Bill of No Rights
The Spirit of Athine
24-09-2003, 17:26
What is the purpose of this proposal?
It seems very negative to me.
I really don't think it should pass.
What is the purpose of this proposal?
It seems very negative to me.
I really don't think it should pass.
That was me by the way.
Obviously I plan to vote no.
"ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by things like the American Bill of Rights.
"
The Bill of No Rights makes the pursuit of happiness difficult, if not impossible, in the Free Land of Athine. It is another one of those laws mentioned above, one of an overabundance of them, and ecumbers my people's right to pursue happiness.
Vote no.
Blamgolia
24-09-2003, 17:37
I plan to vote no on it myself. Not only is it negative, but also written without consideration to those that have had a run of bad luck.
I plan to vote no on it myself. Not only is it negative, but also written without consideration to those that have had a run of bad luck.
Good. :D
Does anyone think that it will (or could) pass :?:
It had better not pass. Like most of TGMs proposals it is poorly disguised neo-liberal crap.
Aaronakia
24-09-2003, 20:40
I agree with pretty much all of the ideas presented in the proposal. On the other hand, it is worded so negatively that it makes little sense. It seems that nothing would be changed by it. Nothing would be outlawed by the resolution, and no new procedures are laid out by it. It isn't really a proposal at all, but a statement. I am surprised the NS moderators allowed it to get this far. :roll:
I don't see anything coming of this resolution whether it passes or fails. I intend to abstain.
The Global Market
24-09-2003, 20:47
"ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by things like the American Bill of Rights.
"
The Bill of No Rights makes the pursuit of happiness difficult, if not impossible, in the Free Land of Athine. It is another one of those laws mentioned above, one of an overabundance of them, and ecumbers my people's right to pursue happiness.
Vote no.
No. It repeals those overcumbersome laws.
This Bill of No Rights merely establishes that you can't be FORCED to provide free healthcare, etc. Free helathcare is a privlege. Your country may make that decision on its onw.
Aaronakia
24-09-2003, 20:51
But that's already the case. This resolution, like the New China's one on gay marriages, just keeps everything status quo.
Or did you mean for this to repeal past resolutions? If you did, this was a very sneaky way of putting it.
Incertonia
24-09-2003, 21:26
"ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by things like the American Bill of Rights.
"
The Bill of No Rights makes the pursuit of happiness difficult, if not impossible, in the Free Land of Athine. It is another one of those laws mentioned above, one of an overabundance of them, and ecumbers my people's right to pursue happiness.
Vote no.
No. It repeals those overcumbersome laws.
This Bill of No Rights merely establishes that you can't be FORCED to provide free healthcare, etc. Free helathcare is a privlege. Your country may make that decision on its onw.
As I mentioned in another thread, if the purpose of this proposal is to overturn the earlier free healthcare UN resolution, then make that proposal--don't hide it in this laundry-list of crap you don't like. You're being intellectually dishonest here, and that's not generally like you, at least not based on the debates we've had in the past.
The fact is that the rest of this is not law, and I think you can even argue that the healthcare provision in the bill of no rights doesn't truly repeal the earlier UN resolution. It needs to go down to defeat.
Goobergunchia
24-09-2003, 21:32
I plan to vote no on it myself. Not only is it negative, but also written without consideration to those that have had a run of bad luck.
Good. :D
Does anyone think that it will (or could) pass :?:
I'll be voting no, but I'm sad to say it could pass. Remember Common Sense Act II...?
Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
Aaronakia
24-09-2003, 21:35
On the other hand, the Cato acts seem to be going down. It's nice to see that the UN doesn't always blindly put into effect any proposal that gets approved.
Goobergunchia
24-09-2003, 21:38
On the other hand, the Cato acts seem to be going down. It's nice to see that the UN doesn't always blindly put into effect any proposal that gets approved.
Only 2 resolutions have ever been defeated. Cato looks like it will be the third.
And I voted FOR Cato.
Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
Penguenia
24-09-2003, 21:38
Penguenia will urge it's delegate to vote no.
http://www.digikitten.com/playhousev2/files/Raziel/Icon8.jpg
Emperor Tobias Raziel of the Holy Empire of Penguenia
Thought for the day: Innocence Proves Nothing
Wasn't the Health Care Resolution replaced, making everything recommended as opposed to mandatory?
Goobergunchia
24-09-2003, 23:12
Wasn't the Health Care Resolution replaced, making everything recommended as opposed to mandatory?
Correct.
The Global Market
24-09-2003, 23:14
Wasn't the Health Care Resolution replaced, making everything recommended as opposed to mandatory?
But theres still the keep the world disease free thing.
This Bill of No Rights merely establishes that you can't be FORCED to provide free healthcare, etc. Free helathcare is a privlege. Your country may make that decision on its onw
Me!x'uâ!xauma :!: (I am appalled by your statement!) Free healthcare is a right to every person, every beign capable of human level thought, in fact. What makes the rich more deserving to live than the poor other than inheritence?
Nevermoore
25-09-2003, 02:27
Free healthcare is a right to every person, every beign capable of human level thought, in fact. What makes the rich more deserving to live than the poor other than inheritence?
Says you, but who said you can automatically decide what basic rights are and are not?
And why should people get handouts? To maintain a modern medical facility is rather expensive, if Nevermoore charged nothing then our facilities would be of a much lower quality and both rich and poor would suffer. There are insurance programs with jobs are there not? Those can pay the medical fees.
Nevermoore and Her allies will be voting yes.
Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting
The Global Market
25-09-2003, 02:51
"ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by things like the American Bill of Rights.
"
The Bill of No Rights makes the pursuit of happiness difficult, if not impossible, in the Free Land of Athine. It is another one of those laws mentioned above, one of an overabundance of them, and ecumbers my people's right to pursue happiness.
Vote no.
No. It repeals those overcumbersome laws.
This Bill of No Rights merely establishes that you can't be FORCED to provide free healthcare, etc. Free helathcare is a privlege. Your country may make that decision on its onw.
As I mentioned in another thread, if the purpose of this proposal is to overturn the earlier free healthcare UN resolution, then make that proposal--don't hide it in this laundry-list of crap you don't like. You're being intellectually dishonest here, and that's not generally like you, at least not based on the debates we've had in the past.
The fact is that the rest of this is not law, and I think you can even argue that the healthcare provision in the bill of no rights doesn't truly repeal the earlier UN resolution. It needs to go down to defeat.
It does more than nullify internationally free healthcare... that's just one of the things it does.
It had better not pass. Like most of TGMs proposals it is poorly disguised neo-liberal crap.
Neo-liberal, no right to free healthcare!? Twaddle. It's Conservatism if ever I've seen it. And I'm voting no. Much more no than to the Cato act.
Oppressed Possums
26-09-2003, 04:40
Is that so bad?
Since Art iv is based on an opinion ( public housing is poorly maintained so ipso facto, would public heath care) and Art x. seems to be a dream where those who start wars(politicians) would have to fight them.
So no is my vote.