so let's call it ethnic discrimination, since that's more correct and is decidedly present in most, if not all, societies. And there is ample proof that ethnic discrimination is alive and well--affirmative action and set-asides are two ways a government can attempt to redress past injustices, and should be allowed those tools if it wishes to use them.

Secondly, I noticed you didn't respond to my charge that many of these proposals are decidedly not libertarian. Would you mind defending the proposals from a libertarian point of view?

The Commonwealth of CoOpera has voted against this resolution. This otherwise admirable document has certain fatal flaws and thus our Commonwealth cannot support it in good conscience. We nevertheless respectfully suggest that it be resubmitted in the future once these flaws have been amended:

“Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.”

While you insist this provision does not limit citizenship to taxpayers, we see room for willful misinterpretation by those desiring to disenfranchise their poor. The reference to taxpayers should be omitted.

“Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.”

This constant confusion between corporations and human beings is the source of much injustice in the world – and much discord between our two commonwealths. Human rights belong to human beings – not businesses. These humongous “Immortal” “legal persons” already dwarf real people in government and society and thus subvert democracy. Accordingly, nations have every right to forbid "capital flight" and factory relocations that cost jobs. Corporations have no rights to infringe upon, but this article infringes on peoples' right to shape their own economies and societies. You will predictably claim that this position interferes with allowing people to do what they want with their money; but once people put their money into economic Golems that they can no longer control, this argument looses all validity.

”Article X- That government shall neither abridge nor expand the rights or responsibilities of any citizen on account of ‘race’.”

As the language of Article X prevents reparations for past injuries, CoOpera cannot possibly support this. Nations must be allowed to right old wrongs. Correcting injustices is one of the reasons governments legitimately exist.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Paine
Diplomat, CoOpera

making a claim about anything at all is to make a claim about what you reguard as true, and thus it is an affirmative claim and is bound by the burden of proof.

In the criminal trial, the defandant is indeed making an affirmative claim, as he is presenting his version of the truth of the nature of the crime: I AM NOT GUILTY. Thus, he must present proof of this claim of truth, commonly called "establishing reasonable doubt," in hopes of convincing a jury. You said it yourself...by disproving the prosecutor, he is in fact *proving* his own affirmative case.

This is inaccurate. A defendant need provide no proof whatsoever. At most, he merely needs to poke holes in the evidence presented by the prosecution. This is not providing proof, only attacking evidence given by the other side. In fact, a defendant need not act at all in the trial; the prosecution is required to prove its case. (It would probably be foolish for a defendant to refuse to act, but he has that right.) A jury who is not convinced beyond reasonable doubt - whether the defense acts or not - must acquit. Your statement that "disproof" is another form of "proof" may have some linguistic validity, but it has no validity in logic and no validity in law.

In the case of religion, the initial affirmative statement made is that God exists. The burden of proof rests upon anyone making this claim. Were I to oppose that claim, I would not be making an affirmative claim. To assert that God does not exist would be an affirmative claim; but I need not so assert in order to oppose your claim that God exists. All I would need to do is successfully attack your argument. This would only serve, of course, to demonstrate you have not proven that God exists; it would not prove that God does NOT exist. But I need not make the affirmative claim that God does not exist in order to attack your argument. To assert that an attack upon an argument that "God exists" also constitutes an affirmative claim that "God does not exist" is fallacious. I can (theoretically) destroy your argument supporting the existence of God without claiming, or proving, that God does not exist.

Argelius would like to comment on some items of concern in the presently proposed "Cato Acts."

Article I- That all taxpaying citizens shall be entitled to be represented in the government.

This is the item of greatest concern, in that "taxpaying" can be interpreted in two ways: those who actually pay taxes; and those who are subject to taxes, and would pay them if the current laws so required. It does not identify the kinds of taxes - income taxes (which some may not pay if their incomes are not sufficiently high); property taxes (which some may not pay by virtue of not owning real property); sales taxes (which all pay, but for which no proof is available since they are levied indirectly); or other license or excise taxes, which will most certainly not apply to all citizens. While a certain level of vagueness is probably necessary in order to comprehend a broad realm of persons, this article artificially limits representative government to those who pay taxes, which will not be the same across various nations.

Since government is created by sovereign people - as The Global Market has asserted - then representation in government should comprehend all persons, not merely those who pay taxes, particularly considering that the term "taxes" is ill-defined in this article.

Article III- That the right of free speech and press shall not be abridged, except when such speech or press violates a contract (such as software piracy) or poses a clear and imminent danger (such as deliberately inciting a riot).

As others have indicated, the term "clear and imminent danger" is ill-defined in this article. However, were UN authority to comprehend a judicial remedy were this article to come into question in a local court, the article would be less objectionable.

Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will, nor be forced into involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime for which the said individual shall have been duly convicted.

While this article is unobjectionable at first glance, it must be noted that, if a nation is attacked, its citizens have a duty to aid in its defense, which may include a necessary conscription. Argelius agrees, however, that conscription should not be required in peacetime.

On the other hand, without a certain basic military training, waiting for invasion before conscripting may well be too late to aid a nation's defense, since the new conscripts will have no idea what they are doing.

A way around this is to require basic military service (say, 1-2 years) as part of the requirement of earning a high school diploma. Thus, service is not legally mandatory, but one's advancement would depend on it. It is still voluntary, but strongly recommended.

Article VIII- That all private individuals and businesses shall have the right to emigrate from any nation, though individual nations shall reserve the right to create their own policy on immigration and naturalization.

As previously indicated, rights belong to persons, not businesses. Corporations, as a type of business, are not persons, though they are artificial persons created under the law for certain business purposes. Thus, even if passed, Argelius would have to consider this article void as it pertains to businesses.

Article IX- That inventors shall be entitled to protection from international patents for a period of no less than eighteen months from the time of invention.

While Argelius supports protection of intellectual property, for a UN proposal to require a minimum is perhaps unnecessarily narrow. As another nation has indicated, it can take longer than 18 months to get a newly-patented product to the market, which means the patent would offer no protection. Furthermore, this article does not comprehend other types of intellectual property, such as copyrights and trademarks.

Ultimately, we must reject this article as it is currently written. Were the objections noted above to be taken into account, and the proposal suitably revised, Argelius will consider it. We would very much like to pass this article; but there are too many problems with it that could be worse than the problems it seeks to solve. We strongly request The Global Market to issue a revised proposal along these, or similar lines.

After reviewing the proposal, I switched my vote to against as the taxpaying citizen part already mentioned, and businesses not being kept from emigrating.

Over the following weeks, I will introduce each of the Cato Acts individually, allowing each act to be voted on seperately.

There may be some re-phrasing of the Acts to make them more acceptable for the entire UN assembly, but they should still further the intents of the original acts.

A. Baud Rillard
UN Delegate
Asia Region

It won't work. I seriously doubt it. If you release this, they will be knocked down just as badly. Your Cato acts are just a way to try and make every government the same.