NationStates Jolt Archive

Although I supported the Cato Acts and am saddened to see that they are failing to win support, I am not so keen on The Global Market's other recent proposal, the Bill Of No Rights. Whilst parts of it make sense and are perfectly reasonable principles, other parts go too far and would have potentially disastrous consequences if implemented.


ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. There are charitable people to be found, who will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

Whilst I am not insisting that we make the implementation of a welfare state compulsory in every nation, this article would in effect do the opposite - ban any form of government support for the poor and unemployed, since it means that we can no longer give our citizens the right to benefits. It is unfair to characterize the unemployed and poor as lazy - many are simply trapped because of our unfair societies. If a person is born to a poor family in a poor area, it is often hard for them to get a decent education, and so, regardless of their potential, many leave school without the qualifications that will get them good jobs, so the family remain poor. And many of these people, having become workers low down on the corporate ladder, have to be laid off through no fault of their own and then find themselves unemployed and in need of support - not professional couch potatoes, but victims of our societies.


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

Again, this would effectively make it illegal for countries to offer free medical care to all their citizens. I'm not sure how the system works in the US, but several (real-life) European countries are quite happy with state-provided free health services and so are many of us in the game.


don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair

I and many others abhor the death penalty, even for serious crimes - it brings society and the state down to the level of the killers. I'm not even going to go into the practical problems of being absolutely sure that the accused is truly guilty. (This doesn't mean that I oppose the bit saying that you have no right to physically harm others)


ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

Whilst I am against unilateral military action such as the Iraq war, we do need to make it possible for the UN (not individual countries without specific permission from the UN) to send peacekeepers and other troops with similar purposes into combat zones, as long as we avoid conscription.

These points mar an otherwise sensible piece of legislation. Unfortunately, they mean that I will be voting against this Bill of No Rights when it comes before the entire UN, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

We have objection to articles IV, V, and VIII. We will be voting against this resolution."

This is a resolution that is FAR too conservative. It infringes on national sovereignty even more so than the CATO proposal.
We believe that EVERY person has the right to free housing and healthcare (among other things), should they require it.
However, we will not make a proposition on this as we realise the UN is not there to dictate law in each member nation; rather, that is a job for the government.

don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair

I and many others abhor the death penalty, even for serious crimes - it brings society and the state down to the level of the killers. I'm not even going to go into the practical problems of being absolutely sure that the accused is truly guilty. (This doesn't mean that I oppose the bit saying that you have no right to physically harm others)


Indeed, the seemingly harsh wording found in that section of the "Bill of No Rights" made myself and my fellow council members wince. The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies is opposed to giving states or governments of any kind the ability to take life, as we feel that this power poses too great a risk for abuse. It is unfortuante that such language that seems to support capital punishment exists in the document, at it will certainly make it more difficult for the Colonies to justify support for this resolution.

------
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

Moreover, this Bill does not directly condone capital punishment... it says don't be surprised if we wnat you executed... no where does it require that capital punishment or anything else exist. This is a bill of responsibility. It makes everything voluntary... I am personally against capital punishment except in extreme circumstances.

I suggest that if your proposal really does say what you say it does, that you re-word and re-submit it.

Second that. The proposal put forward has no such statement.

The Representative Council also agrees. Such proposals need to explicitly state such details to prevent confusion or possible future abuse.

------
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

I posted this somewhere else, but was referred to this page. So here goes:

I was just wondering what this bill means. The way I understand it, it basically says that nations can rule their territories however they wish and nothing can be taken for granted. With all due respect, the UN doesn't have the authority to control the internal affairs of nations anyway. So why should we endorse this bill? Isn't it just a formal declaration of that fact?

President of the Federation of Valdore

I would like the Bill of No rights changed in that way, it becomes more clearly that it is not forbidden to give the citizens a better 'service' (can't think of a better word). At the moment, you can interpret it in both ways.

Rejistania will vote because of this against it!

Ahem-hem. Hey there, delegates.

As the Most Trusted Bureaucrat from the Free Lands of Gluemeat, I have to tell you that on our homelands, we understand sarcasm and get sarcasm. We don't deliver sarcasm much, since it's really, you know, counterproductive, but we can smell it a mile away. The Bill of No Rights is just chock full of it.

It's my opinion, and the opinion of Prime Magistrate Yorke that the U.N. should not waste its time trying to pass ironic "bills" and get to the, you know, important stuff.

I'm also going to officially ask, as a representative of a country which is a World Benchmark in, you know, civil rights, that the Pacific delegate to the UN from the The Grand Duchy of Poskrebyshev not support this kind of resolution if it ever comes to be since it's, you know, a waste of time.

----
George Bnapt
Most Trusted Bureaucrat of the Free Lands of Gluemeat

"Jesus Christ! How the hell am I still connected to the internet if I've fallen through a portal connected direct to the mid eighteenth century?"

-A Chivikistani.

The Representative Council also agrees. Such proposals need to explicitly state such details to prevent confusion or possible future abuse.

------
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

I think it already says it correctly: Free healthcare and housing are strictly a privilege, not a right. As for the "fry in the electric chair" phrase, it simply means that a felon shouldn't be shocked if people want him executed.

If you didn't see that it already states that, it probably just means that I'm better at reading Legalese than you. :D

We object to articles IV, V, and VI (for the death penalty reference) essentially, but the entire proposal is written in a spirit of anti-humanism and cynical contempt for poverty and misery. Ariddia will vote against this proposal.

We object to articles IV, V, and VI (for the death penalty reference) essentially, but the entire proposal is written in a spirit of anti-humanism and cynical contempt for poverty and misery. Ariddia will vote against this proposal.

You obviously don't know what humanism is. I'm a humanist and I'll tell you this isn't anti-humanist at all.

The citizens of TedHughes find this bill to be offensive. If not in intent, then at least in its wording, and the implications it would have were it implimented. TedHughes will be voting against this bill, and, after much lobbying, we believe our regional delegate will do the same.

The citizens of TedHughes find this bill to be offensive. If not in intent, then at least in its wording, and the implications it would have were it implimented. TedHughes will be voting against this bill, and, after much lobbying, we believe our regional delegate will do the same.

As for being offensive, Read Article II :lol:.

Anyways...

Log Cabin
World Factbook Entry: A land that many say was fashioned out of pure poetry. Of course, that's probably because of the over-liberal drug laws in place in many of this region's member states.

UN Delegate: The Commonwealth of Cheshire and Ted.

Founder: The Free Land of TedHughes

Log Cabin contains 2 nations. [List all nations]

Like what you see? Move The Global Market to Log Cabin today!

We object to articles IV, V, and VI (for the death penalty reference) essentially, but the entire proposal is written in a spirit of anti-humanism and cynical contempt for poverty and misery. Ariddia will vote against this proposal.

You obviously don't know what humanism is. I'm a humanist and I'll tell you this isn't anti-humanist at all.

You may think you're a humanist, but I believe the bill IS anti-humanist. I agreed with most of your other bill, but voted against it -- after much deliberation -- because its wording may have been taken as a legimisation of forced military service in the case of convincted felons. This bill, however, is either horrendously badly worded, or shows a distinct lack of empathy for those who fall outside societally acceptable boundries. We, the citizens of TedHughes, do not believe in a 'hang em high' policy on criminals, but rather a progressive and enlightened approtch to crime, centred on understanding, provention and rehabilitation -- the last being, obviously, more a long term ambition than an achievable short term goal.

The citizens of TedHughes find this bill to be offensive. If not in intent, then at least in its wording, and the implications it would have were it implimented. TedHughes will be voting against this bill, and, after much lobbying, we believe our regional delegate will do the same.

As for being offensive, Read Article II :lol:.

Anyways...

Log Cabin
World Factbook Entry: A land that many say was fashioned out of pure poetry. Of course, that's probably because of the over-liberal drug laws in place in many of this region's member states.

UN Delegate: The Commonwealth of Cheshire and Ted.

Founder: The Free Land of TedHughes

Log Cabin contains 2 nations. [List all nations]

Like what you see? Move The Global Market to Log Cabin today!

I don't see your point... is this a p*nis contest as to who has the most member states in their region?

[extra] check our region description now :P

We object to articles IV, V, and VI (for the death penalty reference) essentially, but the entire proposal is written in a spirit of anti-humanism and cynical contempt for poverty and misery. Ariddia will vote against this proposal.

You obviously don't know what humanism is. I'm a humanist and I'll tell you this isn't anti-humanist at all.

You may think you're a humanist, but I believe the bill IS anti-humanist. I agreed with most of your other bill, but voted against it -- after much deliberation -- because its wording may have been taken as a legimisation of forced military service in the case of convincted felons. This bill, however, is either horrendously badly worded, or shows a distinct lack of empathy for those who fall outside societally acceptable boundries. We, the citizens of TedHughes, do not believe in a 'hang em high' policy on criminals, but rather a progressive and enlightened approtch to crime, centred on understanding, provention and rehabilitation -- the last being, obviously, more a long term ambition than an achievable short term goal.

Humanism is a belief system which emphasises the interest of the human race above that of nature. It has nothing to do with this resolution at all.

And what's wrong with forced labor or military service for convicted felons? It's a very cost-effective alternative to shooting them or giving them free food and hosuing. Plus it's good for rehabilitation.

This resolution does not imply a "hang 'em high" policy on criminals. I believe in rehabilitation too, and the best way is through forced labor.

What you mean by "rehabilitation and prevention"... i.e. robbing Peter to convince Paul from robbing someone else (Sorry Ithuania I feel somewhat attracted to this), simply makes government the criminal.

And what's wrong with forced labor or military service for convicted felons? It's a very cost-effective alternative to shooting them or giving them free food and hosuing. Plus it's good for rehabilitation.

You're gonna trust a bunch of criminals with guns?

This resolution does not imply a "hang 'em high" policy on criminals. I believe in rehabilitation too, and the best way is through forced labor.

Hate to tell you this, but there are many forms of forced labour that do not involve giving someone a gun and sending them off to kill or be killed. Hey, why don't we just bring back arena combat?

What you mean by "rehabilitation and prevention"... i.e. robbing Peter to convince Paul from robbing someone else (Sorry Ithuania I feel somewhat attracted to this), simply makes government the criminal.

Exactly where did you get my idea of rehabilitation and prevention from?

Our country is a wonderful place to live with a beautiful environment, a strong economy, low taxes, and plenty of individual freedom (Admin rates our civil rights as "excessive"--whatever that means). But we do provide assistance to those in need (especially children). If the "Bill of No Rights" is passed, we will have to choose between maintaining a decent level of human services or withdrawing from the U.N. In such a case, with a good deal of regret, we would withdraw from the U.N.

The U.N. isn't supposed to be a "super-government" and supersede the right of member states to govern themselves. If Global Market wants to maintain a policy of total indifference to human concerns, that is its prerogative as an independent nation. But it has no right to shove that policy down our throat. We too are an independent nation--and intend to stay that way.

Let's get the U.N. back to where it should be.

These two proposals by The Global Market are by far the most objectively moral and rational resolutions we have ever seen. We support both without any reservation, and hope other nations will realize the importance of passing both. To be short, man cannot live to the fullest of his ability under any other declaration of rights.

To those of you who complain about national sovereignty again, perhaps you should reevaluate your own declaration of rights. To oppose these resolutions is to admit your own wrongdoing towards man's capability.

I will oppose this bill on the grounds of national Soverignty, moral grounds and the fact it is honorless. As for capital punishment there is nothing wrong with it even if we tend to hold a rather mideval view of it.

To those of you who complain about national sovereignty again, perhaps you should reevaluate your own declaration of rights. To oppose these resolutions is to admit your own wrongdoing towards man's capability.

We beg to differ. Our people's desire to govern themselves in their own interest and according to their own principles is an expression of human capability. Our constitution states: "Human life being a necessary condition for human freedom, all people shall have a right to the requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care, to be provided at public expense, if necessary."

If that's wrongdoing, make the most of it.

The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

Moreover, this Bill does not directly condone capital punishment... it says don't be surprised if we wnat you executed... no where does it require that capital punishment or anything else exist. This is a bill of responsibility. It makes everything voluntary... I am personally against capital punishment except in extreme circumstances.
TGM is right, these articles only make it legal to not provide things if the country deems it necessary. Welfare and the like should not be madatory.

[quote=The Global Market]The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

The "Bill of No Rights" puts the U.N. on record as supporting the proposition that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life, as well as endorsing capital punishment. If the U.N. doesn't want to mandate free healthcare or the abolition of the death penalty, it doesn't have to pass this resolution. It can simply do nothing. Our kids DO have a right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a decent education--and that's just the way we want it.

You right-wingers don't have a right to shove your principles in our face, any more than we have a right to shove ours in yours. If this resolution passes, we're out of the U.N.!!!

Excuse me Teritora is a conservative Monarchy with a regulated feudial system and we oppose this so be careful when throwing broad generalizations.

We said "Right-Wingers", not "Conservatives". There's a big difference. Edmund Burke would probably be considered a "socialist" by many of today's right-wingers.

We too are a monarchy, with many fine Conservative principles. One of them is national sovereignty.

Am I the only person who's getting fed up with reading copy/pasted proposals at the UN? Especially ones that really make no sense in this context. After that whole thing with the Grand Juries as well...

Superior Europe opposes the passing of the bills for several reasons:

1. Contempt for human suffering. No right to free healthcare and no right to housing is against the very doctrine of thought Superior Europe is based upon.

2. The UN has no right to dicatate what rights I am or am not entitled to give my citizens.

3. This bill yet again favours the ideology The Global Market most favours instead of the general will of the people of the UN.

We would offer a wager on seeing this bill fail with more votes against then the Cato Acts.

Superior Europe opposes the passing of the bills for several reasons:

1. Contempt for human suffering. No right to free healthcare and no right to housing is against the very doctrine of thought Superior Europe is based upon.

2. The UN has no right to dicatate what rights I am or am not entitled to give my citizens.

3. This bill yet again favours the ideology The Global Market most favours instead of the general will of the people of the UN.

We would offer a wager on seeing this bill fail with more votes against then the Cato Acts.

This bill merely allows nations who do not wish to provide healthcare, etc. to not do that. It doesn't infringe your right to do so if you want.

Read the NS-UN update... this bill is strictly ab out negative rights.

Nevermoore agrees with this proposal. It gives more power BACK to individual nations. This does not restrict your nations from doing these things, but instead it makes them volentary.

We are glad we finally found something we agree on with TGM.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

[ooc: People need to read this proposal more carefully.]

Nevermoore agrees with this proposal. It gives more power BACK to individual nations. This does not restrict your nations from doing these things, but instead it makes them volentary.

We are glad we finally found something we agree on with TGM.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

[ooc: People need to read this proposal more carefully.]

Yeah it merely says those things are not rights, but privileges.

I've read it carefully, and the best thing I can say about it is that since it's not really a bill, it wouldn't have any real effect even if it did pass. But all it really is is a statement of principles, some of which I agree with, some of which I find extraordinarily naive, and some of which I find ludicrous in the extreme.

What would this accomplish, should it pass? Not a damn thing, and I challenge anyone, especially supporters of the bill, to prove otherwise--there is no enforcement mechanism; hell, there's no law of any sort involved here. It's a statement by someone who's gotten him/herself in a snit over issues he/she considers unfair or socialist or whatever and who's written a bitch list about it. At least the Cato Acts, wrongheaded as I considered some of them to be, were actually changes in law--this doesn't even rise to that level.

Vote no on the Bill of No Rights--after all, it's not really a bill anyway.

I've read it carefully, and the best thing I can say about it is that since it's not really a bill, it wouldn't have any real effect even if it did pass. But all it really is is a statement of principles, some of which I agree with, some of which I find extraordinarily naive, and some of which I find ludicrous in the extreme.

What would this accomplish, should it pass? Not a damn thing, and I challenge anyone, especially supporters of the bill, to prove otherwise--there is no enforcement mechanism; hell, there's no law of any sort involved here. It's a statement by someone who's gotten him/herself in a snit over issues he/she considers unfair or socialist or whatever and who's written a bitch list about it. At least the Cato Acts, wrongheaded as I considered some of them to be, were actually changes in law--this doesn't even rise to that level.

Vote no on the Bill of No Rights--after all, it's not really a bill anyway.

It makes all the healthcare stuff voluntary.

It makes all the healthcare stuff voluntary.

Well then make a proposal that makes the government provision of healthcare voluntary instead of hiding it in this bitch list. If you're afraid it won't pass like that, I understand, but at least it's honest.

We beg to differ. Our people's desire to govern themselves in their own interest and according to their own principles is an expression of human capability. Our constitution states: "Human life being a necessary condition for human freedom, all people shall have a right to the requisites of a human existence, including adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care, to be provided at public expense, if necessary."

If that's wrongdoing, make the most of it.

No. As simply as possible, every individual should be gauranteed the right to pursue such requisites, not to receive them without having done anything to earn them.

Who do you think pays for such "public expenses?" It is those who earn their existence. The more you earn, the more you are taxed. So, are you trying to tell me that its more important to sustain the scum of humanity than to praise and honor productive ability? If so, I think I'll pass on that offer to "make the most of it."

Our military advisor, Kû@x'î|'lûmi, says this:

"...That Tila ni|x'ô[The Global Market] is the greatest threat to the poor we have ever seen. We may have to take them on..."

I will oppose this bill on the grounds of national Soverignty, moral grounds and the fact it is honorless.

First off, stop regurgitating that term. This is a code of ethics; it is not in a government's power to create a man's rights - only to protect them.

What, exactly, is your idea of proper morals for living, anyways?

And what, exactly, is your definition of honorable?

[quote=The Global Market]The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

The "Bill of No Rights" puts the U.N. on record as supporting the proposition that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life, as well as endorsing capital punishment. If the U.N. doesn't want to mandate free healthcare or the abolition of the death penalty, it doesn't have to pass this resolution. It can simply do nothing. Our kids DO have a right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a decent education--and that's just the way we want it.

You right-wingers don't have a right to shove your principles in our face, any more than we have a right to shove ours in yours. If this resolution passes, we're out of the U.N.!!!
And thank god the right wing will get a hold of the UN then =P pwnage

[quote=The Global Market]The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

The "Bill of No Rights" puts the U.N. on record as supporting the proposition that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life,
Umm...because they don't. No one has a right to what he has not produced himself or cannot get through the consent of someone who HAS produced it.

[quote=The Global Market]The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

The "Bill of No Rights" puts the U.N. on record as supporting the proposition that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life, as well as endorsing capital punishment. If the U.N. doesn't want to mandate free healthcare or the abolition of the death penalty, it doesn't have to pass this resolution. It can simply do nothing. Our kids DO have a right to food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and a decent education--and that's just the way we want it.

You right-wingers don't have a right to shove your principles in our face, any more than we have a right to shove ours in yours. If this resolution passes, we're out of the U.N.!!!
And thank god the right wing will get a hold of the UN then =P pwnage

I wish they would leave in droves. A lot of the resolutions have been left wingers shoving their agenda in our faces. At least if the whole UN is moderate to conservative we'll get some decent resolutions passed.

The "Bill of No Rights" puts the U.N. on record as supporting the proposition that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life,[/quote]
Umm...because they don't. No one has a right to what he has not produced himself or cannot get through the consent of someone who HAS produced it.[/quote]

Yes I say they do. If we cannot produce enough for everyone it is merely because our technology is inadequate to cope with our population.

I AM VOTING AGAINST THIS THAT IS UNLESS u give me bak my sports car, my TV, my motor home, my 2 floor apartment, my condo, my money, and my cat.

I AM VOTING AGAINST THIS THAT IS UNLESS u give me bak my sports car, my TV, my motor home, my 2 floor apartment, my condo, my money, and my cat.

Who said it was taken away from you?

The government of Sparkinia will be voting against this resolution.

Sincerely,
The President of the Republic of Sparkinia

Again we will say that nothing will be taken from your people if this passes, it NEVER said it would. Your nation will still be able to give all of these benefits if they CHOOSE (Key word is choose) to. What this proposal will do is protect your nation's right to make decisions for itself in these issues. You will never be forced into doing these things if this passes, you will do them because you honestly believe that they are needed for your people.

We swear, some of your people would vote for a proposal titled "FREE FOOD FOR POOR!!!!! NO MORE POVERTY!!!!!!111" no matter what it said, but once a proposal that makes good sense and requires some thought comes around it must instantly be bad because it doesn't sound like a bunch of high hippies wrote it.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

[quote=The Global Market]The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

The "Bill of No Rights" puts the U.N. on record as supporting the proposition that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life,
Umm...because they don't. No one has a right to what he has not produced himself or cannot get through the consent of someone who HAS produced it.

It really doesn't matter who is right in this case. If the Bill of No Rights truly advocates that governments should not be providing these things, then any right-minded member would vote against it. But even if it is saying that governments don't HAVE to provide, then it merely states the obvious that no government HAS to do anything; and this does not require a proposal.

Also, I must say, that if this proposal does as little as the author admits that it does, then why does it it have a strong effect on the furtherment of democracy? Not all UN members are democratic nations, remember. For these reasons alone I will be forced to vote against this proposal.

right now all countries are required to insure the below even those that don't believe in it. By passing this admendment it allows you to not require such things like the right to a kitchen! Examples below.

Keep The World Disease-Free!
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Fallopian Tube
Description: While the hygiene standards of the world has certainly improved in the last 100 years, there is more to be done. Every citizen in every land should have the right to: At least one toilet in their house; At least one washbasin in their house; At least one of either a bathtub or a shower; in order to comply with hygiene standards and prolong life expectancy. Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory. Vaccinations against the big diseases such as: Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al. With the backing of the UN, we can give even our poorest inhabitants a nice, clean, healthy life.

Votes For: 16212

Votes Against: 3020

Implemented: Mon Apr 14 2003

or this

Required Basic Healthcare
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant Proposed by: Austrivum
Description: WHEREAS this resolution will strengthen social justice among all members of the United Nations by requiring that all nations, current and future within the UN, have a basic healthcare plan to support and insure its citizens. Basic healthcare is not a luxury, but rather it is a moral imperative that should be incorporated into UN admissions and acceptance ratings/standards. The following resolution requires that all UN nations meet the below four-point plan of providing healthcare to its citizens through all outlets available within their government, as long as the methods of providing the four-point plan are met without violating international, national and/or local law. The four-point plan is as follows: 1) All families who are at or below the “poverty level” of US$5,005.50 per adult, and US$4,205.50 per child, must be covered by healthcare insurance, as long as one member of the family, age 22 or older, is employed. 2) All children, age 21 and younger, must be covered by healthcare insurance and be reimbursed up to at least 55%. 3) All seniors, age 67 and older, must be covered by healthcare and prescription drug insurance/coverage and be reimbursed up to at least 65% for healthcare matters, while up to at least 50% for required prescription dugs. 4) All people, ages 22 to 66, must be offered healthcare insurance and be reimbursed up to at least 30%. In addition, if the insured, in this category, has been employed for at least 240 days in the given year, they must be reimbursed by an additional 5%. (*Note: Monetary figures were shown in US$ as a general currency; it must be converted accordingly and appropriately based on conversion rates.) Though this is not a full strength plan, it is a necessary start, and a reasonable start, in order to be able to be achievable by all decent nations. Basic healthcare is a necessity, and the Democratic States of Austrivum encourage all nations to pass even larger, more inclusive healthcare packages within their own nation. The exceptions to this resolution include: 1) A UN nation classified as a “third world country,” by the UN, does not have to implement this resolution until its status is upgraded. 2) A UN nation determined to be “at war” by the UN, is exempted from continuing the program, but must have a backup program/plan. 3) A nation whose economic situation is detrimental may plea to the UN for a reduced strength “Required Basic Healthcare” resolution. However, should the UN at any time deem a UN nation’s economy stable enough to support the full strength resolution, it must be implemented under order from the UN. After this resolution’s passage, it must be instituted within three (3) months, otherwise face UN ejection, or plea one’s case for additional time, that cannot be in excess of an additional eighteen (18) months, to be granted only by and through the UN. ---The Democratic States of Austrivum

Votes For: 10137

Votes Against: 7154

Implemented: Thu Jun 5 2003



Replanting Trees
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Jacobstalia
Description: If any individual, private or public enterprise cuts down over 5 acres of trees, they will be required to have the same number of trees replanted. The responsibility of replanting trees will be held directly by those who cut them down.

Votes For: 10301

Votes Against: 4638

Implemented: Wed Jul 23 2003



Free education
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: NASTIC 2
Description: To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education

Votes For: 11276

Votes Against: 3264

Implemented: Tue Aug 19 2003

If the purpose of the Bill of No Rights is to repeal existing U.N. resolutions, a moderator should already have deleted it. NationStates has no mechanism for repeal, although this is being looked into.

Similarly, you cannot create a proposal that limits what proposals will be passed in the future. The United Nations can change the policies of U.N. member countries, but it cannot change game mechanics or the operation of the U.N. itself.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark

right now all countries are required to insure the below even those that don't believe in it. By passing this admendment it allows you to not require such things like the right to a kitchen! Examples below.

Keep The World Disease-Free!
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Fallopian Tube
Description: While the hygiene standards of the world has certainly improved in the last 100 years, there is more to be done. Every citizen in every land should have the right to: At least one toilet in their house; At least one washbasin in their house; At least one of either a bathtub or a shower; in order to comply with hygiene standards and prolong life expectancy. Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory. Vaccinations against the big diseases such as: Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al. With the backing of the UN, we can give even our poorest inhabitants a nice, clean, healthy life.

Votes For: 16212

Votes Against: 3020

Implemented: Mon Apr 14 2003

or this

Required Basic Healthcare
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice Strength: Significant Proposed by: Austrivum
Description: WHEREAS this resolution will strengthen social justice among all members of the United Nations by requiring that all nations, current and future within the UN, have a basic healthcare plan to support and insure its citizens. Basic healthcare is not a luxury, but rather it is a moral imperative that should be incorporated into UN admissions and acceptance ratings/standards. The following resolution requires that all UN nations meet the below four-point plan of providing healthcare to its citizens through all outlets available within their government, as long as the methods of providing the four-point plan are met without violating international, national and/or local law. The four-point plan is as follows: 1) All families who are at or below the “poverty level” of US$5,005.50 per adult, and US$4,205.50 per child, must be covered by healthcare insurance, as long as one member of the family, age 22 or older, is employed. 2) All children, age 21 and younger, must be covered by healthcare insurance and be reimbursed up to at least 55%. 3) All seniors, age 67 and older, must be covered by healthcare and prescription drug insurance/coverage and be reimbursed up to at least 65% for healthcare matters, while up to at least 50% for required prescription dugs. 4) All people, ages 22 to 66, must be offered healthcare insurance and be reimbursed up to at least 30%. In addition, if the insured, in this category, has been employed for at least 240 days in the given year, they must be reimbursed by an additional 5%. (*Note: Monetary figures were shown in US$ as a general currency; it must be converted accordingly and appropriately based on conversion rates.) Though this is not a full strength plan, it is a necessary start, and a reasonable start, in order to be able to be achievable by all decent nations. Basic healthcare is a necessity, and the Democratic States of Austrivum encourage all nations to pass even larger, more inclusive healthcare packages within their own nation. The exceptions to this resolution include: 1) A UN nation classified as a “third world country,” by the UN, does not have to implement this resolution until its status is upgraded. 2) A UN nation determined to be “at war” by the UN, is exempted from continuing the program, but must have a backup program/plan. 3) A nation whose economic situation is detrimental may plea to the UN for a reduced strength “Required Basic Healthcare” resolution. However, should the UN at any time deem a UN nation’s economy stable enough to support the full strength resolution, it must be implemented under order from the UN. After this resolution’s passage, it must be instituted within three (3) months, otherwise face UN ejection, or plea one’s case for additional time, that cannot be in excess of an additional eighteen (18) months, to be granted only by and through the UN. ---The Democratic States of Austrivum

Votes For: 10137

Votes Against: 7154

Implemented: Thu Jun 5 2003



Replanting Trees
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental Industry Affected: All Businesses Proposed by: Jacobstalia
Description: If any individual, private or public enterprise cuts down over 5 acres of trees, they will be required to have the same number of trees replanted. The responsibility of replanting trees will be held directly by those who cut them down.

Votes For: 10301

Votes Against: 4638

Implemented: Wed Jul 23 2003



Free education
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: NASTIC 2
Description: To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education

Votes For: 11276

Votes Against: 3264

Implemented: Tue Aug 19 2003



Yeah all of tehse resolutions would be nullified.

If the purpose of the Bill of No Rights is to repeal existing U.N. resolutions, a moderator should already have deleted it. NationStates has no mechanism for repeal, although this is being looked into.

Similarly, you cannot create a proposal that limits what proposals will be passed in the future. The United Nations can change the policies of U.N. member countries, but it cannot change game mechanics or the operation of the U.N. itself.

Sincerely,
Javier Hootenany
Undersecretary to the United Nations Ambassador for NationStates Rules and Regulations
Community of Gurthark

This won't REPEAL any resolutions, just make compliance voluntary. Other resolutions such as RBH Replacement also supercede (but do not repeal) previous resolutions, yet they have not been deleted.

If the Bill of No Rights truly advocates that governments should not be providing these things, then any right-minded member would vote against it.

It almost surpises us to see those who oppose this resolution try to use reason against it; that anyone in their rational (aka "right") minds would (or could) oppose it. We ask, on what grounds? What logical reason is there to give shelter, food, transportation, or healthcare to those who have done nothing to earn it? And does it make sense to steal from the productive and give to the unproductive, when it is obviously the productive person who deserves to enjoy the products of their own effort? After a hard day of work, is there no greater insult than to have a misguided government take your money and give it away to the dirt-encrusted credent who spent the entire day laying in an alley; or perhaps the fat, lazy slob who figures that he can manage just fine in life, carefree and on welfare?

But then - to utterly obliterate rationality - one sanctions this looting as righteous; the victim praises the torture as morally right. He denies his virtues, because they do not lead to wealth in his economy, only taxation. He praises the unwed mother - who dropped out of high school and the chance to lead a prolific life - as an object of pity, of admiration because her lack of virtue is her key to a well-paid-for life. He lauds the homeless man - who is reduced to nickels and dimes - because of the guilt he feels, because he has a job and the bum doesn't. He shames himself because he is productive.

Is this what you call "right-minded?"

This won't REPEAL any resolutions, just make compliance voluntary. Other resolutions such as RBH Replacement also supercede (but do not repeal) previous resolutions, yet they have not been deleted.

I think, but don't quote me, that the mods (or some of them) admitted that the RBH Replacement slipped through, and was an exception, rather than a precedent.

If the Bill of No Rights truly advocates that governments should not be providing these things, then any right-minded member would vote against it.

It almost surpises us to see those who oppose this resolution try to use reason against it; that anyone in their rational (aka "right") minds would (or could) oppose it. We ask, on what grounds? What logical reason is there to give shelter, food, transportation, or healthcare to those who have done nothing to earn it? And does it make sense to steal from the productive and give to the unproductive, when it is obviously the productive person who deserves to enjoy the products of their own effort? After a hard day of work, is there no greater insult than to have a misguided government take your money and give it away to the dirt-encrusted credent who spent the entire day laying in an alley; or perhaps the fat, lazy slob who figures that he can manage just fine in life, carefree and on welfare?

But then - to utterly obliterate rationality - one sanctions this looting as righteous; the victim praises the torture as morally right. He denies his virtues, because they do not lead to wealth in his economy, only taxation. He praises the unwed mother - who dropped out of high school and the chance to lead a prolific life - as an object of pity, of admiration because her lack of virtue is her key to a well-paid-for life. He lauds the homeless man - who is reduced to nickels and dimes - because of the guilt he feels, because he has a job and the bum doesn't. He shames himself because he is productive.

Is this what you call "right-minded?"

Aegonia never laid claim to any of the social issues you describe in your rant. Your government seems to have its own issues of over-providing (giving a "well-paid-for" life to the "unproductive"). That is your own government's problem to solve and not for the UN to solve.

Although your ramblings are lovely, you ignored my point. This resolution - as stated by the author - does not prevent a capable government from providing healthcare to its citizens; something many nations do very well and without all of the social problems your nation has incurred. The resolution merely states the obvious, that nobody is "due" by their government. The UN is not in the business of stating the obvious, especially not while having a strong effect on the furtherment of democracy, of all things.

does it make sense to steal from the productive and give to the unproductive, when it is obviously the productive person who deserves to enjoy the products of their own effort?




For the reason above stupidity should not be rewarded. Therefor the High Lord Lou will vote for the bill of no rights.

And if anyone is not down with that, I got two words for you.








AND THEN :!:

To those who like the proposal
I'm glad that someone out there has the ability to see the document as it really is - a reaction against the wooly minded liberal western hypocracy, sorry democracy.

The justice system must fulfil it's duty to the society to which it pertains i.e create a sense that justice has been done. Laws are created by middle to upper class people who live in areas of low crime living out their lives away from the people who are both the victims and the perpetrators of the majority of violent crimes. Mob rule is no good but just as no one likes to pay taxes they see it as a neccessary evil to allow their lives to function better (paved roads, libraries etc.), why do we sit indoors behind several bolts and locks in fear of intruders, but don't see that their permanent removal from society is of equal neccessity.

The continuous moddy-coddling by governments of the people is not out of the goodness of their hearts but instead an excuse for them to get on with their pet projects on the basis that they are taking care of every aspect of our lives, including things we "don't need to know about".

Healthcare and medicine are areas where the human race needs precedence over the human individual. We save children with congenital diseases (who cost huge amounts before the start paying tax, if they ever do) who then pollute the gene pool FOREVER in some cases, with several disease repeating through the generations. Save ouselves and future generations from cost and disease by seeing the chronically ill for what they are : a drain that, if supported becomes a larger burden for the ever dwindling number of healthy people able to carry. This is not my vision of tomorrow but next week as it were. We fight mother nature every time a person survives a disease or innate condition that they should not as those who do procreate,making a generation of weeker individuals fight a resistant set of diseases - a recipe for disaster.

Finally, anyone would think that poor people never get rich or respected. History is full of individuals like Sir Walter Raliegh who pulled themselves up from the bootstraps in very hierarchical societies through effort and talent and luck to some extent. Those who did not are unfortunate but that's life. The ever increasing attempts to give everyone a "fair" chance do not do that - they put people in positions that they are unable to do just because one tribe sold another into slavery 400 years ago.

Your life is nobody's fault but your own and nobody should be expected to pay for one iota of it.

Death to political correctness - ethnicity forms were the first things the Nazis introduced to the countries they conquered!

This is not a dead issue! Not everybody was aware of this proposal until today. Now that it is up for vote we can't let our position fall by the wayside.

This is not a dead issue! Not everybody was aware of this proposal until today. Now that it is up for vote we can't let our position fall by the wayside.

And what is your position... exactly?

This is not a dead issue! Not everybody was aware of this proposal until today. Now that it is up for vote we can't let our position fall by the wayside.

And what is your position... exactly?

I don't know about him, but mine is that everyone has the right to basic healthcare.

I urge all right-thinking people to reject this silly piece of claptrap. It has no value other than to impose a backward, arrogant way of thinking on free and independent nations. It's a rant, pure and simple. It has no legitimate place for any serious nation state.

NO NO NO NO

Pogue Mahone

I urge all right-thinking people to reject this silly piece of claptrap. It has no value other than to impose a backward, arrogant way of thinking on free and independent nations. It's a rant, pure and simple. It has no legitimate place for any serious nation state.

NO NO NO NO

Pogue Mahone

Why not? This helps restore sovereignity by giving nations more control over things like censorship, healthcare, welfare, etc.

This resolution makes nations MORE independent. And seeing as it is to increase democratic freedoms, also makes nations MORE free.

I urge all right-thinking people to reject this silly piece of claptrap. It has no value other than to impose a backward, arrogant way of thinking on free and independent nations. It's a rant, pure and simple. It has no legitimate place for any serious nation state.

NO NO NO NO

Pogue Mahone

Why not? This helps restore sovereignity by giving nations more control over things like censorship, healthcare, welfare, etc.

This resolution makes nations MORE independent. And seeing as it is to increase democratic freedoms, also makes nations MORE free.

Hogwash. It is not a serious discussion or resolution, merely a person's ignorant meanderings. To even bring it up for a vote in an insult to every nation.

Pogue

I urge all right-thinking people to reject this silly piece of claptrap. It has no value other than to impose a backward, arrogant way of thinking on free and independent nations. It's a rant, pure and simple. It has no legitimate place for any serious nation state.

NO NO NO NO

Pogue Mahone

Why not? This helps restore sovereignity by giving nations more control over things like censorship, healthcare, welfare, etc.

This resolution makes nations MORE independent. And seeing as it is to increase democratic freedoms, also makes nations MORE free.

The freedom to get into debt because you happen to become ill (very few people make themselves ill you know) isn't a freedom anyone should have. Next you'll be saying nations are free to Ethnic Cleanse.

This resolution makes nations MORE independent. And seeing as it is to increase democratic freedoms, also makes nations MORE free.

Umm... not all nations want to be more free. There are many happy dictatorships out there that don't want your democracy. Your battle is against nations that are not democratic, not against the dim-witted that consistently misread your proposals. I have a lot of respect for TGM, however even democratic nations realize that they shouldn't be forcing democracy on other nations, and that is why these proposals are failing.

This resolution makes nations MORE independent. And seeing as it is to increase democratic freedoms, also makes nations MORE free.

Umm... not all nations want to be more free. There are many happy dictatorships out there that don't want your democracy. Your battle is against nations that are not democratic, not against the dim-witted that consistently misread your proposals. I have a lot of respect for TGM, however even democratic nations realize that they shouldn't be forcing democracy on other nations, and that is why these proposals are failing.

Thus Article VIII protects those dictatorship countries from invasion.

Thus Article VIII protects those dictatorship countries from invasion.

That's swell for a dictatorship country worried about invasion. But shouldn't it be more worried about a proposal with a strong effect on the furtherment of democracy?

Thus Article VIII protects those dictatorship countries from invasion.

That's swell for a dictatorship country worried about invasion. But shouldn't it be more worried about a proposal with a strong effect on the furtherment of democracy?

Well I have significant support from several dictatorship areas...

There are not too many more honorable things to do than put in a day's honest work. Honor comes from people, not the government.

There are not too many more honorable things to do than put in a day's honest work. Honor comes from people, not the government.

When vice prevails, and impious men bear sway,
The post of honour is a private station...

--Joseph Addison, Cato

The Bill of No Rights does not mean that you CAN'T provide free healthcare if you want to, it means you don't HAVE to provide free healthcare. In a sense it is a check on UN power more than anything.

Nothing in the bill indicates that it is a limitation of the UN's powers rather than a limitation of the powers of the states. It reads very much as if it removes a great many powers of national soverignty. If a particular nation feels access to television is a right, who are you to say otherwise?

Moreover, this Bill does not directly condone capital punishment...

I disagree. The bill assumes that the normal punishment for crimes is capital punishment.

it says don't be surprised if we wnat you executed...

And there is the problem. You might want to execute people, but we do not.

I am personally against capital punishment except in extreme circumstances.

Why did you write it in such a way that it sounds as if you are asking for capital punishment?

Nothing in the bill indicates that it is a limitation of the UN's powers rather than a limitation of the powers of the states. It reads very much as if it removes a great many powers of national soverignty. If a particular nation feels access to television is a right, who are you to say otherwise?

Free TV is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT. This means that you can provide it IF YOU WANT, but you DON'T HAVE TO. The only three rights are life, liberty, and property.

Why did you write it in such a way that it sounds as if you are asking for capital punishment?

Because I didn't write it. It comes from capitalism.com.

Clearly the Bill of No Rights doesn't restrict you ability as a nation to award rights to your citizens, but it does restrict the ability of the UN to pass any further right-enabling acts.

Spoffin votes no.

Because I didn't write it. It comes from capitalism.com.

What sort of excuse is that? Did you even bother to read it before you submitted it?

Because I didn't write it. It comes from capitalism.com.

What sort of excuse is that? Did you even bother to read it before you submitted it?

Yes

Because I didn't write it. It comes from capitalism.com.

What sort of excuse is that? Did you even bother to read it before you submitted it?

Yes

Then why didn't you edit out the parts you disagree with?

While I could just spout random nonsense about how anal retentive some of the arguments here have been ("I can't pick up on sarcasm when it's stating things that everyone should already know by now") or how often most of the comments have been simple repeats or buildups on prior comments, I think I'm going to just tell all of you a story. Before I do, though, I want to make it perfectly clear for those of you who might not catch it: I am in full support of this proposal.

On the news recently was a story about a woman whose electricity was about to be shut off because she couldn't pay her bills. This was put on the news because in the event of the electricity shutoff, she would not be able to use the machinery she requires to stay alive; some kind of respiratory support, I think.
This woman, who was rather obese, said she had congestive heart failure and asthma, and one other disease which escapes my memory at the moment.
While I sympathize for those whose health is less than stellar, I cannot sympathize for this woman who can apparently afford a big-screen TV (seen during the interview in her home), cable television (Dragonball Z was on the television, which can only be seen on Cartoon Network), and an obscene amount of junk food (several frozen pizzas at one time, and for a woman who has congestive heart failure?).
This woman, who was on welfare, had a cable bill of 64 dollars a month. She could afford to live quite comfortably--both of my parents work and we can't afford a big-screen or a 64-dollar-a-month cable bill--and have a massive television, but she couldn't afford to pay for the electricity without which she would die? At the very least she could stop getting cable, or sell the television.

The point I am trying to make here is that this woman is leeching money, time, and effort from people who earn what they own. She does not have the right to do this, and the Bill of No Rights rather clearly states this. If the wording of this bill offends you and that's one of your major reasons for voting against it, I feel very sorry for you. While the public health care article could stand to be worded a little better, the point is made perfectly clear and I think it's made the right way: Bluntly.

I also have a distinct lack of sympathy for the people who think saying 'you do not have the right' means 'you can not have this.' Having a right to something means you can, but do not necessarily have to, do/say/own that something. This should not require clarification.

Besides Article II establishes the right to free speech and offend people :).

I also have a distinct lack of sympathy for the people who think saying 'you do not have the right' means 'you can not have this.' Having a right to something means you can, but do not necessarily have to, do/say/own that something. This should not require clarification.

It does require clarification because the bill isn't clear whether it is talking about limiting the UN, limiting individuals or limiting individual states. If a particular state decides dying people do have the right to sit around watching Draognball Z, what is that to you?

I also have a distinct lack of sympathy for the people who think saying 'you do not have the right' means 'you can not have this.' Having a right to something means you can, but do not necessarily have to, do/say/own that something. This should not require clarification.

It does require clarification because the bill isn't clear whether it is talking about limiting the UN, limiting individuals or limiting individual states. If a particular state decides dying people do have the right to sit around watching Draognball Z, what is that to you?

Then it isn't a right, it is a PRIVILEGE. Rights are UNIVERSAL. Privileges exist only when you CHOOSE to grant them.

I also have a distinct lack of sympathy for the people who think saying 'you do not have the right' means 'you can not have this.' Having a right to something means you can, but do not necessarily have to, do/say/own that something. This should not require clarification.

It does require clarification because the bill isn't clear whether it is talking about limiting the UN, limiting individuals or limiting individual states. If a particular state decides dying people do have the right to sit around watching Draognball Z, what is that to you?

Then it isn't a right, it is a PRIVILEGE. Rights are UNIVERSAL. Privileges exist only when you CHOOSE to grant them.

Where have I restricted universality? If ALL dying people have that right, it is UNIVERSAL.

Princess Sophia, I feel you are being difficult.

Under this bill;

You CAN give them DragonballZ and pizzas till their eyes and guts explode in a gory spray of entrails and processed meat.

I DON'T have to. Though it would be funny to watch :lol:

That's what this bill says.

Vote against this bill because it increases Democratic Freedoms (Bad for all you non-representative governments) and really adds nothing useful.

High Cardinal Raziel, Arch-Magus of Azariel

On the news recently was a story about a woman whose electricity was about to be shut off because she couldn't pay her bills. This was put on the news because in the event of the electricity shutoff, she would not be able to use the machinery she requires to stay alive; some kind of respiratory support, I think.
This woman, who was rather obese, said she had congestive heart failure and asthma, and one other disease which escapes my memory at the moment.

Is the the story you meant?


Dispatch centers establish changes after 911 call hang-up
By Deanna Boyd
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH -- A fire department lieutenant recently hung up on a police dispatch supervisor trying to summon help for an ailing woman whose oxygen supply was cut off during a power outage. The hangup caused a 1-minute, 12-second delay in dispatching a fire engine to the home of Judith Allen, a retired fire department administrative assistant. Allen was not breathing when rescuers reached her, and attempts to revive her failed.

Because of the woman's medical history and problems, no autopsy was conducted, and it is not known whether the delay contributed to her death. It did, however, prompt changes in the way Fort Worth police and fire dispatch centers communicate with each other. But who is to blame for the dispatching delay is unclear.

A Fort Worth fire department official faults the police dispatch supervisor for calling the fire dispatch center on an extremely busy night rather than using the city's Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to alert MedStar ambulance first.

Police officials said the police supervisor did use the CAD system, but that the fire dispatchers did not tell police they were not responding to 911 hangup calls that night. They said the follow-up call to the fire dispatch center was accepted practice at the time.

Whatever the cause, both agencies say changes have been made to ensure that a similar problem doesn't occur again. But some firefighters say they are still troubled that no formal internal investigation into the matter was conducted.

"In reality, this was an honest mistake on two individuals' parts," said Capt. Sam Greif, fire communications manager.

Lt. Jesse Hernandez, police spokesman, agreed.

"This is an unfortunate circumstance," Hernandez said. "I don't want to point fingers at the individuals because they were following protocol. They followed the protocols; in this case that wasn't enough and that's unfortunate.

"A lot of times tragedy happens and we learn to do things a little better."

What impact, if any, the delay had on Allen remains unknown.

No autopsy was conducted because the Tarrant County medical examiner terminated its jurisdiction in the case after Allen's physician took legal responsibility.

Paul Schmidt, Allen's son, said his mother suffered from congestive heart failure, high blood pressure and diabetes and had been in the hospital twice in the weeks before her death and in an assisted care facility just seven days prior.

Tarrant County Medical Examiner Dr. Nizam Peerwani said that while it cannot be known for sure whether the delay contributed to Allen's death, he believes the woman likely suffered a fatal arrhythmia of the heart "and she would have died very, very fast."

"The death is so fast that whether you or I were 1 minute and 20 seconds earlier or 1 minute and 10 seconds earlier, it doesn't make any difference," Peerwani said. ". . .I really doubt that the delay had anything to do with the death to be honest, but there's always an uncertainty because an autopsy was never done."

Schmidt agrees.

"If this occurred where she didn't have any health problems, I guarantee I'd be jumping up and down," Schmidt said. "But given the circumstances, I'm glad it was handled the way it was after the fact -- that they made the changes. As long as that came out of it, I think that's the best thing that could happen."

Storms that rolled through the Metroplex on the night of June 11 pounded Fort Worth, leaving power outages in its wake and flooding the Fort Worth fire and police dispatch centers with calls.

According to police and fire department 911 tapes, call logs and memos obtained by the Star-Telegram through an open records request, Sean Foley, an assistant supervisor in the Fort Worth police dispatch center, received a 911 hangup call from Allen's home at 10:20 p.m. on June 11.

He alerted the fire department about the 911 hangup call through the CAD system and called Allen's number back twice. He got a busy signal on the first call. On the second, Allen picked up the phone.

"I can't breathe," a frantic Allen can be heard saying on the 911 tape. "My electricity is off. I'm on oxygen. My electricity is off. Hurry."

Schmidt says that although his mother had back-up oxygen tanks, he believed she panicked after the electricity went out and was unable to hook them up.

After hearing Allen's desperate plea for help, Foley called the fire dispatch center at 10:22 p.m. to update that the 911 hangup call that he had previously sent over the CAD system was now an EMS call.

Shift supervisor Lt. Konnie Peacock picked up the phone.

Foley: This is Sean over at the Fort Worth police communications center.

Peacock: Yeah.

Foley: I just sent ya'll a 911 hangup call at 3132 Fairview...

Peacock: We're not taking any 911s. We're covered up.

Foley: Ok. This is... (Peacock hang ups the phone.)

Foley:... an EMS call. (unheard by Peacock)

After Peacock hung up on him, Foley supplemented the 911 hangup call to include information about Allen's condition. But officials say that supplement could not be viewed by the fire dispatch center because the 911 hangup call had already been canceled and deleted from their computer consoles.

Foley then called a MedStar ambulance dispatcher at 10:23 p.m. MedStar sent an ambulance to the house and alerted the fire department about the emergency through the CAD system. The fire department, in turn, dispatched an engine to the scene 48 seconds later, at 10:24 p.m.

That engine was still en route when Foley called the fire dispatch center again, this time speaking with someone other than Peacock. Foley told the dispatcher that another operator had previously hung up on him.

"She didn't bother to listen to all I had to say," Foley is heard telling the dispatcher on the tape.

Greif said the six employees in the fire dispatch center were fielding 5 ½ times the normal amount of dispatch calls during the 60-minute period that included Foley's call.

With the exception of the March 2000 tornado, Greif said, it was the busiest night in his four years over the dispatch system, and as a result, Peacock was fielding 911 calls in addition to her other duties.

Greif said Foley should have used the city's new CAD integrated system to first alert MedStar, which would have then alerted the fire department through the CAD system as well.

"We just installed an $8 million CAD system that has ability to send me messages from one terminal to the next," Greif said. "Using the phone is a last resort. You don't want to do that when we've gone to great lengths to build the technology to not have to do that."

Hernandez said Foley alerted the fire department about the 911 hangup call through the CAD system, as is procedure, but was unaware that fire dispatchers had canceled it and were not responding. After hearing Allen's plea for help, Foley opted to first call back the fire department, which he believed was en route to the call, to update them that the situation was now a medical emergency.

"Regardless of whether he did it on the phone or on CAD, it wasn't going to get there because they deleted the call and hung up on him," Hernandez said.

Hernandez said it is not the police department's policy to notify MedStar about medical emergencies via the CAD system.

"Notification that MedStar gets from us on medical emergencies are via telephone because of an arrangement between MedStar and our dispatchers," Hernandez said.

Hernandez said that after notifying MedStar about the call, Foley called the fire department to ensure they were responding.

"He's kind of going above and beyond," Hernandez said. "He's trying more because he's concerned. He's doing a little extra there."

Despite the delay, Greif said, the fire department was still the first to arrive at Allen's home.

Call logs show it took the engine 8 minutes and 1 second to reach the scene. On average that month, 911 calls were processed and engines responded in 5 minutes and 57 seconds. Between 10 and 11 p.m. on June 11 -- the hour of Allen's 911 call -- call processing and response times were 8 minutes on average.

After learning about what happened that night, Greif said he and Executive Deputy Chief James Tidwell, who had been filling in as acting chief while Fire Chief Charles Gaines was out of town, conducted an immediate investigation.

Greif said that a senior lieutenant was brought in to monitor Peacock during her next shift, and both he and Tidwell counseled Peacock about her actions. She was not disciplined, he said.

"She made a snap decision in the heat of battle," Greif said. "Yeah, I would have loved for her to stay on the phone a little bit longer. I told her at counseling, go ahead and ask them to cut to the chase. Go ahead and just say, 'Cut to the chase. Do you have something important to tell me?' before you hang up."

Peacock and Foley have declined to comment.

To fix the problem, fire officials have requested that police dispatchers no longer use the telephone but rather the CAD system for communication with the fire dispatch center. Police have also been instructed on how to send instant message updates that pop up on every fire department dispatch center console.

While Allen's son is happy those changes were put in place, at least some firefighters are still troubled that a formal internal investigation was not conducted.

"You have a person who died," said one firefighter, who asked that his name not be used for fear of retaliation. "My question would be, why would you not? Has this thing been glossed over because of who she is and who her husband is?" the firefighter asked.

Peacock's husband was named deputy chief in August.

Battalion Chief Ken Freeman said he does not believe Peacock "was doing anything other than her best" during that June night but said he agrees an internal investigation should have been done.

Freeman said he was very concerned after first hearing the police 911 tape on June 13 and later, while filling in as acting deputy chief in Tidwell's absence, both the police and fire 911 tapes.

Freeman said that from the beginning, he had recommended to Tidwell that Peacock be placed on administrative leave with pay while an internal investigation was conducted. He said he later shared those concerns with Chief Gaines in a subsequent meeting on June 17.

"I explained to Chief Gaines how concerned I was about the potential issues and I considered the best course to take (was) to turn it over to internal affairs."

Freeman said that when he met with Gaines and Greif on June 19, Gaines asked Greif about his review into the matter and what changes had been made. Freeman said the chief then said that he did not anticipate any disciplinary action would be taken and that the case would be closed.

"I made my position known that I believed that we needed to look into this matter in a more thorough way," Freeman said. "... In my mind, I wasn't comfortable at that point that the investigation was ready to be closed. In my mind there was still some open questions that I wanted to have answered."

He said the major unanswered question in his mind was whether the fire department's actions had any effect on the patient.

Gaines did not return repeated phone messages.

Tidwell, who has since retired, said that after looking into the events of that night, he recommended to the chief that no action be taken against Peacock because he did not feel she did anything wrong.

He said the matter did not warrant an internal investigation.

"Internal investigations are only initiated when there is a potential for disciplinary action in accordance with the civil service law," said Tidwell, who was over internal affairs for several years.

"If it's a work place performance issue, which is where I think it falls, we don't treat that as a crime. We treat that as a performance issue."

The article only says power outage, not that she was refusing to pay her bills. If this was the story you mean, you have twisted the facts considerably.

I also have a distinct lack of sympathy for the people who think saying 'you do not have the right' means 'you can not have this.' Having a right to something means you can, but do not necessarily have to, do/say/own that something. This should not require clarification.

It does require clarification because the bill isn't clear whether it is talking about limiting the UN, limiting individuals or limiting individual states. If a particular state decides dying people do have the right to sit around watching Draognball Z, what is that to you?

Then it isn't a right, it is a PRIVILEGE. Rights are UNIVERSAL. Privileges exist only when you CHOOSE to grant them.

Where have I restricted universality? If ALL dying people have that right, it is UNIVERSAL.

Universal means under all legitimate governments...

Princess Sophia, I feel you are being difficult.

Under this bill;

You CAN give them DragonballZ and pizzas till their eyes and guts explode in a gory spray of entrails and processed meat.

I DON'T have to.

Without this bill, I can give people pizza and TV and you can withold it.

Therefore the bill is unnecessary.

The bill is at best useless and at worst a restriction on national soveriegnty.

Universal means under all legitimate governments...

Well, I understand that in your world view you feel you can bark orders to all existing governments and they should be forced to obey you. However, many other nations have traditions of freedom. The only nations that should be able to influence policy in Khalistan is Khalistan, not some do-gooding dictator like yourself.

Only for a pizza example, this covers health care as well as practically, no, in fact, everything your government pays for. This allows your government to chose what it will and what it will not pay for. What it will and what it will not allow. How does this restrict National Soveriegnty? Look at some of the other wonderful bills, including ones that force you to use the metric system and tell me this is restrictive. All it does is state all the things you don't have to do.

Vote Against it. No Democratic Freedoms.

Healthcare and medicine are areas where the human race needs precedence over the human individual. We save children with congenital diseases (who cost huge amounts before the start paying tax, if they ever do) who then pollute the gene pool FOREVER in some cases ... the chronically ill for what they are : a drain that, if supported becomes a larger burden for the ever dwindling number of healthy people able to carry.

Errr...suspicious echoes of Nazi eugenics here. That's disgusting. You can't leave people to die because they are ill and you can DEFINETELY not call a human being pollution. We are all one species, and as sentient, intelligent people, we have a duty to overcome our selfish instincts and support each other. Dwindling number of HEALTHY people?! The number of people who are ILL enough to prevent them functioning is constantly dwindling, not the other way around, and large numbers of people with serious diseases like that don't get the chance to pass on their genes as it is. The answer to these problems is through science, not through abandoning children to die.


Finally, anyone would think that poor people never get rich or respected. History is full of individuals like Sir Walter Raliegh who pulled themselves up from the bootstraps in very hierarchical societies through effort and talent and luck to some extent. Those who did not are unfortunate but that's life.

You say history is full of individuals who acheived this. Did it ever occur to you that the few people who did manage this might not be a drop in an ocean of people who didn't - you just haven't heard of them (precisely because they were unable to do this).

The right-wingers all say capitalism is best because it allows each individual to reach his or her potential and gain the rewards. This is a noble idea (even if you think, like me, that it should be tempered with a little - or a lot - of compassion, or that there are better ideas), but it is not what we have today. We have, in effect, a race in which some people, though some of them may be fast runners, start a few miles behind with lead weights tied to their feet, whilst others, some of whom are almost incapable of running, start way out in front, and an elite begin on motorbikes. You say "That's life", but it doesn't have to be. If people actually started to show some compassion, we could at least level the playing field.


Death to political correctness - ethnicity forms were the first things the Nazis introduced to the countries they conquered!

a) Are you ACTUALLY supporting the Nazis? Or is it a joke in extremely poor taste? Or is it something else entirely? Please clarify, because those ethnicity forms were handed out for a evil and intensely disturbing purpose which I should not have to spell out.
b)This is not an issue of political correctness, something fairly trivial. This is an issue of human lives, which are some of the most valuable things in existence.

I think you'll find that he was saying that no one cared about race in a documented form before the Nazi;'s, at least that's my take on it.

The question of genetic diseases is rather scary, if you consider how many people need high technology merely to survive their genetic weaknesses........

Imagine a world where no one can survive without technology. Every child is wracked with diseases. A life of pills, medication and surgery.

Wierd and scary. And the alternative is no less scary.

Anyone got a clever solution for this?

This allows your government to chose what it will and what it will not pay for.

Not so. Nothing in the bill defines who it is addressing. Nothing specifies whether it is trying to limit the actions of the UN as a whole, of component states or of individuals.

How does this restrict National Soveriegnty?

Because some nations may not want capital punishment and other nations may want a single-payer healthcare system. It is up to each nation and each nation's supreme court to rule on rights and privileges.

Vote Against it.

Finally we agree. Vote no on this measure.

I know you might not appreciate the humour of this but the NSUN bills are generally, and this is only a loose rule, addressing member states.
So I guess, it is addressing the governments of the members states.
Either that or Azariel's Garbologists union, oh no, maybe not them.

It doesn't activily limit anywhere, it limits what you must do.

Capital Punishment.... hmmm.....

I know I am not too gifted at this English thing, but.... well.
You do not have the right not to be given the chair.

Double Negative.

You have the right to be given the chair.... Not you WILL be given the chair.

Not quite the same. Except in Azariel where we will burn you as a witch.

Imagine a world where no one can survive without technology. Every child is wracked with diseases. A life of pills, medication and surgery.

That is not going to happen - those with congenital diseases like this are a tiny minority, which doesn't reproduce as much as the healthy majority, partly because many have diseases which prevent them reproducing.


Anyone got a clever solution for this?

Erm...yes actually. Several things. Scientific research is developing many ways to combat genetic diseases. First, gene therapy, where "diseased" cells are replaced with ones with healthy genes. Second, the mis-named "designer baby" technique. this is actually very similar to IVF treatments, except that instead of simply picking one embryo to place back into the womb to develop, scanning techniques can pick the one which does not have the gene for the disease in question. Third, constant research is throwing up new ways to cure these diseases. So the answer is to allow the scientists to get on with their research without constant accusations of playing god - what's wrong with playing god? If god is cruel/lazy enough to cause such suffering, then isn't it our duty to do our best to right those wrongs? And if god doesn't exist, then the burden is on us to solve these problems in a humane way.

Both of you have stumbled on the purpose of this bill: to do nothing. So why does it exist? Look at what it really does. It has a strong effect on the furtherment of democracy. Now why should a proposal which does nothing have such a tremendous effect on member nations? It shouldn't.

But on top of that, since when is the UN in the business of telling it's members that they must be much more democratic? The UN admits all nations, regardless of their government. Do you have a dictatorship, or a communism? Expect your nation to become democratic if this passes. Do you want that? Do you have a New York Times Democracy? Expect your political freedoms to become excessive after this passes. Do you want that?

Don't force these problems on other nations. Let them decide what form of government they can have on their own. After all, isn't that the point of all of this?

I love it, the humane way is to pick and choose who gets to live or die on the most evil of all methods; their genes. They don't get a choice or anything. Why not stop them from breeding? That would be less shonky morality.

On a side note, Athsma. This doesn't disappear, infact it becoming more common because it rarely kills, all due to march of technology. There are other diseases too you know.

But I don't won't this turning into a debate on abortion so:

Princess Sophia, are accidently logged in as this ID?
You seemed to refer to yourself as Khalidstan earlier.

I love it, the humane way is to pick and choose who gets to live or die on the most evil of all methods; their genes. They don't get a choice or anything. Why not stop them from breeding? That would be less shonky morality.

Is that to me. on the designer babies issue? A point here. We are talking about a bundle of cells - maybe 6-8. No nervous system, let alone a brain, so it has no feelings, is capable of no thought, and cannot feel pain. Even through natural conception, some embryos die, many at such an early stage that the mother has not realised she was pregnant and never notices that she has had a miscarriage. At least this way the one which lives past conception is the one that has a chance of living past infancy too. And stopping an adult, who IS sentient and desperately wants a child, from reproducing is more cruel than destroying a mindless dot.


On a side note, Athsma. This doesn't disappear, infact it becoming more common because it rarely kills, all due to march of technology. There are other diseases too you know.

Generally, people grow out of asthma, and it poses little problem to many sufferers, and the medicines needed are usually simple and cost little, so have little impact on taxpayers.

Hey! Some of my best friends are mindless dots! :lol:
As for reproducing, if you say so dude. It's up to your government.

Asthma is not something you grow out of. And the cost don't bother me.
It's the dying when you don't have your medicine and someone shakes out a rug. As for the little problems, that depends on whether or not you have your medicines.

Asthma without medicine = 1 day spent having a severve asthma attack.

Asthma with medicine = 1 hour feeling a little manky.

I know you might not appreciate the humour of this but the NSUN bills are generally, and this is only a loose rule, addressing member states.

So I guess, it is addressing the governments of the members states.

So in the bill, "you" is an individual state such as "Azariel" and "We" is the "Global market"?

Do you see the problem yet?

OK, let's look at the bill of no rights again.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care.

The bill clearly states that you don't have the right to free healthcare, not that any nation can provide free health care if they want to. Yes I know what TGM meant, but the bill needs to be reworded to something like: You do not always have the right to free healthcare. (sounds kind of passive, but you need to think up some way to change it)

OK, let's look at the bill of no rights again.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care.

The bill clearly states that you don't have the right to free healthcare, not that any nation can provide free health care if they want to. Yes I know what TGM meant, but the bill needs to be reworded to something like: You do not always have the right to free healthcare. (sounds kind of passive, but you need to think up some way to change it)

All you added was the word "always". That doesn't change the meaning at all.

I know you might not appreciate the humour of this but the NSUN bills are generally, and this is only a loose rule, addressing member states.

So I guess, it is addressing the governments of the members states.

So in the bill, "you" is an individual state such as "Azariel" and "We" is the "Global market"?

Do you see the problem yet?

No, cause if think about it, and look around a little bit, you'll find that "you" is Princess Sophia and not Azariel. :lol:

No in the resolution "you" represents the individual citizen.

I know you might not appreciate the humour of this but the NSUN bills are generally, and this is only a loose rule, addressing member states.

So I guess, it is addressing the governments of the members states.

So in the bill, "you" is an individual state such as "Azariel" and "We" is the "Global market"?

Do you see the problem yet?

No, cause if think about it, and look around a little bit, you'll find that "you" is Princess Sophia and not Azariel. :lol:

I am what not I can or cannot be. Aegonia stands by this statement and sees no confusion in the matter.

:wink:

No, cause if think about it, and look around a little bit, you'll find that "you" is Princess Sophia and not Azariel. :lol:

Why "not Azariel"?

Guess.

No in the resolution "you" represents the individual citizen.

Really? The individual citizen is addressed by "you" in Article VIII?

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

There seems to be some serious discrepency in who is to follow which direction.

"I'd rather be smashing Patriarchy!"

Cool country Princess. I like the balance of Economy and rights

Article VIII 'you' is the government.

And I have MORE rights AND a BETTER economy than Princess Sophia...

Not that it matters. The resolution as a whole is just a statement of the obvious - with no purpose. Oh yeah, but it has a strong effect on the furtherment of democracy, for some reason. Becasue all of the UN member nations are democracies, right?

No. As simply as possible, every individual should be gauranteed the right to pursue such requisites, not to receive them without having done anything to earn them.


People seem to forget that the language has changed in 200 years. When the (US) constitution was written (1787-1789), the standard phrase of the day was "life, liberty and property" but the framers changed it in order to sidestep the slavery issue.

"Pursuit" was substituted , which in those days meant "pasttime". (People spoke of noble pursuits like government service, and trivial pursuits, like parlor games.) It most certainly was not used in the sense of "chase after/seek out".

Oooo The Global Market is jealous.

Don't worry TGM your cute too :D

The way I understand it, it basically says that nations can rule their territories however they wish and nothing can be taken for granted.

This won't REPEAL any resolutions, just make compliance voluntary.

But that's not what it says. The bill specifically denies certain rights, which member nations may well choose to grant. For example, socialist nations often grant their citizens the right to free healthcare. This bill would supercede member nations' ability to grant these rights within their own constitutionss!

The way I understand it, it basically says that nations can rule their territories however they wish and nothing can be taken for granted.

This won't REPEAL any resolutions, just make compliance voluntary.

But that's not what it says. The bill specifically denies certain rights, which member nations may well choose to grant. For example, socialist nations often grant their citizens the right to free healthcare. This bill would supercede member nations' ability to grant these rights within their own constitutionss!

No this bill establishes that THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS. They are PRIVILEGES. A privilege is something that someone else CAN give you but does not HAVE to give you. The government can make free healthcare a PRIVILEGE FOR EVERYONE in its own country.

All the proposal does is change the verbiage. It reminds people of the difference between rights and privelages. You may be privelaged to many things, but you don't truly have a right to any of them. Which is why this proposal is garbage because it doesn't do anything.

I like everything about this bill, except one thing. Its takes away your right to be a lazy bum. Everybody derserves at least that. Only for this reason am I vote NAE.

I like everything about this bill, except one thing. Its takes away your right to be a lazy bum. Everybody derserves at least that. Only for this reason am I vote NAE.

You have the right to be a lazy bum. But if you so choose we aren't responsible for the consequences.

"I only have one right: The right to do as I damn well please and to accept the consequences."
--PJ O'Rourke

The bill specifically denies certain rights, which member nations may well choose to grant. For example, socialist nations often grant their citizens the right to free healthcare. This bill would supercede member nations' ability to grant these rights within their own constitutionss!

No this bill establishes that THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS. They are PRIVILEGES. A privilege is something that someone else CAN give you but does not HAVE to give you. The government can make free healthcare a PRIVILEGE FOR EVERYONE in its own country.

The bill states: "You do not have the right to free health care.
You do not have the right to free food and housing"

THis bill may be trying to say what you said, but it doesn't seem to be distingushing between human rights, which civilization deems everyone has regardless of their nation, as opposed to regular rights, as those granted by the US Bill Of Rights, which are in fact granted by a nation's constitution. These are 2 very different things, but are used apparently interchangeably in the bill currently at vote in the NSUN.

I see nothing wrong whatsoever with this bill for this GAME.

We're not running real live contries here people. OK, well maybe some of you think you are, but alas, you are wrong.

Everything in this bill is what the majority believes in anyway. Not the Liberal majority, which it seems is the type of people that come to this site.

Let me guess...most of you are college age, and even some of you may be high school age...still unable to form a true opinion because most of you still haven't experienced what it is to live and work in the real world.

For people such as myself that work everyday and raise a family, this bill is exactly what the world needs now. No silly sugar-coated shit, "Oh don't worry, you just lay around or sell drugs; stay out of the job market; make more babies than you can handle and we, the Government, will take care of everything for you."

People should learn to take care of themselves and ween themselves off of the system to become productive citizens of the world. I don't give a rats ass what color you are or what sex you are, you all have the same opportunities as everyone else. Get over yourselves.

I've said this before, but that was when this was only seeking approvals to reach this stage, so I'll reiterate:

This is not a proposal of law; it is a statement of principles, and crappy ones at that. TGM has admitted in at least one place that the idea is to repeal the mandatory healthcare provision passed in an earlier resolution, and that he's hiding that in the rest of this statement. Don't be fooled. TGM is doing this because he knows he can't get a resolution that denies the rights of people to heathcare passed--it's crappy, and he knows it.

Princess Sophia:

While that story is mildly similar, the one I witnessed was on television and considerably different. For one thing, the woman wasn't dead, and for another, the electric company was -cutting off- her service. It wasn't a power outage.

I resent that you would even for a moment consider I would stoop to such a level over a proposed bill (OOC: and for a game, no less).

And on another note, what does it matter what show was on the TV? The point is that she had cable television, on a big-screen television, and she was complaining about not being able to afford her electric bill. Don't focus on the wrong parts.

And for God's sake, you people are nitpicking at 'bad' wording or 'offensive' wording, while here you're openly insulting each other and using words like 'crappy'?

Who are you to judge? Would you care to write up a better resolution? Mayhap one that actually does ban or grant the rights (or lack thereof) listed?

I am in fact of high school age. I'm 16. I can see that--considering this JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE A FICTIONAL LAW--we do in fact need this.

The bill in itself does not openly ban any of the things it states that an individual does not have a right to. It says, and says ONLY, that you are not entitled to be a lazy-ass, welfare-wasting, space-consuming worthless embarrassment to creation in hopes that the government will take care of you because you're a "victim of society."

I'm sorry. The bill of no rights needs to be said, and passed. If for nothing else, because of the people who are against it. Your reasoning is fickle at best and laughable at worst.

Article VIII 'you' is the government.

And I have MORE rights AND a BETTER economy than Princess Sophia...

You are assuming, of course, that more extreme is better than more moderate approaches. If I wanted to praise a real life country's rights, I wouldn't use the word "frightening". Would you?

Princess Sophia:

While that story is mildly similar, the one I witnessed was on television and considerably different.

So do you have a link?

Do you have any corroborating details such as the name of the person and the name of the town?

Would you care to write up a better resolution?

I would if my region had more UN members. *sigh*

Sophia, read very carefully what I am writing here:

I am not going to waste time and effort making up some kind of catastrophe in order to justify a law for an online game, and especially not one that involves life and death.

Here, since you so badly want to prove that I'm a liar, is the article. I do hope you find it interesting.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article_lc.asp?storyid=47481

Article VIII 'you' is the government.

And I have MORE rights AND a BETTER economy than Princess Sophia...

You are assuming, of course, that more extreme is better than more moderate approaches. If I wanted to praise a real life country's rights, I wouldn't use the word "frightening". Would you?

I would. Frightening doesn't have to be a bad thing. It can be a good thing. It frightens oppressive governments such as your own.

The only three rights are life, liberty, and property.

Nonsense.

How dare you claim that property should be a right, but universal health care should not. And how can you be so foolish to claim life as a universal right when you would deny health care to someone simply because he or she is poor?

Your hypocrisy is overshadowed only by your audacity.

Pogue

The only three rights are life, liberty, and property.

Nonsense.

How dare you claim that property should be a right, but universal health care should not. And how can you be so foolish to claim life as a universal right when you would deny health care to someone simply because he or she is poor?

Your hypocrisy is overshadowed only by your audacity.

Pogue

The Harms Principle. You may do whatever you want unless it directly infringes on somebody else's rights.

You have the right to property. You do not have the right to steal.

Sophia, read very carefully what I am writing here:

I am not going to waste time and effort making up some kind of catastrophe in order to justify a law for an online game, and especially not one that involves life and death.

Here, since you so badly want to prove that I'm a liar, is the article. I do hope you find it interesting.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article_lc.asp?storyid=47481

Read what I am going to say very carefully:

You had originally supplied no details to help anyone find the story. I tried to find it the best I could and I found another woman with the same three ailments who was also having utility problems. What would you have thought if you were in my shoes?

So this woman is dependent on $700 a month and you said both your parents work and yet they cannot afford to live in the lifestyle this woman lives. Is the combined income of your parents less than $700 a month? What's up with that?

And for God's sake, you people are nitpicking at 'bad' wording or 'offensive' wording, while here you're openly insulting each other and using words like 'crappy'?

Who are you to judge? Would you care to write up a better resolution? Mayhap one that actually does ban or grant the rights (or lack thereof) listed?

I am in fact of high school age. I'm 16. I can see that--considering this JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE A FICTIONAL LAW--we do in fact need this.

The bill in itself does not openly ban any of the things it states that an individual does not have a right to. It says, and says ONLY, that you are not entitled to be a lazy-ass, welfare-wasting, space-consuming worthless embarrassment to creation in hopes that the government will take care of you because you're a "victim of society."

I'm sorry. The bill of no rights needs to be said, and passed. If for nothing else, because of the people who are against it. Your reasoning is fickle at best and laughable at worst.

A decent argument does not include condemning people for name calling, and then filling your post with the very same.

And we are judging the resolution because we are being asked to pass it, and thus to, well, judge it.

Your comment on people whose economic condition is somewhat less than yours is sad to see in one so young. Are you truly that filled with hate and scorn? And how can you condemn people without work and support a law that specifically states that having a job is not a right?

By the way, those of us who oppose this resolution do not have to justify it. The burden of justification is rightly on those who support it. So far, the only support I've seen comes from those who have nothing but contempt for society's less fortunate.

Pogue

The Harms Principle. You may do whatever you want unless it directly infringes on somebody else's rights.

You have the right to property.

Then by your own admittance, you are violating your own beliefs. Your right to property infringes on my right to traverse the land as I see fit. It infringes on my right to gather food, to hunt and to fish, to feed myself -- indeed, it infringes on my very right to life.

Your right to own water infringes on my right to drink what is a necessary ingredient for life.

Pogue

The only three rights are life, liberty, and property.

Nonsense.

How dare you claim that property should be a right, but universal health care should not. And how can you be so foolish to claim life as a universal right when you would deny health care to someone simply because he or she is poor?

Your hypocrisy is overshadowed only by your audacity.



More importantly, how can those things be rights when not all countries recognize those as rights. TGM said that I could not provide free pizza and TV to the terminally ill as a right because other countries don't do so and thus it isn't universal.

First: I quoted that story to the best of my ability, and I did not even consider that my integrity would be involved. If I had, I most likely would have taken the time to dig up that link, but I did not, and for whatever reason you became paranoid. Thank you very much for insulting me.

Second: My parents make considerably more than 700 dollars each month. I wouldn't have access to this forum if they didn't. They however cannot afford to splurge on a gigantic television and I consider this good judgement. They don't exactly get massive salaries but they're not bare bones either.
The point I was attempting to make was that a person on welfare could stand to pay for something a little more useful--say, food, clothing and electricity--than a television. Especially when supporting children on that welfare.

[Ugh. Sorry. it posted twice.]

Let me guess...most of you are college age, and even some of you may be high school age...still unable to form a true opinion because most of you still haven't experienced what it is to live and work in the real world.

For people such as myself that work everyday and raise a family, this bill is exactly what the world needs now. No silly sugar-coated shit, "Oh don't worry, you just lay around or sell drugs; stay out of the job market; make more babies than you can handle and we, the Government, will take care of everything for you."


You pompous ass. I am a middle-aged white male, married with children, and I have nothing but scorn for those who support this silly nonsense.

Pogue

The only three rights are life, liberty, and property.

Nonsense.

How dare you claim that property should be a right, but universal health care should not. And how can you be so foolish to claim life as a universal right when you would deny health care to someone simply because he or she is poor?

Your hypocrisy is overshadowed only by your audacity.



More importantly, how can those things be rights when not all countries recognize those as rights. TGM said that I could not provide free pizza and TV to the terminally ill as a right because other countries don't do so and thus it isn't universal.

I never said you don't have the right to provide free pizza and TV to the terminally ill. I said you don't have the right to make me do that.

As for life, liberty, and property, if you don't have them, it doesn't mean they aren't universal rights, it means you are an illegitimate government.

And for God's sake, you people are nitpicking at 'bad' wording or 'offensive' wording, while here you're openly insulting each other and using words like 'crappy'?

Who are you to judge? Would you care to write up a better resolution? Mayhap one that actually does ban or grant the rights (or lack thereof) listed?

I am in fact of high school age. I'm 16. I can see that--considering this JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE A FICTIONAL LAW--we do in fact need this.

The bill in itself does not openly ban any of the things it states that an individual does not have a right to. It says, and says ONLY, that you are not entitled to be a lazy-ass, welfare-wasting, space-consuming worthless embarrassment to creation in hopes that the government will take care of you because you're a "victim of society."

I'm sorry. The bill of no rights needs to be said, and passed. If for nothing else, because of the people who are against it. Your reasoning is fickle at best and laughable at worst.

A decent argument does not include condemning people for name calling, and then filling your post with the very same.

And we are judging the resolution because we are being asked to pass it, and thus to, well, judge it.

Your comment on people whose economic condition is somewhat less than yours is sad to see in one so young. Are you truly that filled with hate and scorn? And how can you condemn people without work and support a law that specifically states that having a job is not a right?

By the way, those of us who oppose this resolution do not have to justify it. The burden of justification is rightly on those who support it. So far, the only support I've seen comes from those who have nothing but contempt for society's less fortunate.

Pogue

Sorry, but I'm not calling anyone here any names. I'm making a point, and if that requires me to be as blunt as possible so be it.

I question the qualification to judge how the bill is worded when the vocabulary seen throughout this forum thread is taken into consideration, not your ability to criticize the bill.

You -don't- have the right to a job (or a luxurious life, or whatever part of the bill you feel like you have a right to). You can go out and get yourself one, but just because you're there doesn't mean you deserve to have a salary tossed into your lap.

I have no contempt for those in society that have no jobs or no money or failing health. I reserve that contempt for the ones among the 'less fortunate' who are 'less fortunate' merely because they refuse to earn anything or their priorities are confused. I am more than willing to sympathize with the poor, the hungry and the homeless, but not when they're poor or hungry or homeless because of their own mistakes.

Let me guess...most of you are college age, and even some of you may be high school age...still unable to form a true opinion because most of you still haven't experienced what it is to live and work in the real world.

For people such as myself that work everyday and raise a family, this bill is exactly what the world needs now. No silly sugar-coated shit, "Oh don't worry, you just lay around or sell drugs; stay out of the job market; make more babies than you can handle and we, the Government, will take care of everything for you."


You pompous ass. I am a middle-aged white male, married with children, and I have nothing but scorn for those who support this silly nonsense.

Pogue

Thanks for saying that--I'm exactly the same, well, except for the married part--divorced, with a child and a long-term girlfriend, and have had more shitty jobs than I can count in my attempts to provide the basics for myself and those around me. I've only had to ask for government assistance once--and that was health care for my daughter--and even though I've not had to make use of those programs often, I'm glad those systems were in place in case I did.

First: I quoted that story to the best of my ability, and I did not even consider that my integrity would be involved. If I had, I most likely would have taken the time to dig up that link, but I did not, and for whatever reason you became paranoid.

How is it paranoid to ask you why your version of the story seemed so different from the version I found?

Thank you very much for insulting me.

Aren't you laying all this on a bit thick? :roll:


The point I was attempting to make was that a person on welfare could stand to pay for something a little more useful--say, food, clothing and electricity--than a television. Especially when supporting children on that welfare.

So basically you are arguing that people don't know how to spend their own money and the need a Big Brother to watch their expenditures and determine which ones are wise and which are foolish. I find this suprising because usually conservatives and libertarians argue the opposite: that government shouldn't take money from people and spend it because people know how to spend their own money best.

I simply don't know enough about the women's finances to leap to the wild conclusions you make. It may be the woman coldly and shrewdly calculated to take advantage of the utility company. On the other hand, there may be aspects to the story we don't know about. Other than that one KDSK story, no one seems to have written about her.

As for life, liberty, and property, if you don't have them, it doesn't mean they aren't universal rights, it means you are an illegitimate government.

Conversely, others may feel if you don't supply basic medical care to all, you are not a legitimate government. Hence the wisdom in allowing each country to follow the path it has chosen.

Perhaps a rephrase is in order. Maybe it's not paranoia.

I'm merely confused as to why you'd feel the need to go looking for the story in the first place. Even if I had made it up would the point have been any different?

And I never said people need to be watched and regulated and whatever else. (I also hate that show.) I'm also not a liberal. At the moment I'm not entirely sure where on the political spectrum I'd fit.

As for life, liberty, and property, if you don't have them, it doesn't mean they aren't universal rights, it means you are an illegitimate government.

Conversely, others may feel if you don't supply basic medical care to all, you are not a legitimate government. Hence the wisdom in allowing each country to follow the path it has chosen.

EXACTLY! This bill lets you CHOOSE whether you want to give free healthcare or not!

EXACTLY! This bill lets you CHOOSE whether you want to give free healthcare or not!

That's not what the bill says.

I highly recommend you read it.

Special force Gamma's parent nation, AllBritain is voting against this resolution because of the ease with which it can be misinterpreted, and the debatable endorsement of the Death Penalty. If it were better worded so as to be completely unambiguous, the nation would support this resolution, but as things stand, AllBritain is against it.

OOC: Global Market, I suggest when submitting proposals in the future that you ensure they are entirely unambiguous.

EXACTLY! This bill lets you CHOOSE whether you want to give free healthcare or not!

That's not what the bill says.

I highly recommend you read it.

It says you do not have hte RIGHT to free healthcare.

If it isn't a right you can still grant it to people, as a privilege.

The Bill of No Rights says "You do not have the right to..." free health care, a job, etc.

This bill is poorly worded, and if people followed it exactly as written it wouldn't work. But if you just take its general meaning, it says you can't demand stuff from your govornment. Isn't this true anyway? I mean, you can protest all you want, but you can' force them, so this thing has no affect; why not implement it? (It's good sattire, a fun resolution to have around.)

However, you can interpret it as essentially outlawing welfare, so all nations with welfare would have to clean up their acts. Not a good thing, let's vote against it...

Especially since it could technically be interpreted as outlawing having jobs, and outlawing certain aspects of free speech.

The Bill of No Rights says "You do not have the right to..." free health care, a job, etc.

This bill is poorly worded, and if people followed it exactly as written it wouldn't work. But if you just take its general meaning, it says you can't demand stuff from your govornment. Isn't this true anyway? I mean, you can protest all you want, but you can' force them, so this thing has no affect; why not implement it? (It's good sattire, a fun resolution to have around.)

However, you can interpret it as essentially outlawing welfare, so all nations with welfare would have to clean up their acts. Not a good thing, let's vote against it...

Especially since it could technically be interpreted as outlawing having jobs, and outlawing certain aspects of free speech.

How does it even limit free speech? Article II expands on it.

Once again it makes all these things PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS.

Hence the "we'd all like you to have a job" in there.

The Principality of Psibu will be voting against the Bill of No Rights- much like the earlier defeated Cato Acts, this bill goes far beyond what the intended purposes the United Nations were formed to enact. The UN was not designed to preach to nations, furthermore, our nation finds the high and mighty tone in which the Bill of No Rights' articles are written in quite insulting.

Moreover, this Bill does not directly condone capital punishment... it says don't be surprised if we wnat you executed... no where does it require that capital punishment or anything else exist. This is a bill of responsibility. It makes everything voluntary... I am personally against capital punishment except in extreme circumstances.

So this Bill means that you aren't allowed to be surprised? The Free Peoples of Kibonia know
full well that they ARE ALLOWED! Even to be surprised! You can't take away the element
of surprise!

Your Bill is DUMB because: 1. It's a STUPID EMAIL JOKE; 2. It says "This isn't a right", and
"That isn't a right", and is in no way enforceable; and 3. IT'S A STUPID EMAIL JOKE!

Maybe I should "Propose" that the UN votes into Law every STUPID JOKE I get in email.

People seem to forget that the language has changed in 200 years. When the (US) constitution was written (1787-1789), the standard phrase of the day was "life, liberty and property" but the framers changed it in order to sidestep the slavery issue.

"Pursuit" was substituted , which in those days meant "pasttime". (People spoke of noble pursuits like government service, and trivial pursuits, like parlor games.) It most certainly was not used in the sense of "chase after/seek out".

Good for them. Regardless, I used "pursue" out of my own conscious judgement. I am not regurgitating important-sounding phrases from famous American political literature; what I mean to say, when using "the right to pursue happiness," is that it is every human's right to the unencumbered opportunity to be the most capable and productive person they can be, through their own individual ability. This right to one's life is the foundation of a moral political, social and economic system.

But if you just take its general meaning, it says you can't demand stuff from your govornment. Isn't this true anyway? I mean, you can protest all you want, but you can' force them, so this thing has no affect; why not implement it? (It's good sattire, a fun resolution to have around.)

However, you can interpret it as essentially outlawing welfare, so all nations with welfare would have to clean up their acts. Not a good thing, let's vote against it...

Does the fault lay with the bill, or does the fault lay with the reader?

Let me explain the meaning of this bill:

The premise of life is to survive. Man can survive only by rational thought; instincts and whims cannot help him. Instincts tell him that there is a problem: he's hungry, he's cold. But instincts cannot farm crops or build shelter.

So, in order to survive and prosper, man needs the full, unrestricted right to his mind. The degree of his freedom determines the prosperity he can enjoy. The more creative and resourceful he can be, the more his quality of life can rise, as he finds better ways to live it.

When humans interact, they must do so on a voluntary, consensual basis. Each must respect the rights of the other, because to deny another's rights gives the victim your consent fully retaliate: if you do not value man's right to himself, your victim will understand that you do not value your right to yourself.

When humans trade material or intellectual goods, they also must do so on a consensual basis, free from pressure, pull, or restriction. Without the consent of the consumer, one cannot profit. Without the competition of other unrestricted competition, one cannot progress. In a competition between two manufacturers, the one who is the most productive and efficient can afford to offer lower prices. But they cannot afford to inflate prices, either; the customer is free to choose between either manufacturer, who offers the lowest prices.

Such economic trade is - in essence - an exchange of the products of the consentees' minds. The simplest example is the ancient version of bartering, where your goods (i.e. clay pots, baskets, grain, livestock) were exchanged directly for those of another, in mutual consent. Today, our technological diversity has allowed for the use of standardized currency, to be used as an intermediate form of exchange. It physically represents the effort one put into providing goods or services; the more you work or make, the more you get paid by someone who values those actions.

Then what is the less-capable to do? What chance does one stand, when they cannot earn as much or produce as much as an abler competitor or fellow citizen? Thier right lays in ther inferior mind. If they cannot adapt or become more productive, or think more critically, if they cannot outcompete their skillful and able competition, then there is nothing they can morally else to do. They are not entitled to the mind of a genius, simply because the capability of such people benefits a society; their only right is to their own mind.

What, then, does the concept of welfare advocate? Such a system provides assistance to the needy, at the expense of taxpayers. The needy do nothing to earn this assistance; it is rather quite the opposite: relief is given specifically to those who can't provide relief for themselves, who are unable to survive on their own. But in order to retain its value, the money has to come from a source, the root of which is ability. People who are able, who can earn an income to support themselves and their family, are taxed to provide for the dependents of welfare. The more you earn, the more you are taxed. It is a punishment, but not for wrongdoings. Welfare punishes those with ability, and lauds total inability.

But it has done more than that. It has violated that right to one's own mind. Money is the phyiscal equivaluent of ability. You used your mind to produce that which was traded for a consented price. When a government forcibly takes that physical manifestation and gives it to one who could create such wealth on his own, it gives him a claim to your mind and to the products of it. He no longer needs to rely on his mind to survive, but to drain you of yours for his benefit.

This bill defines examples of this looting of the mind. It is worded quite casually, and should not be intended for use as a legal document, but the rationality behind it, the philosiphy that is the base of its argument, is the foundation of the only moral political system that has ever existed, the only true advocate of human progress: capitalism.

Although I supported the Cato Acts and am saddened to see that they are failing to win support, I am not so keen on The Global Market's other recent proposal, the Bill Of No Rights. Whilst parts of it make sense and are perfectly reasonable principles, other parts go too far and would have potentially disastrous consequences if implemented.


ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. There are charitable people to be found, who will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

Whilst I am not insisting that we make the implementation of a welfare state compulsory in every nation, this article would in effect do the opposite - ban any form of government support for the poor and unemployed, since it means that we can no longer give our citizens the right to benefits. It is unfair to characterize the unemployed and poor as lazy - many are simply trapped because of our unfair societies. If a person is born to a poor family in a poor area, it is often hard for them to get a decent education, and so, regardless of their potential, many leave school without the qualifications that will get them good jobs, so the family remain poor. And many of these people, having become workers low down on the corporate ladder, have to be laid off through no fault of their own and then find themselves unemployed and in need of support - not professional couch potatoes, but victims of our societies.


ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

Again, this would effectively make it illegal for countries to offer free medical care to all their citizens. I'm not sure how the system works in the US, but several (real-life) European countries are quite happy with state-provided free health services and so are many of us in the game.


don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair

I and many others abhor the death penalty, even for serious crimes - it brings society and the state down to the level of the killers. I'm not even going to go into the practical problems of being absolutely sure that the accused is truly guilty. (This doesn't mean that I oppose the bit saying that you have no right to physically harm others)


ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won’t lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you’d like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

Whilst I am against unilateral military action such as the Iraq war, we do need to make it possible for the UN (not individual countries without specific permission from the UN) to send peacekeepers and other troops with similar purposes into combat zones, as long as we avoid conscription.

These points mar an otherwise sensible piece of legislation. Unfortunately, they mean that I will be voting against this Bill of No Rights when it comes before the entire UN, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

I AGREE! :!:

Asthma is not something you grow out of. And the cost don't bother me.
It's the dying when you don't have your medicine and someone shakes out a rug. As for the little problems, that depends on whether or not you have your medicines.

I know someone who had severe asthma when he was a baby, but grew out of it (and his allergy to milk) by about 10 or 11. Does that mean that he should not be allowed to reproduce in case he passes on a tendency to develop asthma?

The premise of life is to survive. Man can survive only by rational thought; instincts and whims cannot help him. Instincts tell him that there is a problem: he's hungry, he's cold. But instincts cannot farm crops or build shelter.

So, in order to survive and prosper, man needs the full, unrestricted right to his mind. The degree of his freedom determines the prosperity he can enjoy. The more creative and resourceful he can be, the more his quality of life can rise, as he finds better ways to live it.

When humans interact, they must do so on a voluntary, consensual basis. Each must respect the rights of the other, because to deny another's rights gives the victim your consent fully retaliate: if you do not value man's right to himself, your victim will understand that you do not value your right to yourself.

When humans trade material or intellectual goods, they also must do so on a consensual basis, free from pressure, pull, or restriction. Without the consent of the consumer, one cannot profit. Without the competition of other unrestricted competition, one cannot progress. In a competition between two manufacturers, the one who is the most productive and efficient can afford to offer lower prices. But they cannot afford to inflate prices, either; the customer is free to choose between either manufacturer, who offers the lowest prices.

Such economic trade is - in essence - an exchange of the products of the consentees' minds. The simplest example is the ancient version of bartering, where your goods (i.e. clay pots, baskets, grain, livestock) were exchanged directly for those of another, in mutual consent. Today, our technological diversity has allowed for the use of standardized currency, to be used as an intermediate form of exchange. It physically represents the effort one put into providing goods or services; the more you work or make, the more you get paid by someone who values those actions.

Then what is the less-capable to do? What chance does one stand, when they cannot earn as much or produce as much as an abler competitor or fellow citizen? Thier right lays in ther inferior mind. If they cannot adapt or become more productive, or think more critically, if they cannot outcompete their skillful and able competition, then there is nothing they can morally else to do. They are not entitled to the mind of a genius, simply because the capability of such people benefits a society; their only right is to their own mind.

What, then, does the concept of welfare advocate? Such a system provides assistance to the needy, at the expense of taxpayers. The needy do nothing to earn this assistance; it is rather quite the opposite: relief is given specifically to those who can't provide relief for themselves, who are unable to survive on their own. But in order to retain its value, the money has to come from a source, the root of which is ability. People who are able, who can earn an income to support themselves and their family, are taxed to provide for the dependents of welfare. The more you earn, the more you are taxed. It is a punishment, but not for wrongdoings. Welfare punishes those with ability, and lauds total inability.

But it has done more than that. It has violated that right to one's own mind. Money is the phyiscal equivaluent of ability. You used your mind to produce that which was traded for a consented price. When a government forcibly takes that physical manifestation and gives it to one who could create such wealth on his own, it gives him a claim to your mind and to the products of it. He no longer needs to rely on his mind to survive, but to drain you of yours for his benefit.

This bill defines examples of this looting of the mind. It is worded quite casually, and should not be intended for use as a legal document, but the rationality behind it, the philosiphy that is the base of its argument, is the foundation of the only moral political system that has ever existed, the only true advocate of human progress: capitalism.

You are assuming the ideal of capitalism - in effect a race in which everybody starts in the same place and carries themselves as far as they can based on their own ability - those more naturally able can go far further. Leaving aside any disagreements any of us may have with this concept, let's look at real life for a moment. Allow me to quote myself:


This [idealist capitalism] is a noble idea (even if you think, like me, that it should be tempered with a little - or a lot - of compassion, or that there are better ideas), but it is not what we have today. We have, in effect, a race in which some people, though some of them may be fast runners, start a few miles behind with lead weights tied to their feet, whilst others, some of whom are almost incapable of running, start way out in front, and an elite begin on motorbikes.

In a situation such as this, your arguments that tax of money is punishment for ability do not hold up, because the reason most people are where they are is not due to their innate abilities, but to the social position they were born into. Hence taxation is an attempt, in most cases, at least to reduce slightly the huge but totally UNEARNED advantage some people have.

Oh whinge whinge whinge, this bill says that you cant expect to have wealth, success and freedom handed to you on a silver platter. It encourages you to obtain everything you want through your own means, wether its hard work or delegating like a supervisor. If people are too slack/stupid to go out to work or contribute to their community, they dont deserve a damn thing. Plain and simple.

But if you just take its general meaning, it says you can't demand stuff from your govornment. Isn't this true anyway? I mean, you can protest all you want, but you can' force them, so this thing has no affect; why not implement it? (It's good sattire, a fun resolution to have around.)

However, you can interpret it as essentially outlawing welfare, so all nations with welfare would have to clean up their acts. Not a good thing, let's vote against it...

Does the fault lay with the bill, or does the fault lay with the reader?

Let me explain the meaning of this bill:

The premise of life is to survive. Man can survive only by rational thought; instincts and whims cannot help him. Instincts tell him that there is a problem: he's hungry, he's cold. But instincts cannot farm crops or build shelter.

So, in order to survive and prosper, man needs the full, unrestricted right to his mind. The degree of his freedom determines the prosperity he can enjoy. The more creative and resourceful he can be, the more his quality of life can rise, as he finds better ways to live it.

When humans interact, they must do so on a voluntary, consensual basis. Each must respect the rights of the other, because to deny another's rights gives the victim your consent fully retaliate: if you do not value man's right to himself, your victim will understand that you do not value your right to yourself.

When humans trade material or intellectual goods, they also must do so on a consensual basis, free from pressure, pull, or restriction. Without the consent of the consumer, one cannot profit. Without the competition of other unrestricted competition, one cannot progress. In a competition between two manufacturers, the one who is the most productive and efficient can afford to offer lower prices. But they cannot afford to inflate prices, either; the customer is free to choose between either manufacturer, who offers the lowest prices.

Such economic trade is - in essence - an exchange of the products of the consentees' minds. The simplest example is the ancient version of bartering, where your goods (i.e. clay pots, baskets, grain, livestock) were exchanged directly for those of another, in mutual consent. Today, our technological diversity has allowed for the use of standardized currency, to be used as an intermediate form of exchange. It physically represents the effort one put into providing goods or services; the more you work or make, the more you get paid by someone who values those actions.

Then what is the less-capable to do? What chance does one stand, when they cannot earn as much or produce as much as an abler competitor or fellow citizen? Thier right lays in ther inferior mind. If they cannot adapt or become more productive, or think more critically, if they cannot outcompete their skillful and able competition, then there is nothing they can morally else to do. They are not entitled to the mind of a genius, simply because the capability of such people benefits a society; their only right is to their own mind.

What, then, does the concept of welfare advocate? Such a system provides assistance to the needy, at the expense of taxpayers. The needy do nothing to earn this assistance; it is rather quite the opposite: relief is given specifically to those who can't provide relief for themselves, who are unable to survive on their own. But in order to retain its value, the money has to come from a source, the root of which is ability. People who are able, who can earn an income to support themselves and their family, are taxed to provide for the dependents of welfare. The more you earn, the more you are taxed. It is a punishment, but not for wrongdoings. Welfare punishes those with ability, and lauds total inability.

But it has done more than that. It has violated that right to one's own mind. Money is the phyiscal equivaluent of ability. You used your mind to produce that which was traded for a consented price. When a government forcibly takes that physical manifestation and gives it to one who could create such wealth on his own, it gives him a claim to your mind and to the products of it. He no longer needs to rely on his mind to survive, but to drain you of yours for his benefit.

This bill defines examples of this looting of the mind. It is worded quite casually, and should not be intended for use as a legal document, but the rationality behind it, the philosiphy that is the base of its argument, is the foundation of the only moral political system that has ever existed, the only true advocate of human progress: capitalism.

Blah, blah, condescending blah.

You could have left all that out and just said the last sentence. Which is not in the UN's provenence to dictate which economic system member nations support.

Moreover, this Bill does not directly condone capital punishment... it says don't be surprised if we wnat you executed... no where does it require that capital punishment or anything else exist. This is a bill of responsibility. It makes everything voluntary... I am personally against capital punishment except in extreme circumstances.

So this Bill means that you aren't allowed to be surprised? The Free Peoples of Kibonia know
full well that they ARE ALLOWED! Even to be surprised! You can't take away the element
of surprise!

Your Bill is DUMB because: 1. It's a STUPID EMAIL JOKE; 2. It says "This isn't a right", and
"That isn't a right", and is in no way enforceable; and 3. IT'S A STUPID EMAIL JOKE!

Maybe I should "Propose" that the UN votes into Law every STUPID JOKE I get in email.


Bravo, bravo! Gee, that might explain the ambiguous wording, eh?

The problem is that the resolution isn't very clear. If you read a first time, it saids that we don't have the right of anything... but, the Global Market explain that he wanted to say that the government of all ation are not oblige to grant his population of free health cares and bla bla bla. It's invalid a lot of UN resolutions... We propose, to avoid the confusion, to change the "making of" of the resolution.

The problem, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is in the wording - it stops me giving my citizens the right to any of these things. For instance, if someone was running a real country, and wrote in their nation's constitution, "Everybody has the right to the basic necessities of life, including free healthcare and support from the government in situations where their life hangs in the balance" then this Bill would override this. TGM says that they could offer these services as a privilege, but another nation opposed to government welfare systems could say - "look, they call it a privilege, but really there is no way to define the difference between a right and a privilege, so to remain true to the UN's laws, they must stop!" Perhaps the Bill could be written to say: "No government is obligated to do x y or z", rather than saying "You do not have the right to...". I would tolerate such a Bill, however, I would still not vote for it, as I believe all governments should provide things such as free healthcare.

The other problem is that, although it doesn't offficially endorse such policies, it SOUNDS like the UN supports the abolition of things like free healthcare and the use of the death penalty - in just the same way that the real UN supports and encourages democracy but tolerates other, non-democratic nations as members of the organisation.

People are saying read article V (over & over & over …….) Like a crack record. So let look a the article in question (were the F’ing cut copy paste thingy. There it is)

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

The part people have is the “do not have the right to”.

“Do not have the right to.”

“Do not have the right to” mean that the government are not lock into giving freebees. They may still give handout on THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Any Question
Cos I only answer with two words.
AND THEN :!:

bill of no rights blows goats

let the goat blowing begin

This is one of the single worst proposals that has passed through the United Nations of late, and Gibereleth is proud to vote against it. Never before has any document been created with the expressed purpose of denying rights, and we see no need to establish such a precedent. This is far beyond the scope of the United Nations' purpose and as such it should be soundly defeated.

We HAVE read the "Bill of No Rights" (very carefully), and HAVE read the debate in the forum (equally carefully). Proponents of this misguided proposal assert correctly that it allows nations to give things like free healthcare to their citizens as a PRIVILEGE, but not as a RIGHT.

That's the crux of the matter. Our people believe that they have a RIGHT to the necessities of life, and that our government exists, in part, to promote that right. The reason for our belief is the obvious truth that life is a necessary conditition for the exercise of all other "rights" (a fact which Jefferson seems to have considered in the American Declaration of Independence, which speaks of the right to life, not merely the "pursuit" of life). We feel that, if government is serious about promoting the people's rights, it must also promote the condititions necessary for those rights to exist. This means that those who cannot otherwise survive have a RIGHT (not a "privilege") to receive public assistance. Yes, that is at the expense of other people, but the expense is part of the price we pay for our civilisation and humanity.

We recognise that others may, in good conscience, disagree. Surely these are philosophical questions to be decided by each individual, in the context of his or her national polity, and not matters for the U.N. to decide. That body essentially exists to adjudicate transnational questions, and NOT to establish philosophical, political and ideological uniformity among its members.

This is one of the single worst proposals that has passed through the United Nations of late, and Gibereleth is proud to vote against it. Never before has any document been created with the expressed purpose of denying rights, and we see no need to establish such a precedent. This is far beyond the scope of the United Nations' purpose and as such it should be soundly defeated.

*smirk*

Nowhere in the document are any rights denied. There is simply no such thing as the right to be a parasite. There is no such thing as the right to demand that someone else take care of you. There is no such thing as the right to have a government be your daddy. IOW: TANSTAAFL.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that.

May I suggest that you read the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" by Pope Leo XIII for a clear explication of our view of rights.

With more than 5,000 votes in, this idiotic proposal is being soundly defeated, 60 percent to 40 percent. Let's keep up the good work and continue to encourage those "no" votes.

Nowhere in the document are any rights denied. There is simply no such thing as the right to be a parasite. There is no such thing as the right to demand that someone else take care of you. There is no such thing as the right to have a government be your daddy. IOW: TANSTAAFL.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that.

Heaven help you if you ever get a really rare, life threatening disease, and the treatment costs millions.

And the only real purpose of society is to take care of the less fortunate. Unless you believe that 'for we've built so well, so long' covers it?

Perhaps you propose we all go back to the jungle, just take our nikes and our MTVs with us?

Nowhere in the document are any rights denied. There is simply no such thing as the right to be a parasite. There is no such thing as the right to demand that someone else take care of you. There is no such thing as the right to have a government be your daddy. IOW: TANSTAAFL.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that.

Whether these rights exist in a philosophical sense is irrelevant. The entire basis (in which rights are expressed as nonexistent) of this proposal is one that has no real precedent in the modern democratic world.

This is an issue that should be addressed by individual cultures, not imposed, even by a majority, upon those countries which disagree. Yes, there are other issues, including human rights violations, which are not subject to majorities and democratic processes. These are immutable and should be treated as such. However, issues such as this which are not crimes upon humanity are issues that should be left up to individual cultures and countries.

Do not turn the United Nations into a high society for conservative capitalist nations. It is much broader than that and should remain so.

The problem Toronea finds with thwe Bill of No Rights is that she agrees wholeheartedly with some points, and disagrees strongly with others. Toronea is for free public health care. If you may be having a heart attack, but don't go to the hospital because you don't have enough money to pay medical bills, it doesn't say much for how you run your country. In fact, it makes a large part of the medical community look downright greedy.

Toronea believes that people have the right to a job. If they can't find one, then that is a problem, but jobs create money, both for the employee and the goverment. Toronea does not find the jobs for the people, but a high unemployment rate does not speak well.

Toronea believes that people should have the right to a place to live, even if that place happens to be a shelter of some kind until a person can get back on their feet. Homeless people on the streets do not improve a nation's image, and the people will feel insecure in their own land if the goverment does not do a little to try and help them out.

However, Toronea does agree with the fact that people do not have the RIGHT to luxury items like big screen TVs and the like. Those things are a privilege, but they are not neccesities to life, no matter how much people may think they are. Toronea is not against luxury items like that, but they are most certainly not considered 'rights'.

Toronea does not agree with the thought of a death penalty either. At least, not for all crimes. While the voice of the people is important, the voice of an angry mob doesn't command much respect, and if you want to see someone fry in the electric chair, then it had better be for something more significant than stealing your big screen TV. Toronea supports the right to a fair trial, and upholds the belife of "innocent until proven guilty."

Toronea support the right to happiness, so long as ones happiness does not infringe of the happiness of others. If you're made happy by killing thousands of people, then there's going to be a problem. This may be where the elctric chair comes in . . . The pursuit of happiness is all fine and good, but what good is the pursuit if you don't get what you aimed for in the end. Toronea likes to keep her citizens as happy and content as they possibly can be without the aid of funny drugs.

In conclusions, Toronea will be voting against the Bill of No Rights. While some things in there make perfect sense, other things, much larger and more important things, go against what Toronea stands. She would rather deal with people demanding their allotted television sets than see people going without free public health care.

The bill of no rights is the best resolution I've ever seen in the UN. IT stresses the individual. They will make for themselves what they have worked for. Then alll the parasites from society will die off like there supposed to.

The bill of no rights is the best resolution I've ever seen in the UN. IT stresses the individual. They will make for themselves what they have worked for. Then alll the parasites from society will die off like there supposed to.

Yeah! Hell, why don't we kill off the weak and needy right now? Or... I've got this great idea for the holiday camps. Only people will work there. Retarded people and new age travellers and so on. And they'll be forced to work there. And if they get sick we'll gas them. Yehaw! Gas the parasites!

Toronea, TedHughes supports all of your views on this subject apart from the death penalty. Our citizens do not believe that any government should ever be given the right to deprive its citizens of life needlessly, no matter what crime they have committed. We also stand by our belief that the death penalty, in practice, does not lower prison population -- it has been statistically shown that the opposite is true, though we appreciate there may be other factors at work -- and does not act as any less of a deterant than life imprisonment. We, in the Free Land of TedHughes have gone so far as to make it illegal for any part to stand on this platform. This was not an easy decision, or a simple one, but is one we will defend to the last man.

I thought this resolution was great. It in no way states you will be deprived of anything, it simply states that it is not you prerogative to have the aforementioned services, amenities, and/or qualities of life handed to you on a silver platter.

I find this proposal utterly rediculous! This is not remotely like anything the UN would even consider passing. I am sorry I even took the 45 seconds to read the thing. Good Riddens, and I vote NO.

This is an issue that should be addressed by individual cultures, not imposed, even by a majority, upon those countries which disagree. Yes, there are other issues, including human rights violations, which are not subject to majorities and democratic processes. These are immutable and should be treated as such. However, issues such as this which are not crimes upon humanity are issues that should be left up to individual cultures and countries.

Do not turn the United Nations into a high society for conservative capitalist nations. It is much broader than that and should remain so.

Excellent post. I agree entirely.

They may still give handout on THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

With this statement you nullify any chance at relevance this proposal had. If the states can on their own give these "handouts," they can on their own deny them. What, then, is the point of this proposal? There is none. A "Bill of No-Rights" is a joke of a resolution. Yes, we need documents that enumerate our rights, because this can help keep them from being trampled, but what would be the purpose of a document that lists rights that can or cannot exist, depending on the country? Issues like this should be left alone and covered by individual nations instead of being taken on by the United Nations.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that.

May I suggest that you read the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" by Pope Leo XIII for a clear explication of our view of rights.

The pope does not define or enumerate rights. Rights stem from agreements between people as to the respectment of actions, not from some silly-hat wearing old man or magic space pixie.

Nowhere in the document are any rights denied. There is simply no such thing as the right to be a parasite. There is no such thing as the right to demand that someone else take care of you. There is no such thing as the right to have a government be your daddy. IOW: TANSTAAFL.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that.

Whether these rights exist in a philosophical sense is irrelevant.

Actually, it's entirely relevant.

Philosophically derived rights = rights

"Modern democratic notion of rights" = ad hockery and slavery.

The entire basis (in which rights are expressed as nonexistent)

He never said that rights are nonexistent. Just that the ones created by silly little people who think that health care and education are rights....aren't rights.

Maybe you should take the time to read what was written. It helps.

This is an issue that should be addressed by individual cultures, not imposed, even by a majority, upon those countries which disagree.

And amazingly enough, it allows it to be addressed by individual cultures.

You think it takes away "rights". It doesn't. It merely says that what certain people think are rights are in fact PRIVELEDGES and the like. Says nothing at all about a country doing it if it so chooses. And it would put to rest any silly UN resolutions infringing upon the rights of people in other nations.

Take, for example, the childish universal health care resolution. That mandates universal health care--infringing upon the rights of those people who do not want to pay for it!

Are you grasping what this resolution is all about now?

Yes, there are other issues, including human rights violations, which are not subject to majorities and democratic processes. These are immutable and should be treated as such. However, issues such as this which are not crimes upon humanity are issues that should be left up to individual cultures and countries.

Lemme ask you this: would you support a universal health care mandate? If so, then you'd be a hypocrite.

Do not turn the United Nations into a high society for conservative capitalist nations. It is much broader than that and should remain so.

IOW: you want it to be the socialist haven it turned into, and you're sad that people are actually (gasp) saying that they've had enough of that tosswad leftist crap.

Nowhere in the document are any rights denied. There is simply no such thing as the right to be a parasite. There is no such thing as the right to demand that someone else take care of you. There is no such thing as the right to have a government be your daddy. IOW: TANSTAAFL.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that

Heaven help you if you ever get a really rare, life threatening disease, and the treatment costs millions.

Emotive plea. Rejected as such.

And the only real purpose of society is to take care of the less fortunate.

Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.

Perhaps you propose we all go back to the jungle, just take our nikes and our MTVs with us?

I propose that we do away with the two most destructive ideas ever, actually: religion and government, and not in that order.

The problem Toronea finds with thwe Bill of No Rights is that she agrees wholeheartedly with some points, and disagrees strongly with others. Toronea is for free public health care. If you may be having a heart attack, but don't go to the hospital because you don't have enough money to pay medical bills, it doesn't say much for how you run your country. In fact, it makes a large part of the medical community look downright greedy.

So in other words, because I'm able to take care of myself and Jimbob isn't, I'm forced to be Jimbob's slave?

That's barbaric.

So in other words, because I'm able to take care of myself and Jimbob isn't, I'm forced to be Jimbob's slave?That's barbaric.

So, in other words, because our government helps those who can't take care of themselves, our people are "slaves"? If that's your concept, you're the ones who are barbaric.

Nowhere in the document are any rights denied. There is simply no such thing as the right to be a parasite. There is no such thing as the right to demand that someone else take care of you. There is no such thing as the right to have a government be your daddy. IOW: TANSTAAFL.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that

Heaven help you if you ever get a really rare, life threatening disease, and the treatment costs millions.

Emotive plea. Rejected as such.

And the only real purpose of society is to take care of the less fortunate.

Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.

Perhaps you propose we all go back to the jungle, just take our nikes and our MTVs with us?

I propose that we do away with the two most destructive ideas ever, actually: religion and government, and not in that order.

1) Rejected on the grounds of emotion? Doesn't surprise me.
2) If the assumption is incorrect, then it would be easy to counter. Just give me another reason society exists.
3) Religion and government eh? At least I know where you stand.

The Executive Office of the Republic of Ritimba hereby conveys its wishes that this resolution be defeated. The absurdity of the text and the unlawful content of some of the articles compells us so. However, we are not prepared to vote against a resolution that is rated as a strong impetus to The Furtherment of Democracy, and will therefore refrain from formally casting any vote towards the approval or disapproval of the Bill of No Rights. We are confident that it shall nevertheless be defeated, and will remain regretful that such a proposal ever made it to the floor as it is an inappropriate one, its text clearly not matching its category and effect.

You are assuming the ideal of capitalism - in effect a race in which everybody starts in the same place and carries themselves as far as they can based on their own ability - those more naturally able can go far further. Leaving aside any disagreements any of us may have with this concept, let's look at real life for a moment. Allow me to quote myself:

This [idealist capitalism] is a noble idea (even if you think, like me, that it should be tempered with a little - or a lot - of compassion, or that there are better ideas), but it is not what we have today. We have, in effect, a race in which some people, though some of them may be fast runners, start a few miles behind with lead weights tied to their feet, whilst others, some of whom are almost incapable of running, start way out in front, and an elite begin on motorbikes.

In a situation such as this, your arguments that tax of money is punishment for ability do not hold up, because the reason most people are where they are is not due to their innate abilities, but to the social position they were born into. Hence taxation is an attempt, in most cases, at least to reduce slightly the huge but totally UNEARNED advantage some people have.

In a moral, capitalistic society, wealth cannot be secured. You may be born wealthy, and there is nothing immoral or wrong with that. But if you do not have the means to maintain that level of wealth, there is nothing you can do or have done to prevent that loss: tough shit, in a nutshell. The undeserving will not continue living undeserved lives forever. The concept of a free economy does not permit undeserved wealth to continue. A government does not need taxes to weed out the losers; they will kill themselves off.

But taxes do not distinguish between the ability or ineptitude of the possessor, because in either case the wealth came from someone's ability. It may be yours, your parents', or your grandparents' capability: the physical manifestation of it is still fined. Taxing "slightly" the unearned wealth of an imbecile is meaningless: is like beating a man sentenced to death. But through the same process, you beat the geniuses, the innovators, the productive, because they are who they are: men of ability.

And to what gain? Welfare subsidies go to those with no wealth, and thus little or no ability. Remember, when a person of no ability has inherited - or is given - wealth, there is nothing that they can do to secure it. They squander the money of the able (or continue the squanderance of the money of the unable), justified only by compassion.

Compassion, that lovely word you use to justify the punishment of virtue. There is nothing morally wrong with a reasonable amount of compassion, so long as it does not in any way interfere with the rights of man. An individual may do whatever he wishes with his wealth. If he consensually gives a rationally appropriate amount to those who cannot earn it on their own - so as to not in any way detriment his well-being, there is no reason to condemn this act. However, there is no reason to praise it, either. It is still an unearned gift from the able to the unable. It is still a irrational and one-sided exchange between two consenting parties.

But if it is made mandatory, if everyone is required to give a chunk of his productiveness to the "needy" because they - the providers - possess the one criterion that should be honored and is instead punished, if the only justification is an emotion - an instinctive response devoid by definition of rationality, if the only benefactor is the one who will squander the wealth of the world, what use is it to attempt to argue in favor of welfare on moral grounds? The morality does not lay with the advocates of such a system.

So in other words, because I'm able to take care of myself and Jimbob isn't, I'm forced to be Jimbob's slave?That's barbaric.

So, in other words, because our government helps those who can't take care of themselves, our people are "slaves"? If that's your concept, you're the ones who are barbaric.

Yes. The resources to take care of those people have to come from somewhere, right? So, as far as I can tell, there are three options:
1) Force people to produce the resources
2) Find people willing to produce the resources for nothing in return--including willing to fund the production of resources themselves out of their pockets.
3) Find people willing to produce the resources for something in return and/or unwilling to fund the production of the resources themselves out of their pockets.

#1 should be fairly obvious as to why it is slavery. #2 is nice if you can get it, but in that case why can't they go ahead and do it themselves? And if you can't find enough of those kind of people, you're stuck with #1 (obviously slavery, so we can rule it out assuming you're opposed to slavery) or #3. OK, great. So now what happens? Simple. You're not going to force those people to work against their will, so instead you've got to find a way to reimburse them for the costs of production as well as giving them something over and above as payment for their labor, right? Where do you think this is going to come from? That's right--everybody else! So now everybody else is made a slave by having what they have produced taken from them without their consent (compare this with an employee in a typical business situation, where he exchanges what he produces, generally using the employer's tools, voluntarily because he finds the pay he receives a greater value than the time and effort he is expending to produce).

Even if you don't use a money economy, all money represents is ownership of some amount of goods, so regardless someone is forced to give up what is his for the sake of another without his consent. In other words, slavery.

So yes, your people are most certainly slaves.

Blah, blah, condescending blah.

You could have left all that out and just said the last sentence. Which is not in the UN's provenence to dictate which economic system member nations support.

Since you are trying to ignore the purpose of this resolution, how can you declare that it is not in the UN's provenence, when the legitimacy of such a declaration requires the full commprehension of its purpose?

That's right--everybody else! So now everybody else is made a slave by having what they have produced taken from them without their consent (compare this with an employee in a typical business situation, where he exchanges what he produces, generally using the employer's tools, voluntarily because he finds the pay he receives a greater value than the time and effort he is expending to produce).


So, let's make an analogy between the employee in the typical business situation, using the employer's tools with society at large. Why do you live in a society instead of shambling off into the jungle? It's because you find you receive greater value from using society's tools (roads, water supply, electricity supply, telecommunications, hospitals, schools, universities, farms, supermarkets) rather than trying to produce everything yourself. For example, why are you using this language called "English"? Is it because it's easier than inventing your own language and trying to explain it to people and get them to adopt it?

Therefore, just like how it's okay for a person to work for an employer using the employer's tools etc, and for the employer to receive a large part of the value of the production of that employee, it's okay for people to pay something to society to pay for the benefit that person receives from living in that society. If you don't believe this, then next time you get appendicitis, don't go running off to a hospital or doctor. Start from scratch and invent your own medical theories, teach them to yourself, invent surgical tools and procedures, and remove your own inflamed appendix.

Because hey, you wouldn't want to be depending on anybody else, right? Individual effort, that's the only thing that counts, right?

[quote=Ithuania] That's right--everybody else! So now everybody else is made a slave by having what they have produced taken from them without their consent (compare this with an employee in a typical business situation, where he exchanges what he produces, generally using the employer's tools, voluntarily because he finds the pay he receives a greater value than the time and effort he is expending to produce).


Therefore, just like how it's okay for a person to work for an employer using the employer's tools etc, and for the employer to receive a large part of the value of the production of that employee, it's okay for people to pay something to society to pay for the benefit that person receives from living in that society. If you don't believe this, then next time you get appendicitis, don't go running off to a hospital or doctor. Start from scratch and invent your own medical theories, teach them to yourself, invent surgical tools and procedures, and remove your own inflamed appendix.
I don't know about you, but around here the hospitals are privately owned. I exchange, voluntarily, what is mine for the benefit provided by trained doctors. Contrast this with your ideal of slavery, where I have to pay for things even though I may never use them and may in fact be opposed to their very existence.

Because hey, you wouldn't want to be depending on anybody else, right? Individual effort, that's the only thing that counts, right?
It doesn't get much more dense than this, folks...

So in other words, because I'm able to take care of myself and Jimbob isn't, I'm forced to be Jimbob's slave?That's barbaric.

So, in other words, because our government helps those who can't take care of themselves, our people are "slaves"? If that's your concept, you're the ones who are barbaric.

Yes. The resources to take care of those people have to come from somewhere, right? So, as far as I can tell, there are three options:
1) Force people to produce the resources
2) Find people willing to produce the resources for nothing in return--including willing to fund the production of resources themselves out of their pockets.
3) Find people willing to produce the resources for something in return and/or unwilling to fund the production of the resources themselves out of their pockets.

#1 should be fairly obvious as to why it is slavery. #2 is nice if you can get it, but in that case why can't they go ahead and do it themselves? And if you can't find enough of those kind of people, you're stuck with #1 (obviously slavery, so we can rule it out assuming you're opposed to slavery) or #3. OK, great. So now what happens? Simple. You're not going to force those people to work against their will, so instead you've got to find a way to reimburse them for the costs of production as well as giving them something over and above as payment for their labor, right? Where do you think this is going to come from? That's right--everybody else! So now everybody else is made a slave by having what they have produced taken from them without their consent (compare this with an employee in a typical business situation, where he exchanges what he produces, generally using the employer's tools, voluntarily because he finds the pay he receives a greater value than the time and effort he is expending to produce).

Even if you don't use a money economy, all money represents is ownership of some amount of goods, so regardless someone is forced to give up what is his for the sake of another without his consent. In other words, slavery.

So yes, your people are most certainly slaves.

Your argument, if valid, would apply to all forms of taxation used for ANY purpose--including public safety and the national defence. So, if that is truly your position, you are opposed not merely to public assistance but to all forms of government whatever.

Yes, government does cost money, and that money must ultimately come from the productive members of society. But to fail to distinguish between that state of affairs and "slavery" is to trivialise the suffering that real slavery has brought upon humanity. Ursoria agrees with Oliver Wendell Holmes that taxation is the price which we all must pay for civilisation.

Therefore, just like how it's okay for a person to work for an employer using the employer's tools etc, and for the employer to receive a large part of the value of the production of that employee, it's okay for people to pay something to society to pay for the benefit that person receives from living in that society. If you don't believe this, then next time you get appendicitis, don't go running off to a hospital or doctor. Start from scratch and invent your own medical theories, teach them to yourself, invent surgical tools and procedures, and remove your own inflamed appendix.


I don't know about you, but around here the hospitals are privately owned. I exchange, voluntarily, what is mine for the benefit provided by trained doctors. Contrast this with your ideal of slavery, where I have to pay for things even though I may never use them and may in fact be opposed to their very existence.


You entire argument can be summarised in one concept: MONEY. If somebody has those little green pieces of paper called MONEY, then they are entitled to receive food, housing, and medical care. If they don't have any, they can starve or be crippled by easily preventable diseases. And that's what's happening in the nation of Ithuania! People are starving and being crippled by easily preventable diseases! Even from a purely capitalist viewpoint, it doesn't make sense to let your most valuable resource, PEOPLE, be destroyed!

Let me ask you a simple question: if you saw a starving dog, would you feed it? Or would you say "Hello doggy, I've got a nice steak here you can eat, but it'll cost you 15 values! No, sorry doggy, no money, no eat!"? Would you let that dog starve, or would you feed it? If you would feed the starving dog, then how can you let humans starve simply because they have no money? Aren't humans much more valuable than dogs?

What you are saying makes it clear that you would rather have a dollar than a friend. Will those dollars keep you warm at night? Will they help you move house? Will they share the good times and the bad times with you? Will they watch the footy with you?

I notice that you skipped the analogy between companies taking a cut of the production of their employees and society taking a cut of the production of its citizens. It's quite obvious that if you believe that it's okay for a company to take a cut of employees' production as profits, then it is just as acceptable for society to take a cut of citizens' income as taxes. It's the same principle. Imagine that the government was a company. Would that make a difference?

Companies taking part of employees' production for their own use is the same thing as governments taking part of citizens' income for their own use. Either both are legitimate, or both are illegitimate.

"The Al-ighty -ollar?" Oh, I get it!

Therefore, just like how it's okay for a person to work for an employer using the employer's tools etc, and for the employer to receive a large part of the value of the production of that employee, it's okay for people to pay something to society to pay for the benefit that person receives from living in that society. If you don't believe this, then next time you get appendicitis, don't go running off to a hospital or doctor. Start from scratch and invent your own medical theories, teach them to yourself, invent surgical tools and procedures, and remove your own inflamed appendix.


I don't know about you, but around here the hospitals are privately owned. I exchange, voluntarily, what is mine for the benefit provided by trained doctors. Contrast this with your ideal of slavery, where I have to pay for things even though I may never use them and may in fact be opposed to their very existence.


You entire argument can be summarised in one concept: MONEY. If somebody has those little green pieces of paper called MONEY, then they are entitled to receive food, housing, and medical care. If they don't have any, they can starve or be crippled by easily preventable diseases. And that's what's happening in the nation of Ithuania! People are starving and being crippled by easily preventable diseases! Even from a purely capitalist viewpoint, it doesn't make sense to let your most valuable resource, PEOPLE, be destroyed!

Let me ask you a simple question: if you saw a starving dog, would you feed it? Or would you say "Hello doggy, I've got a nice steak here you can eat, but it'll cost you 15 values! No, sorry doggy, no money, no eat!"? Would you let that dog starve, or would you feed it? If you would feed the starving dog, then how can you let humans starve simply because they have no money? Aren't humans much more valuable than dogs?

What you are saying makes it clear that you would rather have a dollar than a friend. Will those dollars keep you warm at night? Will they help you move house? Will they share the good times and the bad times with you? Will they watch the footy with you?
My, you're dense. Are you really incapable of understanding that there's a difference between helping people and forcing a third party to foot the bill to help people?

I notice that you skipped the analogy between companies taking a cut of the production of their employees and society taking a cut of the production of its citizens. It's quite obvious that if you believe that it's okay for a company to take a cut of employees' production as profits, then it is just as acceptable for society to take a cut of citizens' income as taxes. It's the same principle.
No, it's not. If you don't want the employer to take a cut of what you produce, you're free to leave--and if he does, it's because you voluntarily agreed to it. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come for you regardless of whether or not you consented to pay taxes.

I notice that you skipped the analogy between companies taking a cut of the production of their employees and society taking a cut of the production of its citizens. It's quite obvious that if you believe that it's okay for a company to take a cut of employees' production as profits, then it is just as acceptable for society to take a cut of citizens' income as taxes. It's the same principle.
No, it's not. If you don't want the employer to take a cut of what you produce, you're free to leave--and if he does, it's because you voluntarily agreed to it. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come for you regardless of whether or not you consented to pay taxes.

If you don't want the government to take a cut of what your produce, you're free to leave. And if the government does take a cut, it's because you chose to live in that nation. If you were working at a company and tried to keep the full value of the stuff you produced, men with guns (police) will come for you and arrest you for stealing from the company.

Being required to give up part of what is rightfully mine should not be a condition of retaining my life and property that I have legitimately accumulated.

Being required to give up part of what is rightfully mine should not be a condition of retaining my life and property that I have legitimately accumulated.

In the nation of Ithuania, some people live in luxury, while other people who are unemployed or poor have to give up their lives due to starvation. Is your property more important than their lives? Some people in Ithuania are crippled by easily preventable diseases because they can't afford health care. Then what? Presumably they can't get a job because they are crippled, so they starve. Is your right to retaining your property more important than their lives? Would you think the same way if you were one of the unemployed, or starving, or sick-but-without-enough-money-to-pay?

And answer this simple question, please: If you saw a starving dog, would you feed it? Or would you only feed it if it could PAY for its food?

[quote=Ithuania]Being required to give up part of what is rightfully mine should not be a condition of retaining my life and property that I have legitimately accumulated.

In the nation of Ithuania, some people live in luxury, while other people who are unemployed or poor have to give up their lives due to starvation. Is your property more important than their lives? Some people in Ithuania are crippled by easily preventable diseases because they can't afford health care. Then what? Presumably they can't get a job because they are crippled, so they starve. Is your right to retaining your property more important than their lives? Would you think the same way if you were one of the unemployed, or starving, or sick-but-without-enough-money-to-pay?

And answer this simple question, please: If you saw a starving dog, would you feed it? Or would you only feed it if it could PAY for its food?
I'd probably feed it. But you're dense, so you can't understand how someone might not have a problem with helping someone even though he does have a problem with forcing people at gunpoint to foot the bill to help people even though they might not want to.

[quote]And answer this simple question, please: If you saw a starving dog, would you feed it? Or would you only feed it if it could PAY for its food?
I'd probably feed it. But you're dense, so you can't understand how someone might not have a problem with helping someone even though he does have a problem with forcing people at gunpoint to foot the bill to help people even though they might not want to.

If you'd feed the dog, why won't you feed the starving people of Ithuania and give them basic health care? Aren't people much more valuable than dogs? If you wouldn't have a problem with helping people voluntarily, then why don't you set up charities in Ithuania to feed those starving people, and prevent those easily preventable diseases which are crippling your poor and unemployed people? Already the Free People of Beable have begun loading an emergency shipment of food and medicine to help the starving and sick people of Ithuania. They demanded that this be done when they read about the plight of your citizens on the front page of the Kibonia Times. Hopefully your navy will escort the ship into port when it arrives, and you will ensure that the aid reaches the people who need it most.

You might like to consider that in the nation of Beable, people aren't forced at gunpoint to pay their taxes, they pay them voluntarily because they know that they will be used to help people less fortunate than themselves. Indeed, they are glad that some of their taxes will be used to help the oppressed people of Ithuania (if your government allows it).

Also, the Beable Chamber of Commerce was disturbed to discover that private enterprise is outlawed in Ithuania. How did this sad state of affairs come about? Obviously no Beablist companies will invest in a country where private enterprise is illegal.

Finally, about your continual allegation of "density". I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear that Orbital Magneto-Spectrometal Examination of your head has revealed that you are the opposite of "dense". Yes, nothing but vacuum can be detected inside your head. There is absolutely nothing between your ears.

Yr fthfl srvt
Brian Eable Esq.
Diplomat to the UN for Beable

You entire argument can be summarised in one concept: MONEY. If somebody has those little green pieces of paper called MONEY, then they are entitled to receive food, housing, and medical care.

You have no value of money, do you? Wealth, as represented by "those little green pieces of paper," can only be earned by ability. If you have the ability to obtain food, housing and medical care, you have to the right to purchase it.

If they don't have any, they can starve or be crippled by easily preventable diseases. And that's what's happening in the nation of Ithuania! People are starving and being crippled by easily preventable diseases! Even from a purely capitalist viewpoint, it doesn't make sense to let your most valuable resource, PEOPLE, be destroyed!

Sorry, it does. Just because you are a human does not mean that you have the right to survive. You have the right to try to survive. If you can't earn enough to provide yourself of your family with a meal, it is your fault, not the taxpayers'. They should not be footed with the bill of a meal bought with food stamps, because they didn't eat it, and you didn't earn it.

And it is your own nation's fault if you cannot make cures for "easily preventable diseases" affordable enough for every citizen. If you don't put the effort into making it affordable or don't encourage your citizen scientists to do the same, it is not the fault and responsibility of the taxpayes who can afford it.

Let me ask you a simple question: if you saw a starving dog, would you feed it? Or would you say "Hello doggy, I've got a nice steak here you can eat, but it'll cost you 15 values! No, sorry doggy, no money, no eat!"? Would you let that dog starve, or would you feed it? If you would feed the starving dog, then how can you let humans starve simply because they have no money? Aren't humans much more valuable than dogs?

Think rationally. How much will it cost you to feed a dog one time as you pass it on the street, as opposed to your comparison of feeding every starving and undeserving person who demands a meal?

Will those dollars keep you warm at night? Will they help you move house? Will they share the good times and the bad times with you? Will they watch the footy with you?

To answer: yes - buy a blanket; yes - hire help; what does this question have to do with money?; and again, this question has nothing to do with money.

I notice that you skipped the analogy between companies taking a cut of the production of their employees and society taking a cut of the production of its citizens. It's quite obvious that if you believe that it's okay for a company to take a cut of employees' production as profits, then it is just as acceptable for society to take a cut of citizens' income as taxes. It's the same principle. Imagine that the government was a company. Would that make a difference?

Companies taking part of employees' production for their own use is the same thing as governments taking part of citizens' income for their own use. Either both are legitimate, or both are illegitimate.

I think he "skipped" it because it is not the same principle. Profits are earned by productive ability, based upon how able you are to produce goods or perform services in a more efficient manner than other competitors. Taxes are coerced from citizens, regardless of the value of what taxpayers receive from their dues. Profits will vary with the amount of efficiency, but taxes are fixed by law.

[quote]And answer this simple question, please: If you saw a starving dog, would you feed it? Or would you only feed it if it could PAY for its food?
I'd probably feed it. But you're dense, so you can't understand how someone might not have a problem with helping someone even though he does have a problem with forcing people at gunpoint to foot the bill to help people even though they might not want to.

If you'd feed the dog, why won't you feed the starving people of Ithuania and give them basic health care? Aren't people much more valuable than dogs? If you wouldn't have a problem with helping people voluntarily, then why don't you set up charities in Ithuania to feed those starving people, and prevent those easily preventable diseases which are crippling your poor and unemployed people?
Many private individuals and organizations have set up such organizations. However, no one is going to be forced to contribute.

Is your property more important than their lives?

The nature of man is survival. His own survival. But just because your survival is paramount to you does not imply that everyone else regard it with the same value as you do. To me, my right to my own property is more important than your survival. If it isn't, then what purpose would I have to live, other than to provide for anyone else who demands my servitude?

No, no, you see, Beable apparently LIKES slavery.

Damn fucking fascists...

You have no value of money, do you? Wealth, as represented by "those little green pieces of paper," can only be earned by ability.

REALLY? Have you never heard of "inheritance", "luck", "the lottery", and so on?



And it is your own nation's fault if you cannot make cures for "easily preventable diseases" affordable enough for every citizen. If you don't put the effort into making it affordable or don't encourage your citizen scientists to do the same, it is not the fault and responsibility of the taxpayes who can afford it.

Ummm, in the country of Beable, everybody gets enough food and medical care. You might like to take up this issue with the ambassador from Ithuania, where people are starving and being crippled by easily preventable diseases.

I notice that you skipped the analogy between companies taking a cut of the production of their employees and society taking a cut of the production of its citizens. It's quite obvious that if you believe that it's okay for a company to take a cut of employees' production as profits, then it is just as acceptable for society to take a cut of citizens' income as taxes. It's the same principle. Imagine that the government was a company. Would that make a difference?

Companies taking part of employees' production for their own use is the same thing as governments taking part of citizens' income for their own use. Either both are legitimate, or both are illegitimate.

I think he "skipped" it because it is not the same principle. Profits are earned by productive ability, based upon how able you are to produce goods or perform services in a more efficient manner than other competitors. Taxes are coerced from citizens, regardless of the value of what taxpayers receive from their dues. Profits will vary with the amount of efficiency, but taxes are fixed by law.

Why then do you live in a society which provides you with infrastructure such as roads, electricity, water supply, shops, telecommunications, education, etc? Why not gallivant off into the jungle and build all that stuff for yourself? Obviously because it's CHEAPER for you to live in society than do everything yourself. Therefore, you are MORE PRODUCTIVE LIVING IN A SOCIETY THAN YOU WOULD BE LIVING OUTSIDE OF IT. Therefore, you can make more profit living in society, therefore, society takes a cut of your profit. IT IS THE SAME as a company taking a cut out of the production of an employee. If you think it's not, then try to imagine a corporate state which has employees instead of citizens. Instead of charging taxes, they take a cut of your production. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

If you are so terribly upset by the concept of paying some money into something and you don't necessarily receive back the same value yourself, then let me ask you this: do you own a house? Do you own a car? Do you have INSURANCE on either of them? Because with insurance, you might pay premiums all your life to insure your house, and you might NEVER get a payout, because your house NEVER burns down!

INSURANCE IS SO UNFAIR BECAUSE EVERYBODY PAYS INSURANCE BUT ONLY A FEW PEOPLES' HOUSES BURN DOWN AND THEY GET ALL THE PAYOUTS THOSE LUCKY BASTARDS!!!1!

But it is not Beable's fault that we live in a mixed economy where such practice is honored as virtuous. This is not a personal matter between Beable and us, it is a matter between philosiphies which we are all respective advocates of.

You have no value of money, do you? Wealth, as represented by "those little green pieces of paper," can only be earned by ability.

REALLY? Have you never heard of "inheritance", "luck", "the lottery", and so on?

Notice how I said earned. When you win the lottery, you have not done anything to earn that exorbitant amount of wealth. Someone else earned that money; you simply possess it...

In a moral, capitalistic society, wealth cannot be secured. You may be born wealthy, and there is nothing immoral or wrong with that. But if you do not have the means to maintain that level of wealth, there is nothing you can do or have done to prevent that loss: tough shit, in a nutshell. The undeserving will not continue living undeserved lives forever. The concept of a free economy does not permit undeserved wealth to continue. A government does not need taxes to weed out the losers; they will kill themselves off.

(I was referring to someone's argument that taxes were designed to compensate for those who were rich in undeserving ways.)

However - you have the chance to continue the wealth. The money might not be the end result of your ability, but you have the right to do with it as you please. If you have the capability, it is possible to continue the wealth - to create and earn more of your own. This is where your inheretence / lotto winnings / etc. came from - the power to generate one's own wealth. If the money grew on trees or was printed by the lotto agency, then what value does it really have? Would you accept it from an employer if it wasn't valuable enough to buy you the food you need?

You have no value of money, do you? Wealth, as represented by "those little green pieces of paper," can only be earned by ability.

REALLY? Have you never heard of "inheritance", "luck", "the lottery", and so on?

Notice how I said earned. When you win the lottery, you have not done anything to earn that exorbitant amount of wealth. Someone else earned that money; you simply possess it...


What you wrote was ambiguous. It could easily be parsed as "earned by ability" as a clause, and there are lots of other ways to get money as you know. One of which is dumb luck, which even occurs in business. One business can make a handsome profit through good luck, and another can go bankrupt through bad luck. Nothing to do with ability.

But answer this: Do you have any insurance policies?

My, you're dense. Are you really incapable of understanding that there's a difference between helping people and forcing a third party to foot the bill to help people?

You are greatly mistaken. Taxes are part of your social contract. You pay for the services you recieve, in terms of protection and social benefits. You as a citizen of a democracy have signed a mute consent by participating in the society that taxes you and provides you with whatever it provides you with, in return. If you're unhappy you're free to leave - most places won't stop you nowadays - and seek a better service elsewhere. Now that I've laid it out in those terms do you understand?


No, it's not. If you don't want the employer to take a cut of what you produce, you're free to leave--and if he does, it's because you voluntarily agreed to it. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come for you regardless of whether or not you consented to pay taxes.

That is not true. Look for my points above. You can also throw away your citizenship and move to Sudan or something, where nobody taxes anyone much, and only the fittest and quickest with guns survive. Especially since in your line of thinking, one does not have a right to live in a decent and humane country, although one certainly has a right to try to live in one...

No, no, you see, Beable apparently LIKES slavery.

Damn f--- fascists...

Your position is closer to fascism than Beable's is. Fascism recognises value of money and encourages elitism.

I would like to bring this forum to what it is ment to be about. Despite harsh wording in the bill of no rights it seems to be fair. Notice how it says 'we would like to see you fry in an electric chair' it's not actually ordering the death sentance. The only sticking point I have with it is no free heath care. What about genuanly poor people who suffer a horendous ingery that costs them hundreds a week? :evil:

You are assuming the ideal of capitalism - in effect a race in which everybody starts in the same place and carries themselves as far as they can based on their own ability - those more naturally able can go far further. Leaving aside any disagreements any of us may have with this concept, let's look at real life for a moment. Allow me to quote myself:

This [idealist capitalism] is a noble idea (even if you think, like me, that it should be tempered with a little - or a lot - of compassion, or that there are better ideas), but it is not what we have today. We have, in effect, a race in which some people, though some of them may be fast runners, start a few miles behind with lead weights tied to their feet, whilst others, some of whom are almost incapable of running, start way out in front, and an elite begin on motorbikes.

In a situation such as this, your arguments that tax of money is punishment for ability do not hold up, because the reason most people are where they are is not due to their innate abilities, but to the social position they were born into. Hence taxation is an attempt, in most cases, at least to reduce slightly the huge but totally UNEARNED advantage some people have.

In a moral, capitalistic society, wealth cannot be secured. You may be born wealthy, and there is nothing immoral or wrong with that. But if you do not have the means to maintain that level of wealth, there is nothing you can do or have done to prevent that loss: tough shit, in a nutshell. The undeserving will not continue living undeserved lives forever. The concept of a free economy does not permit undeserved wealth to continue. A government does not need taxes to weed out the losers; they will kill themselves off.

The undeserving DO maintain those levels of wealth. In fantastically rich families, they are simply supported on the backs of other family members. In more normal but still wealthy families, the privileges granted them by birth give them an education of far better quality than those born poor - this means that the poor, whatever their potential, are not given the chance to reach said potential, whereas the rich almost invariably are. Sometimes they can even exceed their potential - for instance many rich kids who are not really capable of benefitting from a university education receive one anyway and often come out with a qualification that they don't really deserve. So your argument is just wrong.


Taxing "slightly" the unearned wealth of an imbecile is meaningless: is like beating a man sentenced to death.

I didn't mean levying a low taxation rate, I meant that the taxes we take from the extremely (and usually undeserving) rich only reduce their vast wealth slightly.


And to what gain? Welfare subsidies go to those with no wealth, and thus little or no ability.

How many times am I going to explain this? Poor people are poor, usually not because they are less innately able, but because they have not had the same opportunities.


Remember, when a person of no ability has inherited - or is given - wealth, there is nothing that they can do to secure it. They squander the money of the able (or continue the squanderance of the money of the unable), justified only by compassion.

Spending money on the basic necessities of life is not squandering money. And compassion is justification enough for many things. If you are going to talk about squandering money, look at reality: taxes going to the welfare state are spent on medicines, food, education, and other basic necessities. Rich people, on the other hand, spend large portions of their wealth on meaningless things, such as cosmetic surgery and large collections of fast cars. Please don't misunderstand - I am NOT saying they no right to spend their money as they wish, I am merely saying please don't claim that those on welfare squander rich people's money.


Compassion, that lovely word you use to justify the punishment of virtue. There is nothing morally wrong with a reasonable amount of compassion, so long as it does not in any way interfere with the rights of man. An individual may do whatever he wishes with his wealth. If he consensually gives a rationally appropriate amount to those who cannot earn it on their own - so as to not in any way detriment his well-being, there is no reason to condemn this act. However, there is no reason to praise it, either. It is still an unearned gift from the able to the unable. It is still a irrational and one-sided exchange between two consenting parties.

Once again, Poor people are poor, usually not because they are less innately able, but because they have not had the same opportunities so charity to the poor is not a gift from the able to the unable!


But if it is made mandatory, if everyone is required to give a chunk of his productiveness to the "needy" because they - the providers - possess the one criterion that should be honored and is instead punished, if the only justification is an emotion - an instinctive response devoid by definition of rationality, if the only benefactor is the one who will squander the wealth of the world, what use is it to attempt to argue in favor of welfare on moral grounds? The morality does not lay with the advocates of such a system.

I repeat my repetition: The productive are not necessarily the able! Ability is not the only thing that should be honoured. How about reason, mercy, compassion, justice, vision (in the sense of ideas, not actual sight) and a whole load of other things too. The only justification is not compassion, how about justice - something which isn't "devoid by rationality" even by your reckoning. And finally, the benefactors of this system are actually some of the least likely to squander what they receive, since they cannot afford to! As has been argued clearly and accurately by myself and others here, the morality does lie with the advocated of such a system, and clearly not with anyone who would say:


To me, my right to my own property is more important than your survival.

You say this is basic human instinct. But since when is instinct morally right?

It doesn't get much more dense than this, folks...


My, you're dense


But you're dense, so you can't understand

Just because people disagree with your point of view and are not persuaded by your twisted logic does not make them stupid. And anyway, aren't personal insults not allowed on here?

You are greatly mistaken. Taxes are part of your social contract. You pay for the services you recieve, in terms of protection and social benefits. You as a citizen of a democracy have signed a mute consent by participating in the society that taxes you and provides you with whatever it provides you with, in return. If you're unhappy you're free to leave - most places won't stop you nowadays - and seek a better service elsewhere. Now that I've laid it out in those terms do you understand?

A social contract has YOU pay for the services YOU use. Excessive taxation caused the American Revolution. And when you consider that the British Tea Tax was equal to about THREE CENTS per TEN gallons of tea, it is obvious that a legitimate government only uses minimal taxation.

These are the complaints the American colonists had against the Brits:


...has erected a Multitude of new Offices and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their Substance...

He didn't do this nearly as much as say, FDR, LBJ, or Geroge W. Bush.


...has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good...

Just look at our budget deficit. We need a balanced-budget amendment.


...has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to encourage their Migrations hither....

This describes our immigration policy pretty well.


...has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies...

And quite a large one at that.


...has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our Laws...

The Department of Homeland Security or Federal Business Regulation Agencies, for example.


...Depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury...

Like that guy that was interned in Guantanamo without a lawyer or charges ever being filed... Or those German "spies" in WWII that were executed after a two-month waiting period after a one-week "trial" to boost FDR's approval rating.


...Cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World...

Tariffs and speculation taxes do this.


...Imposing Taxes on us without our Consent...

I don't remember being asked if I wanted to pay taxes. And this certainly doesn't mean "implied consent" either because otherwise this wouldn't be a point of contention with the British.

After all, by living in Nazi Germany Jews by implication consented to being tourtured and killed en masse. :roll:


...has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, and destroyed the Lives of our People...

We have the biggest polluting government in the world. Our agricultural subsidies encourage farmers to destroy their own land and innundate it with fertilizer, the Endangered Species Act, if applied to precious works of art, would result in the sudden disapperance of the Mona Lisa, etc...

Our government has done just about everything that hte Declaration of Independence gave as reasons for seceding from the British.

I didn't mean levying a low taxation rate, I meant that the taxes we take from the extremely (and usually undeserving) rich only reduce their vast wealth slightly.

Why are they usually undeserving? There is not a SINGLE American billionarie who inherited his fortune.

Nowhere in the document are any rights denied. There is simply no such thing as the right to be a parasite. There is no such thing as the right to demand that someone else take care of you. There is no such thing as the right to have a government be your daddy. IOW: TANSTAAFL.

Maybe if you'd do a little reading on what rights are (I suggest Gauthier and Narveson), you'd realize that

Heaven help you if you ever get a really rare, life threatening disease, and the treatment costs millions.

Emotive plea. Rejected as such.

And the only real purpose of society is to take care of the less fortunate.

Unsupported assertion. Rejected as such.

Perhaps you propose we all go back to the jungle, just take our nikes and our MTVs with us?

I propose that we do away with the two most destructive ideas ever, actually: religion and government, and not in that order.

1) Rejected on the grounds of emotion? Doesn't surprise me.

Trying for a Vulcan Fallacy? tsk-tsk.

2) If the assumption is incorrect, then it would be easy to counter. Just give me another reason society exists.

Man is a social creature. But that doesn't mean that man has the right to enslave.

3) Religion and government eh? At least I know where you stand.

Yes. I am an anarchocapitalist atheist.

The undeserving DO maintain those levels of wealth. In fantastically rich families, they are simply supported on the backs of other family members. In more normal but still wealthy families, the privileges granted them by birth give them an education of far better quality than those born poor - this means that the poor, whatever their potential, are not given the chance to reach said potential, whereas the rich almost invariably are. Sometimes they can even exceed their potential - for instance many rich kids who are not really capable of benefitting from a university education receive one anyway and often come out with a qualification that they don't really deserve. So your argument is just wrong.

Your examples are from today's mixed economy. Mine are from an ideal capitalistic society. The examples you give can happen only because we live in a mixed economy, where government inroads and regulation allow undeserved wealth to be secured. An example: maintaining a monopoly over a sector because and only because you prevent competition from being free to compete with you.

Taxing "slightly" the unearned wealth of an imbecile is meaningless: is like beating a man sentenced to death.

I didn't mean levying a low taxation rate, I meant that the taxes we take from the extremely (and usually undeserving) rich only reduce their vast wealth slightly.

Just because they earn more than we do means that they can afford to have their rights violated? You are still punishing ability for being able.

And to what gain? Welfare subsidies go to those with no wealth, and thus little or no ability.

How many times am I going to explain this? Poor people are poor, usually not because they are less innately able, but because they have not had the same opportunities.

Spending money on the basic necessities of life is not squandering money. And compassion is justification enough for many things. If you are going to talk about squandering money, look at reality: taxes going to the welfare state are spent on medicines, food, education, and other basic necessities. Rich people, on the other hand, spend large portions of their wealth on meaningless things, such as cosmetic surgery and large collections of fast cars. Please don't misunderstand - I am NOT saying they no right to spend their money as they wish, I am merely saying please don't claim that those on welfare squander rich people's money.

I didn't necessarily intend to say that they waste money, rather, that they use it. If they spend unearned money without a source or means to replenish wealth, how do you think they are going to stay rich? In addition, what is compassion justification for, again? I don't believe you actually gave an example.

And if rich people buy lots of cars, why is it your place to deem it immoral? Sure, they don't need them. But if they can afford them, what's the problem? Just because you can't doesn't mean that they should give up that which they earned so you everything is more "fair."

Once again, Poor people are poor, usually not because they are less innately able, but because they have not had the same opportunities so charity to the poor is not a gift from the able to the unable!

What opportunities?

I repeat my repetition: The productive are not necessarily the able!

In what respect? To be productive, you must be able to produce, no?

Ability is not the only thing that should be honoured. How about reason, mercy, compassion, justice, vision (in the sense of ideas, not actual sight) and a whole load of other things too.

I agree with you on reason, justice and vision, because they do not lead to such things as a welfare state.

The only justification is not compassion, how about justice - something which isn't "devoid by rationality" even by your reckoning. And finally, the benefactors of this system are actually some of the least likely to squander what they receive, since they cannot afford to!

Is justice being served by virtuing incompetence at the direct expense of competence? Is it justice to condemn someone for becoming rich, then force him to provide for every passing stranger that demands a share of his ability?

As has been argued clearly and accurately by myself and others here, the morality does lie with the advocated of such a system, and clearly not with anyone who would say:

[quote=The Arctic Archipelago]To me, my right to my own property is more important than your survival.

Explain to me why, exactly, I am immoral in valuing myself over a homeless person. What rational justification is there of allowing your rights to your life to be infringed upon, and then praising it as moral conduct?

You say this is basic human instinct. But since when is instinct morally right?

No, I didn't. It isn't human instinct; if it was, you wouldn't oppose The Bill of No Rights.

And I never said instincts were immoral. The instinct to stay alive is not. But putting instinct above rationality is. We are more than animals.

And I never said instincts were immoral. The instinct to stay alive is not. But putting instinct above rationality is. We are more than animals.

I was going to take issue with a number of things, but this is easily the most ridiculous. How in hell we are 'more' than animals? Please explain to me the reason why rationality makes us 'better'.

The undeserving DO maintain those levels of wealth. In fantastically rich families, they are simply supported on the backs of other family members. In more normal but still wealthy families, the privileges granted them by birth give them an education of far better quality than those born poor - this means that the poor, whatever their potential, are not given the chance to reach said potential, whereas the rich almost invariably are. Sometimes they can even exceed their potential - for instance many rich kids who are not really capable of benefitting from a university education receive one anyway and often come out with a qualification that they don't really deserve. So your argument is just wrong.

Your examples are from today's mixed economy. Mine are from an ideal capitalistic society. The examples you give can happen only because we live in a mixed economy, where government inroads and regulation allow undeserved wealth to be secured. An example: maintaining a monopoly over a sector because and only because you prevent competition from being free to compete with you.

In what way does a lack of regualtion stop inherited wealth continuing to hold up an individual? How can it stop them buying a better education and hence a better preparation for life, or ensure that everybody has an equally excellent education?


I didn't necessarily intend to say that they waste money, rather, that they use it. If they spend unearned money without a source or means to replenish wealth, how do you think they are going to stay rich? In addition, what is compassion justification for, again? I don't believe you actually gave an example.

And if rich people buy lots of cars, why is it your place to deem it immoral? Sure, they don't need them. But if they can afford them, what's the problem? Just because you can't doesn't mean that they should give up that which they earned so you everything is more "fair."

By compassion I am implying the ideal which lots of people hold, based on an idea that I can't really put into words - it's like a step forward from religion - there is no god (at least not in the traditional sense, maybe there's a creator of the universe, but I don't believe it is active in events here and now), so we have a responsibilty towards each other as sentient beings - we should be supporting each other at least to an extent. You said it yourself - "we are more than animals"

And I said, I wasn't deeming it immoral for people to spend their money how they wish, I was just saying that the rich are more wasteful with money than the poor, so don't claim that the poor squander money - which you said you weren't so do we understand each other now?

Once again, Poor people are poor, usually not because they are less innately able, but because they have not had the same opportunities so charity to the poor is not a gift from the able to the unable!

What opportunities?

Education - a good education depends on your birth, and so rich people tend to have their ability increased by education more than the poor.

I repeat my repetition: The productive are not necessarily the able!

In what respect? To be productive, you must be able to produce, no?

Yes but those earning lots of money are a) often pulling in salaries out of proportion to their ability/effort, b)not necessarily naturally able but have had their ability bestowed on them by a good education, which as I said depends mostly on birth

Ability is not the only thing that should be honoured. How about reason, mercy, compassion, justice, vision (in the sense of ideas, not actual sight) and a whole load of other things too.

I agree with you on reason, justice and vision, because they do not lead to such things as a welfare state.

In my opinion they do. And how are mercy and compassion NOT admirable qualities?

The only justification is not compassion, how about justice - something which isn't "devoid by rationality" even by your reckoning. And finally, the benefactors of this system are actually some of the least likely to squander what they receive, since they cannot afford to!

Is justice being served by virtuing incompetence at the direct expense of competence? Is it justice to condemn someone for becoming rich, then force him to provide for every passing stranger that demands a share of his ability?

That is not the situation, as well you know. Wealth does not reflect either natural ability or effort, and it is not condemnation. Somebody has to suffer, and the poor still suffer more than the rich even with a welfare state.

As has been argued clearly and accurately by myself and others here, the morality does lie with the advocated of such a system, and clearly not with anyone who would say:

[quote=The Arctic Archipelago]To me, my right to my own property is more important than your survival.

Explain to me why, exactly, I am immoral in valuing myself over a homeless person. What rational justification is there of allowing your rights to your life to be infringed upon, and then praising it as moral conduct?

You say this is basic human instinct. But since when is instinct morally right?

No, I didn't. It isn't human instinct; if it was, you wouldn't oppose The Bill of No Rights.

And I never said instincts were immoral. The instinct to stay alive is not. But putting instinct above rationality is. We are more than animals.

You are immoral in valuing your property over another human being, because sentient life is priceless, whereas material property is not.

And the whole instinct thing? Here's the quote:

Is your property more important than their lives?.

The nature of man is survival. His own survival.... To me, my right to my own property is more important than your survival.

And I never said instincts were immoral. The instinct to stay alive is not. But putting instinct above rationality is. We are more than animals.

I was going to take issue with a number of things, but this is easily the most ridiculous. How in hell we are 'more' than animals? Please explain to me the reason why rationality makes us 'better'.

We can use our rational minds to increase our standard of living over that of scavenging, foraging and basic subsistence.

In what way does a lack of regualtion stop inherited wealth continuing to hold up an individual? How can it stop them buying a better education and hence a better preparation for life, or ensure that everybody has an equally excellent education?

If they can't earn money by efficient, competetive means in a free market, there is nothing they can do to prevent a decline in wealth. Government interference in today's mixed economy, such as subsidies and anti-trust laws, allow for unproductive corporations to continue being unproductive.

And if they can get a better education, aren't they learning to be more productive and more capable?

And I said, I wasn't deeming it immoral for people to spend their money how they wish, I was just saying that the rich are more wasteful with money than the poor, so don't claim that the poor squander money - which you said you weren't so do we understand each other now?

It does not matter who wastes more money. The simple fact is this: everyone has a right to that which they earned. It doesn't matter if you deem it wasteful; it's their money, not yours.

What opportunities?

Education - a good education depends on your birth, and so rich people tend to have their ability increased by education more than the poor.

Well, fine. Now they are abler individuals. There's nothing immoral in that.

I repeat my repetition: The productive are not necessarily the able!

In what respect? To be productive, you must be able to produce, no?

Yes but those earning lots of money are a) often pulling in salaries out of proportion to their ability/effort, b)not necessarily naturally able but have had their ability bestowed on them by a good education, which as I said depends mostly on birth

a) Thank your mixed-market economy; don't blame capitalism
b) Again, good educations lead to more capable individuals who can continue to earn their wealth.

Ability is not the only thing that should be honoured. How about reason, mercy, compassion, justice, vision (in the sense of ideas, not actual sight) and a whole load of other things too.

I agree with you on reason, justice and vision, because they do not lead to such things as a welfare state.

In my opinion they do. And how are mercy and compassion NOT admirable qualities?

Yes, they're admirable. But it the same idea as the conflict between instinct and rationality. Only in this situation you put compassion and mercy over logic and your own rights - in effect, you make yourself a sacrificial object for others.

Wealth does not reflect either natural ability or effort, and it is not condemnation. Somebody has to suffer, and the poor still suffer more than the rich even with a welfare state.

So just because poor suffer, it has to follow that the rich must suffer, simply because they are rich and do not share that same amount of suffering? Isn't that punishing virtue, again?

You are immoral in valuing your property over another human being, because sentient life is priceless, whereas material property is not.

My right to property and the other products of my mind, not the products themselves. This right ensures my survival, because man needs his mind - he cannot better his standard of living, let alone survive, upon instinct - in order to produce that which I live on.

I recently took a look at the delegate votes for the "Bill of No Rights" to see just how much the delegates voting for the proposal tax their own people. What I found was indeed verrrry interesting.

It seems that most of those proponents of "No Rights" tax their people at a much higher rate than does Ursoria. Our people pay an average tax rate of 13%--meaning they get to keep 87% of what they earn. Several of the proponents of this measure tax their people at 80%, 90% and even 100%. That means that, in several cases, their people don't get to keep zilch. Their government takes everything!!!

I don't quite understand how all of this works out, but then, I never was too good at the "new math".

If they can't earn money by efficient, competetive means in a free market, there is nothing they can do to prevent a decline in wealth. Government interference in today's mixed economy, such as subsidies and anti-trust laws, allow for unproductive corporations to continue being unproductive.

And if they can get a better education, aren't they learning to be more productive and more capable?

We're talking about individuals here, not corporations. Once you have a fortune it is easy to maintain and even increase it by asking someone to tell you how to invest it - this takes no skill or effort on the part of the owner of said wealth, so they can hold onto inherited riches even if they are incompetent.

Why shouldn't the kids of poor people have the right to be given the same boost in capability - i.e. the same standard of education?


Well, fine. Now they are abler individuals. There's nothing immoral in that.

But they are abler purely because their parents had money - how is that fair?


a) Thank your mixed-market economy; don't blame capitalism
b) Again, good educations lead to more capable individuals who can continue to earn their wealth.

a)I will continue to blame capitalism until you can actually explain to me why they can't just maintain unearned massive inheritances by asking/paying someone to tell them how to invest it.
b)So everyone should have an equally good education to be fair - that way everyone can reach his/her potential - so the state must have the money to provide this, so people must pay taxes.


Yes, they're admirable. But it the same idea as the conflict between instinct and rationality. Only in this situation you put compassion and mercy over logic and your own rights - in effect, you make yourself a sacrificial object for others.


My right to property and the other products of my mind, not the products themselves. This right ensures my survival, because man needs his mind - he cannot better his standard of living, let alone survive, upon instinct - in order to produce that which I live on.

Sacrificial object? Overly dramatic. You do not sacrifice yourself, nor do you give up the right to your mind, merely a portion of your property. Don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying that everyone should end up with the same amount of money - people with higher gross salaries should still come out with more money - but that you give enough to help those who could not get by without it, and to give everyone an equal start with education. I don't quite understand what you mean about the mind - your mind is not being laid claim to by the state, taxation is merely on a portion of your production. And actually a welfare state ensures your survival too.


So just because poor suffer, it has to follow that the rich must suffer, simply because they are rich and do not share that same amount of suffering? Isn't that punishing virtue, again?

I don't think we will ever resolve this argument, because we are each basing our ideas on a different ideal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, as a pure capitalist, seem to be working towards a society based purely on the concept of survival of the fittest, at least economics-wise. I on the other hand take the view that we need to move on from simple instinctual systems like this - I said before that we all have a responsibility towards each other, but I still do agree that work should be rewarded. Therefore, I think we need a balance of capitalism and socialism so that we give people a fair start, and at least ensure survival for everyone - anyone's right to life easily overrides anyone else's right to property.

The Grand Duchy of Quirn would like to express its annoyance at the fact that the members of the United Nations are being asked to consider an annoying e-mail forward as if it were an actual resolution. If, as its sponsor has claimed, the "Bill of No Rights" does not actually infringe on member nations' sovereign right to provide for the welfare of their people as they see fit, it appears to have no substantive effect whatsoever. Characterizing it as a "strong" resolution for "the furtherment of democracy" is preposterous; the sole purpose of the "Bill of No Rights" seems to be to insult those who believe in extensive social welfare programs. As an opinion piece, it is perhaps mildly entertaining upon one's first reading of it, but it wears thin with repetition (and it has been repeated all over the web). As a resolution brought to a general vote, it is a waste of this body's time. :x

The United Socialist States of Europaland is dissapointed that such a resolution has been allowed into the UN in the first place. This resolution is disgusting and promotes the despicable treatment of other human beings. This is the worst sort of thing that could happen in a capitalist society where profit is put before the rights of humans. Evil resolutions like this must be opposed! Down with capitalism! The future is socialism! FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS!!!

My nation is staying undecided on this Resolution, there is no reason to turn the Rersolution down or apporove it.

The United Socialist States of Europaland is dissapointed that such a resolution has been allowed into the UN in the first place. This resolution is disgusting and promotes the despicable treatment of other human beings. This is the worst sort of thing that could happen in a capitalist society where profit is put before the rights of humans. Evil resolutions like this must be opposed! Down with capitalism! The future is socialism! FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS!!!

Hint: knee-jerk bumper-sticker babble won't get you anywhere.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS!!!

Hint: knee-jerk bumper-sticker babble won't get you anywhere.

I didn't know the Commies were selling bumper stickers! Oh wait, they probably GIVE them away, don't they? "Here you go Comrade, all the bumper stickers you need."

THE WORKERS MUST CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!
PROPERTY IS THEFT!
WE'LL KEEP THE RED FLAG FLYING HERE!

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS!!!

Hint: knee-jerk bumper-sticker babble won't get you anywhere.

I didn't know the Commies were selling bumper stickers! Oh wait, they probably GIVE them away, don't they? "Here you go Comrade, all the bumper stickers you need."

THE WORKERS MUST CONTROL THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!
PROPERTY IS THEFT!
WE'LL KEEP THE RED FLAG FLYING HERE!

WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

STOP CASTING POROSITY!
SO MUCH STUPIDITY, ITS ALL OVER YOU SCREEN!!1!
ARRRR! IT'S DRIVING ME NUTS!
KEEP IT OUT OF SCI.HCEM, FOOLS!
VENUS MUST BE REORBITED TO CREATE A NEW EARTH!
THE UNIVERSE IS AN ELECTRON IN A PLUTONIUM ATOM!
TWENTY BUCKS, SAME AS IN TOWN.

Down with capitalism! The future is socialism! FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY, TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS!!!

I wouldn't go quite so far, for 2 reasons - people should still be rewarded for effort etc., and there will always be people who cheat a system such as that.

I would say that the future is with a mixture of the two. We need to ensure that everyone gets a fair and equal start in life, but by improving conditions at the bottom rather than bringing everybody right down. We need to ensure that there is a good safety net, so that everyone gets what they NEED to live, not necessarily in luxury, but with some comfort. We need to close the wealth gap - some salaries are so high that it simply becomes pointless, and some so low that it cannot be anything but slavery, with the need for any money at all becoming the chains trapping those slaves in their jobs. We need to start recognising effort and contribution to society in the salaries paid to people - for instance, most teachers and medical professionals in the public sector, at least in the UK, are underpaid when you consider the huge benefit they provide, and why should somebody earn vastly less simply because they came out losers in the genetic lottery, even though they put 100% into their work. None of this means that hard-working, able people will not be able to earn more than anyone else, only that the gap is lessened. Economic systems are all very well, but human lives are a greater priority.

President E||'esiumi has this to say about the bill of no rights:

"...This is a terrible idea... ...that threatens to hurt thousands of people for many reasons, including... ...denying healthcare to the people who need it most... ...There we must resist[oppose] it..."

The Federation of Arkanor believes the Bill of No Rights was doomed to fail... simply because of the contrarian nature of humanity. The president declined to comment on his personal beliefs.

I need a million dollars. I also need a villa on the mediterranean. My abilities? well, i whine really well, i can consume alcohol in grand volumes. I havent done an hour's mental work in my entire life. But obviously Michael Dell doesnt need all that money right? He should share it with me! Even though i didnt earn it!

from each acc to his ability, to each according to his need. That means that each person must produce to their maximum ability, and in return receive just enough to stay alive. How is that fair exactly? What if I have an ability to make a business empire like Dell? And Billy-Bob down the street. his only ability is to down 5 shots of vodka in 30 seconds. You're telling me that we both deserve the same living conditions? We both deserve the same returns on our time investments? Well, in that case, screw business empires, i'm just gonna down vodka like Billy-Bob down the street- since our skills seem to be valued the same!

The word "need" does not imply production, but pure consumption. "need" does not create anything. Need is not a justification within itself. But we've come to this place where it's become one. Need has become a justification for taking away from the production of one and giving the effort of his work to someone who didnt earn it.

THough I can tell Pavelland was joking or jesting..we think.
We agree that that is a problem with socialism...there is little to no incentive.
Socialism has its pros and cons, but certainly their should be some incentive to work better.
Caoptitalist: Pros-incentive the more work you do, more money you gain. Or better work more money.
Cons: Some people Athelets are paid rediculously while others such as teachers are paid unfairly.
While I think teachers should get raises alot because a guy begging on street makes more than some teachers...
Still the incentive to make more money is a good one.

I need a million dollars. I also need a villa on the mediterranean. My abilities? well, i whine really well, i can consume alcohol in grand volumes. I havent done an hour's mental work in my entire life. But obviously Michael Dell doesnt need all that money right? He should share it with me! Even though i didnt earn it!

from each acc to his ability, to each according to his need. That means that each person must produce to their maximum ability, and in return receive just enough to stay alive. How is that fair exactly? What if I have an ability to make a business empire like Dell? And Billy-Bob down the street. his only ability is to down 5 shots of vodka in 30 seconds. You're telling me that we both deserve the same living conditions? We both deserve the same returns on our time investments? Well, in that case, screw business empires, i'm just gonna down vodka like Billy-Bob down the street- since our skills seem to be valued the same!

The word "need" does not imply production, but pure consumption. "need" does not create anything. Need is not a justification within itself. But we've come to this place where it's become one. Need has become a justification for taking away from the production of one and giving the effort of his work to someone who didnt earn it.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Notice the words "from" and "to". All that is saying is that people should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living. If your smarter or more tallented in some way there's nothing stopping you from earning more.

As for your other points: The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich. It is capitalism that requires there to be a certain level of unemployment, so that the unemployed can be used to keep the wages of the working class down. Capitalism is the idea that you steal from the poor and working class to pay the rich.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Notice the words "from" and "to". All that is saying is that people should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living.
Meaning you take from someone what he has earned and give it to someone that didn't earn it.

your other points: The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.
Only because those employees agreed to it.
Capitalism is the idea that you steal from the poor and working class to pay the rich.
No, it's the idea that each individual is responsible for his own livelihood and has the right to do as he pleases so long as he doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung0903/party/party-smiley-052.gif

Hoo Ya. Dancing on the grave of the silly little BONR proposal.

Pogue

your other points: The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.
Only because those employees agreed to it.

The workers did not "agree to it." They were given no choice.

"Der neue Weltordnung kommt!"

The workers did not "agree to it." They were given no choice.

"Der neue Weltordnung kommt!"

And before someone comes along to say "How exactly?!" - Schim's right because, although there's nothing to technically prevent them leaving their job, if they did they would become one of the unemployed, who are even worse off, especially under pure capitalism without a welfare state.

This is what I meant by:


it cannot be anything but slavery, with the need for any money at all becoming the chains trapping those slaves in their jobs.

I need a million dollars. I also need a villa on the mediterranean. My abilities? well, i whine really well, i can consume alcohol in grand volumes. I havent done an hour's mental work in my entire life. But obviously Michael Dell doesnt need all that money right? He should share it with me! Even though i didnt earn it!

from each acc to his ability, to each according to his need. That means that each person must produce to their maximum ability, and in return receive just enough to stay alive. How is that fair exactly? What if I have an ability to make a business empire like Dell? And Billy-Bob down the street. his only ability is to down 5 shots of vodka in 30 seconds. You're telling me that we both deserve the same living conditions? We both deserve the same returns on our time investments? Well, in that case, screw business empires, i'm just gonna down vodka like Billy-Bob down the street- since our skills seem to be valued the same!

The word "need" does not imply production, but pure consumption. "need" does not create anything. Need is not a justification within itself. But we've come to this place where it's become one. Need has become a justification for taking away from the production of one and giving the effort of his work to someone who didnt earn it.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Notice the words "from" and "to". All that is saying is that people should be guaranteed a minimum standard of living. If your smarter or more tallented in some way there's nothing stopping you from earning more.

Life makes no such guarantee. Why should someone have their property expropriated to grant such a guarantee to someone else?

As for your other points: The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.

Really? So there's a caste system? No economic mobility?

Boy, do you have a lot of studying to do.
It is capitalism that requires there to be a certain level of unemployment, so that the unemployed can be used to keep the wages of the working class down.

No, it is reality that requires it. Some people are unable to work. Some people choose not to. Some businesses choose not to go places because they do not find it economically viable.

Forcing someone to divest themselves of their property because you want to give someone a "standard of living" is called THEFT, no matter how you slice it or couch it in feel-good crap.

Capitalism is the idea that you steal from the poor and working class to pay the rich.

Socialism of any sort is the idea of stealing everything from everyone.

But on the face of it democratic socialism isn't so bad. After all, basically it's the theory that a robber puts down his gun, picks up a ballot box, and robs the rich instead of you. Oh wait,

IT'S STILL ROBBERY!

I'm somewhat surprised that none of the opponents of this resolution pointed out the precedent this bill would have set if it had passed.

It allows the UN to take away rights from citizens that a nation's constitution may have guaranteed.

I rather suspect that many of the people who supported this bill would have changed their minds if one of the clauses had read:

"You do not have the right to a gun. Too often, deadly weapons are in the hands of people too stupid to use them responsibly..."

(This is just an example. I attempted to write this example in the same tone used in the resolution. It does not necessarily reflect my personal beliefs regarding the ownership of guns.) <- desperate attempt to duck any possible flames

Hoo Ya. Dancing on the grave of the silly little BONR proposal.

Pogue

Wow. If that isn't childish, I don't know what is.

Two words: grow up. You're only making a complete fool of yourself.

The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.
Only because those employees agreed to it.


The same argument can be made that taxes are legitimate, because you agreed to pay taxes by living and working in a country which charges you tax. If you didn't want to pay the tax, you should have left the country and go and live in one of the many countries which doesn't charge tax.

The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.
Only because those employees agreed to it.


The same argument can be made that taxes are legitimate, because you agreed to pay taxes by living and working in a country which charges you tax. If you didn't want to pay the tax, you should have left the country and go and live in one of the many countries which doesn't charge tax.

No becuase if you don't pay tax you have to leave teh country... which means that you are being FORCED to abandon property that you legitimately own. No such constraint applies to labor.

The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.
Only because those employees agreed to it.


The same argument can be made that taxes are legitimate, because you agreed to pay taxes by living and working in a country which charges you tax. If you didn't want to pay the tax, you should have left the country and go and live in one of the many countries which doesn't charge tax.

No becuase if you don't pay tax you have to leave teh country... which means that you are being FORCED to abandon property that you legitimately own. No such constraint applies to labor.

Yes because if you don't want a company taking a cut of your production, you have to leave the company... which means that you are being FORCED to abandon a job which is legitimately yours.

Also, you might like to consider that without the protection of the country's laws, legal system, and police force, you don't HAVE any "legitimate property". I own a piece of land. How do I know I own a piece of land? Because I paid for it. What did I pay for it WITH? With MONEY. MONEY THAT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTED. How do I prove that I own the land? I have a "title". Where did the title come from? FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

Without a government to protect your "property rights", then whoever has the most force can simply take your property at their whim. How do governments pay for the laws, legal system, courts, and police to protect your property? THROUGH TAXATION.

If you think this isn't how it works, go set up your own country on a ship in the South China Sea near Indonesia somewhere. Pirates will come and steal everything you have within a few weeks.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THE TAXES, DON'T TAKE A JOB IN A COUNTRY WHICH TAXES YOU! DON'T LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHICH TAXES YOU! GOOD LUCK FINDING ONE!

The job isn't legitimately yours... you don't have the right to a job you only have that right if someone gives it to you and they can take it away at any time.

On the other hand property IS legitimately yours. You own it.

Besides I never said we should get rid of ALL taxation. I said we should get rid of like 90% of it.

Government can run all of its essential activities (law & order, some defense, education, maybe a bit of emergency relief etc.) on a 2.5% flat tax rate in the United States. I can prove it mathematically.

ALL taxation is robbery. But some is necessary.

Government can run all of its essential activities (law & order, some defense, education, maybe a bit of emergency relief etc.) on a 2.5% flat tax rate in the United States. I can prove it mathematically.

I mean this very kindly. But I have studied mathematics, and if you can prove "mathematically" what the legitimate (or even essential) activities of government are, I would be most interesting in seeing the proof. I can prove mathematically that the square root of two is irrational, but I'd be amazed if anyone can prove mathematically what government should and should not do. Another point to consider is that ALL mathematical proofs rest upon an axiomatic base--meaning that some premises have to be accepted without proof.

Nonetheless, I really am interested in seeing the proof for your assertion, if one exists.

Government can run all of its essential activities (law & order, some defense, education, maybe a bit of emergency relief etc.) on a 2.5% flat tax rate in the United States. I can prove it mathematically.

I mean this very kindly. But I have studied mathematics, and if you can prove "mathematically" what the legitimate (or even essential) activities of government are, I would be most interesting in seeing the proof. I can prove mathematically that the square root of two is irrational, but I'd be amazed if anyone can prove mathematically what government should and should not do. Another point to consider is that ALL mathematical proofs rest upon an axiomatic base--meaning that some premises have to be accepted without proof.

Nonetheless, I really am interested in seeing the proof for your assertion, if one exists.

....

We both know what I meant.

I can show mathematically that we can maintain:
-A standing army (not as big as the current one granted)
-A good education system (through tax credits/private schools)
-A police and legal system
-Emergency disaster relief
-Infrastructure
-It's own day-to-day running expenses (recall that these will be smaller if government is scaled down)

With a 2.5% flat tax rate.

We both know what I meant.

I can show mathematically that we can maintain:
-A standing army (not as big as the current one granted)
-A good education system (through tax credits/private schools)
-A police and legal system
-Emergency disaster relief

With a 2.5% flat tax rate.

What's your ideological ground for saying that taxing for healthcare is wrong, and taxing for military is right? What if I'm a pacifist and don't believe in maintaining a military? Why should I pay? Why should I have to pay for emergency relief? That's robbery!

If it's acceptable to tax for one thing, it must be acceptable for any other democratically made desicion.

We both know what I meant.

I can show mathematically that we can maintain:
-A standing army (not as big as the current one granted)
-A good education system (through tax credits/private schools)
-A police and legal system
-Emergency disaster relief

With a 2.5% flat tax rate.

What's your ideological ground for saying that taxing for healthcare is wrong, and taxing for military is right? What if I'm a pacifist and don't believe in maintaining a military? Why should I pay? Why should I have to pay for emergency relief? That's robbery!

If it's acceptable to tax for one thing, it must be acceptable for any other democratically made desicion.

I'm well aware that tax is robbery.

But some tax is necessary.

Ideally the military budget should be cut significantly. I'm talking 50-75%. But a military IS needed for national defense. It's one of the reasons we have a government.

A government claims a monopoly on physical force.