NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bill of No Rights is th most ingenious proposal I have ever seen.

and you wasted your first post saying that? Wow, you must think so :lol:
good for yuo and welcome to the NSUN forum boards. pleased to meet ya

and you wasted your first post saying that? Wow, you must think so :lol:
good for yuo and welcome to the NSUN forum boards. pleased to meet ya

It's not really a waste. It's not like people only get 4 posts a day or something.

Although I did not approve of the Cato Acts, I do support this.

Although I did not approve of the Cato Acts, I do support this.

Whilst there are some articles I agree with in the Bill of No rights, there are also quite a few that I don't. As a result I voted against the resolution.

I agree with this movement, except for the no health care. i believe that everyone DOES have a right to be taken care of when they are sick.

It is a funny proposal and a good read, but completely unprofessional and heartless. Even for a conservative such as myself.
I voted against.

It is currently not winning...yay! :lol:

Whoa whoa whoa dude that was awful you can't take away Rights you should have the right to do whutever the hell you want :twisted: And forget about whut anyone else had to say about it :x cuz lets face it no one is going to agree on everything so I think that everyone should have their own opinions whether right or wrong :wink: But there were a few that I did believe in but thats not the point the point is uhh...... well I'm sure it has a point soimewhere in there........ maybe..... then again i was the ont who wrote it...... LALALLALALA :mrgreen: :D :) :lol:

Whoa whoa whoa dude that was awful you can't take away Rights you should have the right to do whutever the hell you want :twisted: And forget about whut anyone else had to say about it :x cuz lets face it no one is going to agree on everything so I think that everyone should have their own opinions whether right or wrong :wink: But there were a few that I did believe in but thats not the point the point is uhh...... well I'm sure it has a point soimewhere in there........ maybe..... then again i was the ont who wrote it...... LALALLALALA :mrgreen: :D :) :lol:

The Republic of Beernuts agrees with this proposal, since it does not infringe on the rights of countries to allow their citizens to drink beer.

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 it's 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 it's 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.

No it establishes that a job isn't a RIGHT but a PRIVILEGE. Hence "we'd all like you to have one..."

And how does it outlaw free speech...? Article II EXPANDS free speech.

This proposal is mean-spirited and unnecessary, not to mention it doesn't do anything at all!!! To vote for it is to proclaim yourself as much of an asshole as the person who wrote up the article itself (apparently it's been copied off a website). It is, in its own way, as useless and unnecessary as "Planting Trees" or "Metric System".

Even if you believe in all the articles contained in the Bill of No Rights, I urge you to vote NO, on the principle that REAL nations don't pull crap like this.

This proposal is mean-spirited and unnecessary, not to mention it doesn't do anything at all!!! To vote for it is to proclaim yourself as much of an asshole as the person who wrote up the article itself (apparently it's been copied off a website). It is, in its own way, as useless and unnecessary as "Planting Trees" or "Metric System".

Even if you believe in all the articles contained in the Bill of No Rights, I urge you to vote NO, on the principle that REAL nations don't pull crap like this.

And just look at how good REAL nations are running :roll:

What is the purpose of a goverment? To control the citzens of a country? To make them do what you want them to do? A goverment is there, not to live the lives of the people and take away their rights, but to give support to its people and help them with free housing and health care for those less fortunate, like people with disabilities or learning difficulities. I myself must confess i have dyslexia, and because of it i find it hard to get enployment, i may one day need the free housing and health care of great britain, and i will give the same right and option to my fake country, Thank you for your time.
Deluwiel of Neworlando, Delegate of middle earth.

I am strongly opposed to the Bill of No Rights, the point of the UN is not to strip the citizens of the world of their right, but to make new ones, and revise old ones. I find the Bill of No Rights to be exceedingly negative and approaching tyrinical

I was an enthusiastic fan of the Cato acts to no end, but this one I can't see any potential in. I voted against.

The Bill of No Rights, completely plagiarized from Lewis Napper, a Libertarian who lost to, of all people, Trent Lott, in Mississippi in a senatorial run!

Falsely attributed to Mitchell Kaye of Georgia
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/billofnorights.ht.htm

Some call it "common sense", others find it funny. I find it stereotypically mean-spirited Americanism at its worst.

Yes, people sue for stupid things, but this bit of anti-government pap deserves its place as a weak attempt at political satire. Unfunny, worth a vote against. In fact, since it is plagiarized, it should be withdrawn immediately.

Of course you have the right to demand that other peoples' children (well, adults really, since even Leishmania doesn't have child soldiers) go fight wars. It's called free speech, and most of us endorse that.

And does a UN member country really need to consider every piece of crap that some small-time politico in Georgia writes and their do-nothing relatives forward sixty times to their inbox?

There is one particular section of this generally ill-spirited resolution that we particularly see numerous problems with:

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.

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.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

Firstly, our Colony provides the poor with basic public housing and government-sponsored food banks, i.e. free food and housing. And we wish to continue to do so.

Secondly, we are very proud of our free, fully socialized, health care system.

Lastly, this Planetian Colony does not believe in capital punishment. We believe in rehabilitation. We do not even have prisons. And yet, we still somehow manage to eliminate all crime... we must be doing something right.

We will in no way endorse this resolution. It would make the lives of our citizens far worse than what they are now. Far, far worse. We advise every nation that cares about its people to vote against the Bill of No Rights.

If it passes, do not be surprised to see your streets full of starving people in rags, dying of cholera, while other citizens are being executed for crimes they did not commit by a biased or misinformed jury.

Office of the Governor.

There is one particular section of this generally ill-spirited resolution that we particularly see numerous problems with:

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.

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.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

Firstly, our Colony provides the poor with basic public housing and government-sponsored food banks, i.e. free food and housing. And we wish to continue to do so.

Secondly, we are very proud of our free, fully socialized, health care system.

Lastly, this Planetian Colony does not believe in capital punishment. We believe in rehabilitation. We do not even have prisons. And yet, we still somehow manage to eliminate all crime... we must be doing something right.

We will in no way endorse this resolution. It would make the lives of our citizens far worse than what they are now. Far, far worse. We advise every nation that cares about its people to vote against the Bill of No Rights.

If it passes, do not be surprised to see your streets full of starving people in rags, dying of cholera, while other citizens are being executed for crimes they did not commit by a biased or misinformed jury.

Office of the Governor.

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.

There is one particular section of this generally ill-spirited resolution that we particularly see numerous problems with:

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.

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.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

Firstly, our Colony provides the poor with basic public housing and government-sponsored food banks, i.e. free food and housing. And we wish to continue to do so.

Secondly, we are very proud of our free, fully socialized, health care system.

Lastly, this Planetian Colony does not believe in capital punishment. We believe in rehabilitation. We do not even have prisons. And yet, we still somehow manage to eliminate all crime... we must be doing something right.

We will in no way endorse this resolution. It would make the lives of our citizens far worse than what they are now. Far, far worse. We advise every nation that cares about its people to vote against the Bill of No Rights.

If it passes, do not be surprised to see your streets full of starving people in rags, dying of cholera, while other citizens are being executed for crimes they did not commit by a biased or misinformed jury.

Office of the Governor.

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.
In his colony, much like mine, however, these things ARE considered rights. This is an attempt to have GLobal Market's ideas control what we, the leaders of our own respective nations, should have control over ourselves.

I have seen some of the most pathetic excuses for a law go though govenment. This is the only bill I have seen that actually shows common sence and tries to protect the sanity of the world, great bill.

its about time the UN stopped being so wishy washy and started dealing with real issues ....instead of passing laws like everyone has the right to be happy forever.

THe way it's worded it seems to act in order to prevent people from whining about how they don't have this, and how they want that, and how other people get this, why can't I. Its basically an anti-complaint bill. Quite humorous actually.

There is nothing that says that countries must comply with the articles listed in the latest resolution. Most of the acts imply that countries would not be able to infact uphold those "rights". I want free health care in Ziggys, I want to be a "socialist" nation. This resolution is not trying to protect people from being forced into these rights, this resolution is to stop people from supporting these rights. :x

Of course you have the right to demand that other peoples' children (well, adults really, since even Leishmania doesn't have child soldiers) go fight wars. It's called free speech, and most of us endorse that.

Yes, you have the right to demand it, but you don't have the right to actually compel said "other people's children" to actually go out and do the fighting--you have to persuade your government's leaders of your position.

In Ariddian law, health care is a basic right, not a privilege. The mandate of the United Nations is not to downgrade that right into a privilege, robbing our national legislation of the ethics and humaneness with which it was written. This resolution is an attempt to force every nation in the UN into a unique governmental mindset - and a mean, cold-hearted one at that. It is a violation of a nation's sovereignty, and must not pass.

This is actually a decent Bill, it's the first one I've seen that doesnt try to mirror an actual UN resolution...blardy hell, is this a virtual alternate reality or a virtual actual reality?

Guapovia votes YES. And we do so proudly. Common sense is all too rare in this world today.

Prince Guapo
Principality of Guapovia
1 Guapovian Way
Guapovia City
Guapovia

Ok.... Where do yall see common sence in restricting people? cuz I for one do not see this so called common sense.. People are not happy with rules and they are not happy without them

ACTUALLY it has been proven By my Highschool that if there were no rules restricting us from such items as cell phones an cd players and gum that they wouldn't be found all over the walls and people using them all the time it's because you can't do something that you do not because some whackjob says hey you cant do that it offends me and i'm a wuss and should have the right to kill you and blah blah blah FUCK THAT :!:

ARTICLE VI is self-contradictory, and ARTICLE VII disallows capitalism and taxes! ARTICLE VIII is a bit better, altho it's proposed for the wrong reasons.

Guapovia votes YES. And we do so proudly. Common sense is all too rare in this world today.

Prince Guapo
Principality of Guapovia
1 Guapovian Way
Guapovia City
Guapovia

I wouldn't call this proposal common sense...more like a proposal against the misfortunates amongst us.

Is it me, or does this guy sound kinda socialist? How did this ever gain enough support to become a proposal?

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.

Isn't it your right to do what you can to preserve your own life?

This is a great bill, it simply states that people are morons for expecting the government to take make them happy. If things don't go their way it's not the government's responsibility to appease them, it's their own.

I don't see what all the fuss is about, it's not restricting anybody from attaining any of these things, it's essentially just saying take some responsibility for yourself before you expect the government to take care of it. It helps those who help themselves.

Is it me, or does this guy sound kinda socialist? How did this ever gain enough support to become a proposal?

Actually TGM is a Libertarian.

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.

Isn't it your right to do what you can to preserve your own life?

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Is it me, or does this guy sound kinda socialist?

I find this really funny.

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.

Isn't it your right to do what you can to preserve your own life?

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

You mean, like hindering someone else's right to die through lack of funds? Or hindering someone's elses right to pay a lower income tax rate? I fail to see the logic here.

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.

Isn't it your right to do what you can to preserve your own life?

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

You mean, like hindering someone else's right to die through lack of funds? Or hindering someone's elses right to pay a lower income tax rate? I fail to see the logic here.

The right to property is a NEGATIVE right. The right to healthcare is a POSITIVE right. WHEN IN CONFLICT, a negative right ALWAYS outweighs a positive right, because they are the foundation of all rights.

The Republic of Gastronia is in full support of this bill. We applaud the common sense in this document.

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?) but owning private property sure does.

Anyway, I note that this laughable joke of a resolution is going down the toilet. Which is exactly what it deserves.

Pogue

The right to property is a NEGATIVE right. The right to healthcare is a POSITIVE right. WHEN IN CONFLICT, a negative right ALWAYS outweighs a positive right, because they are the foundation of all rights.

Now you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Just like your resolution.

Pogue

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?) but owning private property sure does.

Anyway, I note that this laughable joke of a resolution is going down the toilet. Which is exactly what it deserves.

Pogue

It violates other peoples' inalienable rights to liberty and property. A government that provides free healthcare is illegitimate and revolution is justified.

This proposal is in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

This proposal is in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

When was that?

And what are "cultural rights"? Sounds like a euphemism for "ethnic cleansing" which is itself a euphemism for "genocide" to me.

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.

Isn't it your right to do what you can to preserve your own life?

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

You mean, like hindering someone else's right to die through lack of funds? Or hindering someone's elses right to pay a lower income tax rate? I fail to see the logic here.

The right to property is a NEGATIVE right. The right to healthcare is a POSITIVE right. WHEN IN CONFLICT, a negative right ALWAYS outweighs a positive right, because they are the foundation of all rights.

Please define 'positive' and 'negative', because I can't make any sense, idealogically or logically, out of what you just said.

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?) but owning private property sure does.

Anyway, I note that this laughable joke of a resolution is going down the toilet. Which is exactly what it deserves.

Pogue

It violates other peoples' inalienable rights to liberty and property. A government that provides free healthcare is illegitimate and revolution is justified.

Liberty and Property are clearly alienable rights.

They can, and are, taken away frequently by all manner of governments.

i.e.

Imprisoning criminals (you've alienated their right to liberty)
Taxes/Tariffs (alienating property rights, which aren't fundemental rights anyways)

In my opinion, the only inalienable right is the right to defend your own life. All other rights are constructions

As for Free Healthcare making a government illegitimate, you've only shown me that you still haven't read any of the writers your philosophy is based on. I've argued before in regards to tax not being theft, and you certainly didn't prove me wrong.

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?) but owning private property sure does.

Anyway, I note that this laughable joke of a resolution is going down the toilet. Which is exactly what it deserves.

Pogue

It violates other peoples' inalienable rights to liberty and property. A government that provides free healthcare is illegitimate and revolution is justified.

Inalienable according to whom? And just read the last sentence back to yourself and see how much sense it makes. I'm absolutely dumbfounded. Really, I am. How in _______'s name is a government providing free heathcare illegitimate!?

Liberty and property can be violated BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Tax is robbery. It is using the threat of physical force to take money from somebody else without their consent. The only difference is that it's legal.

Liberty and property can be violated BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Tax is robbery. It is using the threat of physical force to take money from somebody else without their consent. The only difference is that it's legal.

If liberty and property can be violated, no matter the situation, then they cannot be inalienable. It's a tautology.

Also robbery cannot be legal, again by virtue of definition.

As for tax having no basis in consent, that too is a falsehood. You tacitly consent to following the rules of society by voting and participating in it.

I've had this discussion with you before. I don't want to do it agian; you refuse to argue on philosophical grounds, and I'm not going to explain in detail the working of liberalism to someone who can't take the time to read it himself.

Liberty and property can be violated BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Tax is robbery. It is using the threat of physical force to take money from somebody else without their consent. The only difference is that it's legal.

Due process of law only means that certain people up high say it's ok. So, if you're taxing people to pay for public health that's wrong because... people up high say it's not ok?

Tax is robbery only in the same way as property is theft. Property must always be distributed according to some system, be it the law of the jungle: the strongest wins, or the law of capitalism: the strongest or fastest or cleverest or luckiest or (occasionally) most hard working (etc) wins. Whatever system is in place, it's still theft by your logic. Would you please explain to me what system wouldn't involve theft?

Liberty and property can be violated BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Tax is robbery. It is using the threat of physical force to take money from somebody else without their consent. The only difference is that it's legal.

Due process of law only means that certain people up high say it's ok. So, if you're taxing people to pay for public health that's wrong because... people up high say it's not ok?

Tax is robbery only in the same way as property is theft. Property must always be distributed according to some system, be it the law of the jungle: the strongest wins, or the law of capitalism: the strongest or fastest or cleverest or luckiest or (occasionally) most hard working (etc) wins. Whatever system is in place, it's still theft by your logic. Would you please explain to me what system wouldn't involve theft?

One that doesn't involve the initiation of fraud or physical force.

Liberty and property can be violated BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Tax is robbery. It is using the threat of physical force to take money from somebody else without their consent. The only difference is that it's legal.

Due process of law only means that certain people up high say it's ok. So, if you're taxing people to pay for public health that's wrong because... people up high say it's not ok?

Tax is robbery only in the same way as property is theft. Property must always be distributed according to some system, be it the law of the jungle: the strongest wins, or the law of capitalism: the strongest or fastest or cleverest or luckiest or (occasionally) most hard working (etc) wins. Whatever system is in place, it's still theft by your logic. Would you please explain to me what system wouldn't involve theft?

One that doesn't involve the initiation of fraud or physical force.

Fraud is a legal term. It's a construct of the legal systems currently in place in most westernised cultures. It has no place in a discussion of this nature. All you're doing is bandying legal terminology around as a form of meaningless political rhetoric.

As to physical force, you haven't answered my question, but since you seem to have missed the point I'll state it again in relation to your answer. What system of wealth distribution would not involve any physical force? Because there hasn't been one on a large scale in the entire history of the world, as far as I know...

As to physical force, you haven't answered my question, but since you seem to have missed the point I'll state it again in relation to your answer. What system of wealth distribution would not involve any physical force? Because there hasn't been one on a large scale in the entire history of the world, as far as I know...

the INTIAITION OF PHYSICAL FORCE. You can still USE physical force to defend yourself.

Capitalism is the system that exists without the intiation of physical force.

the INTIAITION OF PHYSICAL FORCE. You can still USE physical force to defend yourself.

Capitalism is the system that exists without the intiation of physical force.

Capitalism doesn't nessecarily recquire violence, but neither does any other system, per se. Certainly there have been travesties committed due in no small part to capitalism- look at Sierra Leone blood diamonds for a particularly salient example.

Anarchism, the communist ideologies, Syndaclims don't explicitly recquire violence either (though there are some exceptions to this)

Moreover, I reject the association of freemarket capitalism with liberal democracy, on both historic and ideological grounds. Clearly it is possible to have a Socialist Democracy.

As to physical force, you haven't answered my question, but since you seem to have missed the point I'll state it again in relation to your answer. What system of wealth distribution would not involve any physical force? Because there hasn't been one on a large scale in the entire history of the world, as far as I know...

the INTIAITION OF PHYSICAL FORCE. You can still USE physical force to defend yourself.

Capitalism is the system that exists without the intiation of physical force.

If someone decides they want someone else's stuff without asking, are you not going to initiate force against them? But you say: that's stealing, so the force isn't initiated by you. So, who decides what goes to who? The government? Well then, who gave it to them. The individual? Then who gave it to the individual? So, everyone gets whatever they can grab in their immediate vacinity, then no redistribution goes on? Then it boils down to who can grab fastest. And who gave anyone the right to grab anyhow?

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?)

Someone has to provide it.

but owning private property sure does.

Let someone steal your stuff, and we'll laugh as you go to the police and cry to get your PRIVATE PROPERTY back.

Hypocrite.

(oh, and don't try the Proudhonian "property is theft" stolen concept fallacy. Won't work.)

Thing slike free healthcare become PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. That means you can still give them IF YOU WANT, but you can't be forced to.

Isn't it your right to do what you can to preserve your own life?

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

You mean, like hindering someone else's right to die through lack of funds? Or hindering someone's elses right to pay a lower income tax rate? I fail to see the logic here.

The right to property is a NEGATIVE right. The right to healthcare is a POSITIVE right. WHEN IN CONFLICT, a negative right ALWAYS outweighs a positive right, because they are the foundation of all rights.

Please define 'positive' and 'negative', because I can't make any sense, idealogically or logically, out of what you just said.

Positive right is an entitlement to something. Negative right is the right to not be bothered with...to be free to act to have something.

Positive rights are made up crap. Negative rights are rights.

Hint: look into contractarianism.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

All rights are 'made up crap'. (aside from one exception)

Because in a pre-societal state of nature, there are no rights. Rights are a construction of a society in order to further life and happiness. If there is no society, I have no rights.

This is obviously a very pragmatic view, but I believe it is a very relevant point. It is possible to say that 'life, liberty and property' are somehow fundemental rights, but you have to base it on foundationalist concepts which cannot be proven, and are essentially a leap of faith. There is no rational reason to believe in absolute rights.

This proposal is in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

When was that?

And what are "cultural rights"? Sounds like a euphemism for "ethnic cleansing" which is itself a euphemism for "genocide" to me.

Cultural rights related to ethnic cleansing? What kind of nonsequitur is that?

The Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights was adopted in 1966. The following provisions of it are not compatible with your proposal:

Article 9:
recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.

From Article 11:
recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing- and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.

Then, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 22:
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23:
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

Article 25:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 29:
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

All rights are 'made up crap'. (aside from one exception)

Because in a pre-societal state of nature, there are no rights. Rights are a construction of a society in order to further life and happiness. If there is no society, I have no rights.

This is obviously a very pragmatic view, but I believe it is a very relevant point. It is possible to say that 'life, liberty and property' are somehow fundemental rights, but you have to base it on foundationalist concepts which cannot be proven, and are essentially a leap of faith. There is no rational reason to believe in absolute rights.

Yes, there is--the fact that morality is absolute. Rights are absolute because men are men.

All rights are 'made up crap'. (aside from one exception)

Because in a pre-societal state of nature, there are no rights. Rights are a construction of a society in order to further life and happiness. If there is no society, I have no rights.

This is obviously a very pragmatic view, but I believe it is a very relevant point. It is possible to say that 'life, liberty and property' are somehow fundemental rights, but you have to base it on foundationalist concepts which cannot be proven, and are essentially a leap of faith. There is no rational reason to believe in absolute rights.

Yes, there is--the fact that morality is absolute. Rights are absolute because men are men.

Purple is absolute because jelly is jelly.

Positive right is an entitlement to something. Negative right is the right to not be bothered with...to be free to act to have something.

Positive rights are made up crap. Negative rights are rights.

Hint: look into contractarianism.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

The link seems like overjargonatecomplexified rubbish to me.

Now, let's get back to the point: why should a right not to do something over-ride a right to do something?

Because in this case, that right to do something (which doesn't actually exist--there is no such right) violates the right of other people to keep what is theirs.

Because in this case, that right to do something (which doesn't actually exist--there is no such right) violates the right of other people to keep what is theirs.

Well, I know that, I just don't see how this whole hierachy of rights thing could possibly exist. Probably because it doesn't.

And that URL seemed like it was made with a political version of: http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Because in this case, that right to do something (which doesn't actually exist--there is no such right) violates the right of other people to keep what is theirs.

Well, I know that, I just don't see how this whole hierachy of rights could possibly exist. Probably because it doesn't.
It does...if you want to understand how, read through my posts since the beginning.

Because in this case, that right to do something (which doesn't actually exist--there is no such right) violates the right of other people to keep what is theirs.

Well, I know that, I just don't see how this whole hierachy of rights could possibly exist. Probably because it doesn't.
It does...if you want to understand how, read through my posts since the beginning.

You mean the whole rights are rights because men are men and jelly is jelly arguement. That's not even an arguement. That's sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting.

It makes no sense to restrict the right of the *government* to restrict people's rights. In many cases, that's all that a government can do (as Locke would put it, the government is a direct function of the social contract; that is, what rights people have agreed to give up in order to get whatever protections they feel they need). If a government has been formed with the intention of being communist, and those that live under it agree to this (they didn't in Russia, in many instances, hence it fell apart), then everybody DOES have the right to, say, own a car.

Yes, there is--the fact that morality is absolute. Rights are absolute because men are men.

Morality is absolute?

Prove it.

How can you even say that, when it's painfully obvious that different cultures have different moralities, and, moreover, the moralities are in flux. For instance, we now think that slavery is wrong; a few hundred years ago, that statement would have been laughable. Dueling used to be common place; now it's viewed with shock and horror. Even moral statements like 'Killing is wrong' isn't absolute- when we go to war, this isn't true. If murder is wrong only sometimes, it's clearly not absolute.

Yes, there is--the fact that morality is absolute. Rights are absolute because men are men.

Morality is absolute?

Prove it.

How can you even say that, when it's painfully obvious that different cultures have different moralities,
Obviously, most people are wrong.
and, moreover, the moralities are in flux. For instance, we now think that slavery is wrong; a few hundred years ago, that statement would have been laughable.
People were wrong back then. People used to believe the world was flat, but that doesn't mean it actually was.
Dueling used to be common place; now it's viewed with shock and horror.
People are wrong now...as long as the duel is voluntary, there's nothing wrong with it.
Even moral statements like 'Killing is wrong' isn't absolute- when we go to war, this isn't true. If murder is wrong only sometimes, it's clearly not absolute.
I explained what "absolute morality" means in an earlier post in this thread...it means that the same set of morals applies to everyone everywhere regardless of whether or not they choose to accept the one proper set of morals--not that the same rule necessarily applies in all possible situations (even though sometimes it does).
For example, killing is wrong if it is initiatory violence, but not if it is done in self-defense. But what makes the prohibition against killing absolute is that it applies to everyone equally, whether they choose to accept it or not--just because you don't think something is wrong doesn't mean that it isn't.

That entire statement is absurd.

You keep talking about these magical absolute rights, but you can't prove they exists, you won't explain how you know they are absolute, you seem to think that your own moral view is absolutely correct without any reason to think that.

This is Platonic forms at its worst, an extension of metaphysical judeo-christian foundationalism.

You absolutely have to prove that these particular morals are correct. Since it's an entirely subjective claim, you cannot.

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?)

Someone has to provide it.

Someone has to provide it anyway. The only questions is who pays -- either you pay for it yourself, which restricts those who are poor. Or a privatized insurance company restricts the right to those who can afford to pay the premiums. Either way, that system restricts both those who need health care and the providers of health care.

A government that pay for health care gives that right to everyone.


but owning private property sure does.

Let someone steal your stuff, and we'll laugh as you go to the police and cry to get your PRIVATE PROPERTY back.

Hypocrite.

Before you use big, fancy words, you should know their meanings. There's nothing hypocritical about your scenario. I fully recognize that owning property limits someone from crossing or using that property.

Owning property is a privilege, by anyone's definition so far, even those of you who foolishly argue it's a right because it does not limit others. But it clearly does.

And by the way, the silly resolution is losing, 60-40. The good-sense people on this board so far outnumber the ignorant and the selfish.


Pogue

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?)

Someone has to provide it.

Someone has to provide it anyway. The only questions is who pays -- either you pay for it yourself, which restricts those who are poor. Or a privatized insurance company restricts the right to those who can afford to pay the premiums. Either way, that system restricts both those who need health care and the providers of health care.
But at least one person is not having what is rightfully his taken from him against his will for the sake of another person, so it is morally superior.

And there's nothing wrong with being selfish...as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, why shouldn't I care about myself and put my own needs and wishes first?

This is the first issue that has been so cleverly put together! The rights make complete sense! We have a right to pursue happiness, but not a right to happiness. If we had a right to happiness then the government would have to ensure that we are happy. That's just plain silly! Vote FOR this resolution!

This is the first issue that has been so cleverly put together! The rights make complete sense! We have a right to pursue happiness, but not a right to happiness. If we had a right to happiness then the government would have to ensure that we are happy. That's just plain silly! Vote FOR this resolution!

The language of the silly thing is demeaning...and nobody said there was a right to be happy. There is no happiness anyway. It takes a person of questionable intelligence and motives like the author of the resolution to come up with an issue regarding a right to happiness, seeing how there was none in the first place.

But at least one person is not having what is rightfully his taken from him against his will for the sake of another person, so it is morally superior.

And there's nothing wrong with being selfish...as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, why shouldn't I care about myself and put my own needs and wishes first?

So that's the morally superior position of might makes right ... I meant wealth... whatever the difference. Lovely, all moral and that. Because these morals are different from the proverbial jungle laws of course. And there's an inherent right to that being true, becaue men are men.

You are vastly amusing.

Purple is absolute because jelly is jelly.

Stormbringer doesn't steal souls, people steal souls.

I am in favor of this resolution for one reason and one reason alone. While yes, it is poorly written and there are many convincing arguments against some of the articles, the basic idea stands above them all. A government should not be required to provide for their citizens the things that they can acquire on their own. While they should not restrict citizens from acquiring a job, food, housing, or adequate health care on their own, they should conversely not be required to provide them. By voting for this resolution, I am not casting a vote to deny the governments of the world the right to provide for the welfare of their people, I am instead voting for the right of governments not to provide these services when and if it becomes necessary to do so. If a government cannot afford to provide for the social welfare of it's citizens, the private sector can then step in to aid the country's poor.

But at least one person is not having what is rightfully his taken from him against his will for the sake of another person, so it is morally superior.

And there's nothing wrong with being selfish...as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, why shouldn't I care about myself and put my own needs and wishes first?

So that's the morally superior position of might makes right ... I meant wealth... whatever the difference. Lovely, all moral and that. Because these morals are different from the proverbial jungle laws of course. And there's an inherent right to that being true, becaue men are men.

You are vastly amusing.

No. You are not allowed to intiate physical force or fraud against someone else. This is the system that BEST RESPECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A system with more freedom (the Jungle Laws) will result in Individuals violating other individuals' rights, and a system with less freedom will result in GOVERNMENT violating individual rights, which I dare say is the far more dangerous of the two.

I am in favor of this resolution for one reason and one reason alone. While yes, it is poorly written and there are many convincing arguments against some of the articles, the basic idea stands above them all. A government should not be required to provide for their citizens the things that they can acquire on their own. While they should not restrict citizens from acquiring a job, food, housing, or adequate health care on their own, they should conversely not be required to provide them. By voting for this resolution, I am not casting a vote to deny the governments of the world the right to provide for the welfare of their people, I am instead voting for the right of governments not to provide these services when and if it becomes necessary to do so. If a government cannot afford to provide for the social welfare of it's citizens, the private sector can then step in to aid the country's poor.

Nothing in the U.N.'s charter gives that body the right to force countries to provide social welfare, and Ursoria would indeed strong oppose such a measure. But we don't need the "Bill of No Rights" to accomplish such an end. Most specifically we don't need the U.N. declaring, as a matter of international opinion, that our people have "no right" to many of the necessities of life. Nothing presently requires U.N. members to provide any level of social services. To keep that state of affairs, we simply need to maintain our vigilance in holding the U.N. to its original mission.

I am in favor of this resolution for one reason and one reason alone. While yes, it is poorly written and there are many convincing arguments against some of the articles, the basic idea stands above them all. A government should not be required to provide for their citizens the things that they can acquire on their own. While they should not restrict citizens from acquiring a job, food, housing, or adequate health care on their own, they should conversely not be required to provide them. By voting for this resolution, I am not casting a vote to deny the governments of the world the right to provide for the welfare of their people, I am instead voting for the right of governments not to provide these services when and if it becomes necessary to do so. If a government cannot afford to provide for the social welfare of it's citizens, the private sector can then step in to aid the country's poor.

Nothing in the U.N.'s charter gives that body the right to force countries to provide social welfare, and Ursoria would indeed strong oppose such a measure. But we don't need the "Bill of No Rights" to accomplish such an end. Most specifically we don't need the U.N. declaring, as a matter of international opinion, that our people have "no right" to many of the necessities of life. Nothing presently requires U.N. members to provide any level of social services. To keep that state of affairs, we simply need to maintain our vigilance in holding the U.N. to its original mission.

THIS IS NOT THE REAL UN. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE BODY.

Wurd..... alright how can I follow all this madness up and sound important

This Bill Is very poorly written and can be concieved many different ways some people such as the ones who voted for it see it as an oppertunity other such as myself and the other opposers take it as people will have no rights whatsoever I'm not saying thats I'm right or anyone else is right or even wrong for that matter BUT This article can very easily be misread as you see so we dont know how it will be percieved when it takes action It can either yes help us dramaticly or No ruin and burn and crash everything

Tha Lynx Of Doom :twisted:

Purple is absolute because jelly is jelly.

Stormbringer doesn't steal souls, people steal souls.

If God made man, they say, Sam Colt made him equal.

Oh wait, that's a difference arguement entirely.

Purple is absolute because jelly is jelly.

Stormbringer doesn't steal souls, people steal souls.

If God made man, they say, Sam Colt made him equal.

Oh wait, that's a difference arguement entirely.

No, Mikhail Kalishnikov made them equal.

I am in favor of this resolution for one reason and one reason alone. While yes, it is poorly written and there are many convincing arguments against some of the articles, the basic idea stands above them all. A government should not be required to provide for their citizens the things that they can acquire on their own. While they should not restrict citizens from acquiring a job, food, housing, or adequate health care on their own, they should conversely not be required to provide them. By voting for this resolution, I am not casting a vote to deny the governments of the world the right to provide for the welfare of their people, I am instead voting for the right of governments not to provide these services when and if it becomes necessary to do so. If a government cannot afford to provide for the social welfare of it's citizens, the private sector can then step in to aid the country's poor.

Nothing in the U.N.'s charter gives that body the right to force countries to provide social welfare, and Ursoria would indeed strong oppose such a measure. But we don't need the "Bill of No Rights" to accomplish such an end. Most specifically we don't need the U.N. declaring, as a matter of international opinion, that our people have "no right" to many of the necessities of life. Nothing presently requires U.N. members to provide any level of social services. To keep that state of affairs, we simply need to maintain our vigilance in holding the U.N. to its original mission.

THIS IS NOT THE REAL UN. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE BODY.

Either way, it doesn't matter. No legislation in THIS UN requires anyone to provide free healthcare. And you cannot pass a bill that bans such a resolution from being passed, because any resolution can superseed another. Were it to have been passed, your resolution would have just sat there doing absolutely nothing, at best; at worst, it would have sat there being interpreted as denying citizens the right to free healthcare within their own countries -- mine for example.

Purple is absolute because jelly is jelly.

Stormbringer doesn't steal souls, people steal souls.

If God made man, they say, Sam Colt made him equal.

Oh wait, that's a difference arguement entirely.

No, Mikhail Kalishnikov made them equal.

No, John RocketLauncher made him equal.

Wurd..... alright how can I follow all this madness up and sound important

This Bill Is very poorly written and can be concieved many different ways some people such as the ones who voted for it see it as an oppertunity other such as myself and the other opposers take it as people will have no rights whatsoever I'm not saying thats I'm right or anyone else is right or even wrong for that matter BUT This article can very easily be misread as you see so we dont know how it will be percieved when it takes action It can either yes help us dramaticly or No ruin and burn and crash everything

Tha Lynx Of Doom :twisted:

Please punctuate the things you write because otherwise once you get to a certain length the whole thing gets very confusing/difficult to read this means that people tend to lose interest paticularly in a long piece no matter how interesting or relevent or informative what you said actually is it would also make you sound more important if you're concerned about that :D

Please punctuate the things you write because otherwise, once you get to a certain length, the whole thing gets very confusing/difficult to read. This means that people tend to lose interest -- paticularly in a long piece -- no matter how interesting or relevent or informative what you said actually is. It would also make you sound more important -- if you're concerned about that... :D

All rights are 'made up crap'. (aside from one exception)

Because in a pre-societal state of nature, there are no rights. Rights are a construction of a society in order to further life and happiness. If there is no society, I have no rights.

I suppose that I should have clarified vis-a-vis rights qua agreed upon ala contractarianism, and "rights" where the government just arbitrarily decrees them.

Positive right is an entitlement to something. Negative right is the right to not be bothered with...to be free to act to have something.

Positive rights are made up crap. Negative rights are rights.

Hint: look into contractarianism.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

The link seems like overjargonatecomplexified rubbish to me.

Translation: TedHughes is too stupid to understand what was written.

Now, let's get back to the point: why should a right not to do something over-ride a right to do something?

Read the FAQ to learn why you didn't grasp what I said. I'm not going to wet-nurse you. Either take the time to research or be silent.

As long as you don't hinder someone else's rights, as free healthcare does

Free and accesible health care violates no one's rights, (how could it possible do so?)

Someone has to provide it.

Someone has to provide it anyway. The only questions is who pays -- either you pay for it yourself, which restricts those who are poor.

No, it does not.

Or a privatized insurance company restricts the right to those who can afford to pay the premiums. Either way, that system restricts both those who need health care and the providers of health care.

Need has nothing to do with anything. I need LASIK. Does that mean I am entitled to it? NO! I need a girlfriend. Does that mean I am entitled to one? NO!

A government that pay for health care gives that right to everyone.

And steals from people. Theft is simply wrong, no matter how you couch it.

but owning private property sure does.

Let someone steal your stuff, and we'll laugh as you go to the police and cry to get your PRIVATE PROPERTY back.

Hypocrite.

Before you use big, fancy words, you should know their meanings. There's nothing hypocritical about your scenario.

Yeah, there is. You said that private property violates someone's rights (it's right there for anyone to see, so denying it will only hurt you). Your words, bub. So obviously, you feel that private property should not be, since it violates someone's rights. If not, then you have a very compartmentalized self-contradictory view which you need to deal with.

I fully recognize that owning property limits someone from crossing or using that property.

Owning property is a privilege, by anyone's definition so far, even those of you who foolishly argue it's a right because it does not limit others. But it clearly does.

You said that it violate's someone else's rights. Now show that it does, and stop strawmanning your own claim!

And by the way, the silly resolution is losing, 60-40. The good-sense people on this board so far outnumber the ignorant and the selfish.

A billion Chinese can't be wrong, eh?

Can you say Argumentum ad numeram and argumentum ad hominem?

I knew you could.

Don't try fallacies again. They kill your arguments.

We, of The Oppressed People of Twitus, strongly disagree with you. Even though the Bill, as a whole, does highlight that individuals are master of their own destiny, it does not take into consideration that most people are not born socially equal.

Article IV and V jeopardize the development of a good percentage of tomorrow's workforce and genious simply because it did not had the chance to be born in families rich enough to provide food, shelter and health care to their children.

How many great inventors, intellectuals and thinkers will we loose if they have to leave school at age 15 because they have to work to support their basic needs? Not only does those two article will move the world years in the past, but they will also encourage disparities between social classes by placing the economy and knowledge into the hands of a lucky few that had the chance to be born in rich families.... We have to fight against Oppression.

For these reasons, The Oppressed People of Twitus has voted against the resolution.

Through the words of its Delegate Anthony Chartier, The Great Twitus 1er has spoke.

We, of The Oppressed People of Twitus, strongly disagree with you. Even though the Bill, as a whole, does highlight that individuals are master of their own destiny, it does not take into consideration that most people are not born socially equal.

Article IV and V jeopardize the development of a good percentage of tomorrow's workforce and genious simply because it did not had the chance to be born in families rich enough to provide food, shelter and health care to their children.

How many great inventors, intellectuals and thinkers will we loose if they have to leave school at age 15 because they have to work to support their basic needs? Not only does those two article will move the world years in the past, but they will also encourage disparities between social classes by placing the economy and knowledge into the hands of a lucky few that had the chance to be born in rich families.... We have to fight against Oppression.

For these reasons, The Oppressed People of Twitus has voted against the resolution.

Through the words of its Delegate Anthony Chartier, The Great Twitus 1er has spoke.

Oh come on don't be stupid you can fully support a kid on $8000 a year. Just about everyone makes more than that.

You don't have to be rich to take care of your kid. You don't even have to be middle-class. You can be dirt poor and still do it.

School is free.
School lunch costs what $2 day or less per 180 days of school = $360. Let's say the cost of breakfast and dinner is $5 a day times rounded to 360 days a year = $1800 pl8us $360 is $2160.

If you are really concerned about your kids nutrition, buy him Centrum Kids. This costs $40 for a year's supply.

So good nutrition is taken care of, at a price of 2,200

Now housing. You can get a decent apartment (depending on where you live) for say $400/month. This is $4800 a year.

This is $7,000

Other expenses such as clothes supplies, etc. and such shouldn't add up to more than $2000.

See? You can fully support a kid on $9000.

And even if you DO ahve to leave school at 15 and work, Andrew Carnegie NEVER went to school and he still did fine.

Positive right is an entitlement to something. Negative right is the right to not be bothered with...to be free to act to have something.

Positive rights are made up crap. Negative rights are rights.

Hint: look into contractarianism.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

The link seems like overjargonatecomplexified rubbish to me.

Translation: TedHughes is too stupid to understand what was written.

Now, let's get back to the point: why should a right not to do something over-ride a right to do something?

Read the FAQ to learn why you didn't grasp what I said. I'm not going to wet-nurse you. Either take the time to research or be silent.

Ha! I knew you'd say that! It's the oldest trick in the book. And here are the reasons I didn't read all of it:

1) It doesn't begin with any real 'mission statement', or give me an idea of where it's headed. There's just some 'faq' filled with vague statements, then it starts rambling on about where the, as yet largely undefined, system came from.
2) It's a mess of incredibly vague phrases and useless subclauses. Any competant essayist would have removed those in the redraft process.
3) Uncommon latinate words, classical and obscure references and needlessly complex grammar are used on many occasions to obfusticate the text and make the writer seem more intellegent than he is.
4) It's insanely dull.

I refuse to read something that would have failed to get a C for English usage at my University.

Oh, and it's got stuff like: "On the other hand, however, morals being what it is, there must be some sort of commonality."

in it.

Oh, and it's got stuff like: "On the other hand, however, morals being what it is, there must be some sort of commonality."

in it.

I have to agree with you there, it was written in rather poor english.

I agree with this movement, except for the no health care. i believe that everyone DOES have a right to be taken care of when they are sick.

Actually, people don't, if you got sick, thats your problem, don't come crying to father government for help...

THIS IS NOT THE REAL UN. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE BODY.

Well, of course, this is not a "real" legislative body either. In fact, I sometimes wonder if many of the resolutions of the "real" U.N. have much more of an effect than those in "our" version.

Nation-states is a "nation-simulation game". But not all games and simulations are without effect. Back in high school, I played football. That was a "game", but we sure treated it as real life--and sometimes we played pretty rough. It even had real-life consequences. I learned not to get my hair cut on Saturday if we lost the game on Friday night.

The Oxford Union was (and is) a simulated legislative body. Back in the 1930's, it passed a resolution to the effect that its members "will not fight for King and Country". That resolution, simulated though it was, arguably encouraged Hitler to believe that the British people would continue to support appeasement.

Frankly, I am inclined to believe that "real-life" nation-states have grown much too large (in size if not in scope), and have grandiose ambitions that harm the interests of ordinary people. I confess that I would like to see a world in which countries were much smaller, and in which it would be much easier for individuals to change their nationality. In other words, if you didn't like your own country, you could move ten kilometres down the road to the nearest alternative. It isn't too difficult for the leader of the United States, or Russia, to aspire to rule the planet. But it is highly unlikely that the Prince of Liechtenstein harbours a similar ambition. Maybe our "game" can help lead to a world made up of Liechtensteins. I hope so.

Positive right is an entitlement to something. Negative right is the right to not be bothered with...to be free to act to have something.

Positive rights are made up crap. Negative rights are rights.

Hint: look into contractarianism.

http://www.againstpolitics.com/contractarianism_faq/index.html

The link seems like overjargonatecomplexified rubbish to me.

Translation: TedHughes is too stupid to understand what was written.

Now, let's get back to the point: why should a right not to do something over-ride a right to do something?

Read the FAQ to learn why you didn't grasp what I said. I'm not going to wet-nurse you. Either take the time to research or be silent.

Ha! I knew you'd say that! It's the oldest trick in the book. And here are the reasons I didn't read all of it:

Thank you for admitting that you don't want to learn. I can now ignore everything that you have to say, since it's patently obvious that you want to live in your fantasy land rather than taking some personal responsibility to learn something about the other side of the argument. Sun Tzu would shake his head at you.

1) It doesn't begin with any real 'mission statement', or give me an idea of where it's headed. There's just some 'faq' filled with vague statements, then it starts rambling on about where the, as yet largely undefined, system came from.

Meaning: Ted never went to the page, since it does tell you those things.

2) It's a mess of incredibly vague phrases and useless subclauses. Any competant essayist would have removed those in the redraft process.

Meaning: Ted has a first-grade reading comprehension level. See Spot run. Run Spot run!

3) Uncommon latinate words, classical and obscure references and needlessly complex grammar are used on many occasions to obfusticate the text and make the writer seem more intellegent than he is.

Meaning: Ted can't be bothered to use a dictionary. Ted is lazy.

4) It's insanely dull.

Meaning: Ted is exceptionally lazy and would rather watch Survivor.

I refuse to read something that would have failed to get a C for English usage at my University.

Odd, considering a Professor of Philosophy (Jan Narveson, University of Waterloo, Canada), wrote it.

I personally support this bill because it makes clear what some people think is a given in any country.

I personally support this bill because it makes clear what some people think is a given in any country.

have you read some of the points of the article? They are just so silly and downright evil. It basically takes away a citizens rights!

Ha! I knew you'd say that! It's the oldest trick in the book. And here are the reasons I didn't read all of it:

Thank you for admitting that you don't want to learn. I can now ignore everything that you have to say, since it's patently obvious that you want to live in your fantasy land rather than taking some personal responsibility to learn something about the other side of the argument. Sun Tzu would shake his head at you.

Nice logic. And if I didn't read any of it, how could I quote that horrible bit of writing a quoted before.

1) It doesn't begin with any real 'mission statement', or give me an idea of where it's headed. There's just some 'faq' filled with vague statements, then it starts rambling on about where the, as yet largely undefined, system came from.

Meaning: Ted never went to the page, since it does tell you those things.

Mean: It doesn't.

2) It's a mess of incredibly vague phrases and useless subclauses. Any competant essayist would have removed those in the redraft process.

Meaning: Ted has a first-grade reading comprehension level. See Spot run. Run Spot run!

Would you like me to scan my 2.1 Honours Degree in English and Creative Studies in English for you and post it here? And mine's from an accredited University too! I doubt it'll scan very well, since the things are specifically designed not to scan, but I'll do my best. Or maybe you could just called my Uni and ask if I got said degree. The contact number will be somewhere on www.bathspa.ac.uk .

Next time you start throwing ridiculous personal slurs, make sure they don't make you look stupid.

3) Uncommon latinate words, classical and obscure references and needlessly complex grammar are used on many occasions to obfusticate the text and make the writer seem more intellegent than he is.

Meaning: Ted can't be bothered to use a dictionary. Ted is lazy.

You might want to try writing poetry that won first prize in a University competition, and is published in respectable (if not the absolutely first class) poetry journals without using a dictionary/thesaurus and having some kind of vocabulary.

4) It's insanely dull.

Meaning: Ted is exceptionally lazy and would rather watch Survivor.

I've never watched Survivor.

I refuse to read something that would have failed to get a C for English usage at my University.

Odd, considering a Professor of Philosophy (Jan Narveson, University of Waterloo, Canada), wrote it.

Obviously he wasn't an English graduate.

Ha! I knew you'd say that! It's the oldest trick in the book. And here are the reasons I didn't read all of it:

Thank you for admitting that you don't want to learn. I can now ignore everything that you have to say, since it's patently obvious that you want to live in your fantasy land rather than taking some personal responsibility to learn something about the other side of the argument. Sun Tzu would shake his head at you.

Nice logic. And if I didn't read any of it, how could I quote that horrible bit of writing a quoted before.

You quoted it? Where? *looks, and finds no quotes*

1) It doesn't begin with any real 'mission statement', or give me an idea of where it's headed. There's just some 'faq' filled with vague statements, then it starts rambling on about where the, as yet largely undefined, system came from.

Meaning: Ted never went to the page, since it does tell you those things.

Mean: It doesn't.

Sure it does. You can lie all you like, but you're only hurting yourself.

2) It's a mess of incredibly vague phrases and useless subclauses. Any competant essayist would have removed those in the redraft process.

Meaning: Ted has a first-grade reading comprehension level. See Spot run. Run Spot run!

Would you like me to scan my 2.1 Honours Degree in English and Creative Studies in English for you and post it here? And mine's from an accredited University too! I doubt it'll scan very well, since the things are specifically designed not to scan, but I'll do my best. Or maybe you could just called my Uni and ask if I got said degree. The contact number will be somewhere on www.bathspa.ac.uk .

And U-Waterloo in Canada isn't accredited? Nor did Narveson go to any accredited schools?

"Jan Narveson is a native of Minnesota, U.S.A. and was educated at the University of Chicago (B.A. in Political Science, 1955, and in Philosophy, 1956); and earned the PhD at Harvard (1961) with a year at Oxford (1959-60) on a travelling Fellowship. He has taught at the University of New Hampshire, U.S.A., 1961-3, and since then at Waterloo. Professor Narveson also was Visiting Professor at Johns Hopkins (1967), Stanford (1968), and Calgary (1976), and was a Visiting Research Scholar at the Center for Philosophy and Public Affairs at Bowling Green State University, Ohio (Fall 1990)."

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~jnarveso/biographical.html

Next time you start throwing ridiculous personal slurs, make sure they don't make you look stupid.

Me? You're the one complaining about having to read words of more than one syllable, you sloth-brained twit.

3) Uncommon latinate words, classical and obscure references and needlessly complex grammar are used on many occasions to obfusticate the text and make the writer seem more intellegent than he is.

Meaning: Ted can't be bothered to use a dictionary. Ted is lazy.

You might want to try writing poetry that won first prize in a University competition, and is published in respectable (if not the absolutely first class) poetry journals without using a dictionary/thesaurus and having some kind of vocabulary.

You might want to stop complaining about having to read words of more than one syllable, then.

4) It's insanely dull.

Meaning: Ted is exceptionally lazy and would rather watch Survivor.

I've never watched Survivor.

Suuuuure. That's what you want us to think.

I refuse to read something that would have failed to get a C for English usage at my University.

Odd, considering a Professor of Philosophy (Jan Narveson, University of Waterloo, Canada), wrote it.

Obviously he wasn't an English graduate.

Obviously, you don't want to read words of more than one syllable.

I refuse to read something that would have failed to get a C for English usage at my University.

Odd, considering a Professor of Philosophy (Jan Narveson, University of Waterloo, Canada), wrote it.

There seems to be some kind of dispute as to how well Mr Narveson can write. In order to clarify things a bit, I take the liberty of reproducing one of his paragraphs:

"The other idea of Natural Law is much more general. It simply says that the 'laws', that is, the rules of morals, are somehow to be got by finding 'natural' truths, i.e., descriptive, empirically confirmed or at least confirmable premises about how things are, including how people are, and then reasoning from those to the best view of morals. So described, it is very difficult not to be a Natural Law theorist. But we shall narrow the notion a bit by specifically excluding from the range of theories intended the view that morals is nothing but a social convention, that is, that the correct or true set of moral principles is whatever one's society has decreed to be such - that society's marching orders are the only marching orders there are. A Natural Law theory, however, has it that the social convention theory would be true only if that particular society in question happened to get it right - which it might very well not have."

On a good day, I'd give it a B-; on a bad day, a C+.

I kind of a gree with Ted Hughes on this particular piece, and I'm familiar with the ideas contained in this FAQ. I think the biggest problem with it is this: a FAQ should be an easily understood document wherein questions commonly asked are clearly answered. In order to understand that piece of writing, you basically have to familiar with the concepts and individuals discussed anyways. It's certainly not helpful, as far as I can see. The authors language is certainly inappropriate for the intended audience.

I personally support this bill because it makes clear what some people think is a given in any country.

have you read some of the points of the article? They are just so silly and downright evil. It basically takes away a citizens rights!

It only takes away the right to welfare. Unfortunately, there is no incentive to work when you can get just as much stuff on welfare as working, and you don't have to even try to work hard to get welfare. Other than that, basically it says that every human born does not automatically get a car when he/she gets his/her drivers liscense.

If you vote against The Bill of No Rights, you are stating that you think the following:

You have the right to a new car and a big screen TV. (This is a basic tenant of communism. These things are luxuries, not necessities, and in capitalism, you have to earn your necessities.)

You have the right to never be offended. (Face it, different people believe different things, which are incompatible, and will offend someone.)

You have the right to be free from harm (even when you cause it yourself). "Bob ate these and got sick. Maybe we could eat them too and then sue somebody!" Think about it.

You have the right to free food and housing. (Get a job, someone will hire you. This is a basic tenant of communism. In a capitalist society, you have to work for your food, and save up enough money to buy things.)

You have the right to free health care. (Some governments do this, and some of those will choose whether or not you are worth saving. Basically, if you would be too expensive to maintain, they let you die [or live with the condition.])

You have the right to physically harm other people. What kind of world would we live in if people had this right?

You have the right to the possessions of others. (Hypothetical situation: You have been saving money from your paycheck for two years to get a new sports car. Would it be fair to have the government give it to the guy next door who does nothing but watch TV all day and live off of welfare? That would be called communism. When communism first started in russia, homes were stolen from the rich and given to the poor. Watch Dr. Chivago. [I'm not sure of the spelling of Chivago, but hey, its a name, and I'm just a Sophomore in High School])

You have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. (Most countries have an army that you can voluntarily join. Sure, the draft violates this.)

You have the right to a job. (Take the initiative and get a job application. Even if you are mentally challenged, someone will hire you. A basic tenant of communism is that everyone has a job.)

You have the right to happiness. (Someone could claim that work makes them sad, or killing people makes them happy. The government would then have to let them do or not do these things.)


Is that what you really believe? This document is stating that all these things are not rights, but alienable priviledges, and if you can accomplish or earn these things, well, good for you.

Also, can we NOT insult each other? While things like "sloth-brained twit" may be particularly amusing, I don't think that any of us really need to fall back on insulting one's opponent to convince people of their views. Some of you claim to be out of college and all, but is this is true, then why can't you be more mature and respect others?? And then you get annoyed at their english and go on and on about it. I agree, it is hard to read poorly-written english without punctuation, but just say that once and get on with the discussion.

.

If you vote against The Bill of No Rights, you are stating that you think the following:

......



No I am not. I'm merely stating that I disagree that that should be at all made an issue. I'm stating the bill is lacking in intelligence and relevance. That's all I'm stating.

I kind of a gree with Ted Hughes on this particular piece, and I'm familiar with the ideas contained in this FAQ. I think the biggest problem with it is this: a FAQ should be an easily understood document wherein questions commonly asked are clearly answered. In order to understand that piece of writing, you basically have to familiar with the concepts and individuals discussed anyways. It's certainly not helpful, as far as I can see. The authors language is certainly inappropriate for the intended audience.

Indeed, but don't expect BAAWA to actually think about that. The fact is that he's had to resort to personal slurs -- and repetitious person slurs at that -- in order to refute my points speaks volumes. I may passionately disagree with people like The Global Market, on the right, and Labrador on the left, but at least I had some kind of respect for them, and for their ability to (mostly) stick to the issue. I doubt I'll be paying much attention to anything BAAWA says from now on, unless he can stop calling me illiterate for enough time to put a literate point across.

I kind of a gree with Ted Hughes on this particular piece, and I'm familiar with the ideas contained in this FAQ. I think the biggest problem with it is this: a FAQ should be an easily understood document wherein questions commonly asked are clearly answered. In order to understand that piece of writing, you basically have to familiar with the concepts and individuals discussed anyways. It's certainly not helpful, as far as I can see. The authors language is certainly inappropriate for the intended audience.

Indeed, but don't expect BAAWA to actually think about that. The fact is that he's had to resort to personal slurs -- and repetitious person slurs at that -- in order to refute my points speaks volumes. I may passionately disagree with people like The Global Market, on the right, and Labrador on the left, but at least I had some kind of respect for them, and for their ability to (mostly) stick to the issue. I doubt I'll be paying much attention to anything BAAWA says from now on, unless he can stop calling me illiterate for enough time to put a literate point across.

Cry me a river. Unless and until you can stop whining about having to read words of more than one syllable, why should anyone take YOU seriously?

If you are so intellectually vacant that you cannot be bothered to bring yourself to think about a new idea, then please be honest enough to admit that, rather than complain about "big words". That's something that children do.

I refuse to read something that would have failed to get a C for English usage at my University.

Odd, considering a Professor of Philosophy (Jan Narveson, University of Waterloo, Canada), wrote it.

There seems to be some kind of dispute as to how well Mr Narveson can write. In order to clarify things a bit, I take the liberty of reproducing one of his paragraphs:

"The other idea of Natural Law is much more general. It simply says that the 'laws', that is, the rules of morals, are somehow to be got by finding 'natural' truths, i.e., descriptive, empirically confirmed or at least confirmable premises about how things are, including how people are, and then reasoning from those to the best view of morals. So described, it is very difficult not to be a Natural Law theorist. But we shall narrow the notion a bit by specifically excluding from the range of theories intended the view that morals is nothing but a social convention, that is, that the correct or true set of moral principles is whatever one's society has decreed to be such - that society's marching orders are the only marching orders there are. A Natural Law theory, however, has it that the social convention theory would be true only if that particular society in question happened to get it right - which it might very well not have."

On a good day, I'd give it a B-; on a bad day, a C+.

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

Indeed, but don't expect BAAWA to actually think about that. The fact is that he's had to resort to personal slurs -- and repetitious person slurs at that -- in order to refute my points speaks volumes. I may passionately disagree with people like The Global Market, on the right, and Labrador on the left, but at least I had some kind of respect for them, and for their ability to (mostly) stick to the issue. I doubt I'll be paying much attention to anything BAAWA says from now on, unless he can stop calling me illiterate for enough time to put a literate point across.

Cry me a river. Unless and until you can stop whining about having to read words of more than one syllable, why should anyone take YOU seriously?

If you are so intellectually vacant that you cannot be bothered to bring yourself to think about a new idea, then please be honest enough to admit that, rather than complain about "big words". That's something that children do.[/quote]

I disagree. Lets say I no nothing about physics (which is, in fact true). I go up to Professor X and I say:
‘Gee Professor, how do black holes work?’
If he answers by pointing me to a stack of physics books without another word, has he actually really helped me? Am I gonna read those books? Probably not.

Plus there’s really no reason to attack someone like that.

Cry me a river. Unless and until you can stop whining about having to read words of more than one syllable, why should anyone take YOU seriously?

If you are so intellectually vacant that you cannot be bothered to bring yourself to think about a new idea, then please be honest enough to admit that, rather than complain about "big words". That's something that children do.

I disagree. Lets say I no nothing about physics (which is, in fact true). I go up to Professor X and I say:
"Gee Professor, how do black holes work"?
If he answers by pointing me to a stack of physics books without another word, has he actually really helped me?

That would be a valid analogy if I had done that. But a FAQ is a nice summation and gives a person a background, which is what the intellectually vacant one needs.

I'm hoping that you do realize that FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions, and is a primer to topics.

Cry me a river. Unless and until you can stop whining about having to read words of more than one syllable, why should anyone take YOU seriously?

If you are so intellectually vacant that you cannot be bothered to bring yourself to think about a new idea, then please be honest enough to admit that, rather than complain about "big words". That's something that children do.

I disagree. Lets say I no nothing about physics (which is, in fact true). I go up to Professor X and I say:
"Gee Professor, how do black holes work"?
If he answers by pointing me to a stack of physics books without another word, has he actually really helped me?

That would be a valid analogy if I had done that. But a FAQ is a nice summation and gives a person a background, which is what the intellectually vacant one needs.

I'm hoping that you do realize that FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions, and is a primer to topics.

But this particular FAQ fails in its goals. I understand contract theory, at least from a political theory approach, but I still found this FAQ needlessly convoluted. You can't expect people to wade through that morass in order to be able to understand the jist of your argument- personally I know I have enough reading to do as it stands.

This site gives a reasonably accurate, clear description of social contract theory:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm

This one is even simpler, but again useful
http://core.ecu.edu/phil/mccartyr/1175/contract.htm

Cry me a river. Unless and until you can stop whining about having to read words of more than one syllable, why should anyone take YOU seriously?

If you are so intellectually vacant that you cannot be bothered to bring yourself to think about a new idea, then please be honest enough to admit that, rather than complain about "big words". That's something that children do.

I disagree. Lets say I no nothing about physics (which is, in fact true). I go up to Professor X and I say:
"Gee Professor, how do black holes work"?
If he answers by pointing me to a stack of physics books without another word, has he actually really helped me?

That would be a valid analogy if I had done that. But a FAQ is a nice summation and gives a person a background, which is what the intellectually vacant one needs.

I'm hoping that you do realize that FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions, and is a primer to topics.

But this particular FAQ fails in its goals. I understand contract theory, at least from a political theory approach, but I still found this FAQ needlessly convoluted. You can't expect people to wade through that morass in order to be able to understand the jist of your argument- personally I know I have enough reading to do as it stands.

I found it quite clear, AAMOF.

And I do expect people to read to have a background. If they don't, then they are woefully unprepared.

Puncuation blows. It is too difficult to rememebr to place. and if you lose interest oh well...... and importance is nothingness :cry:

Puncuation blows. It is too difficult to rememebr to place. and if you lose interest oh well...... and importance is nothingness :cry:

Aw. I don't mean it like that! Punctuate badly all you want, I'm just asking that you punctuate some. Like you have here, actually. It may be technically incorrect (actually, it's pretty close to technically correct), but at least it gets across the gist of your arguement without the need for a number of re-readings :). Leave semi-colons and such up to us pompus souls.

This site gives a reasonably accurate, clear description of social contract theory:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm


Now this is an essay! To the point and intellegent without going out of its way to seem intellectual. Thanks. I'm too tired to read it all now -- It's 3 a.m. and I'm just about to go to bed -- but I'll be sure to read it in the morning.

This site gives a reasonably accurate, clear description of social contract theory:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm


Now this is an essay! To the point and intellegent without going out of its way to seem intellectual. Thanks. I'm too tired to read it all now -- It's 3 a.m. and I'm just about to go to bed -- but I'll be sure to read it in the morning.

Ok, I lied and I read it.


"Contemporary versions of social contract theory attempt to show that our basic rights and liberties are founded on mutually beneficial agreements which are made between members of society. "

I particularly agree with.


I'd actually be interested in debating some of the stuff from para three with you; if you want to message my country about it, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

As to how it fits in with BAAWA's idea of a hierachy of inalienable rights... well, it just doesn't.

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

The reason I'd give it those grades is that the piece is overly-wordy, convoluted and redundant. It is stilted, academic prose that lacks impact, colour and flow.

This site gives a reasonably accurate, clear description of social contract theory:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm


Now this is an essay! To the point and intellegent without going out of its way to seem intellectual. Thanks. I'm too tired to read it all now -- It's 3 a.m. and I'm just about to go to bed -- but I'll be sure to read it in the morning.

Ok, I lied and I read it.


"Contemporary versions of social contract theory attempt to show that our basic rights and liberties are founded on mutually beneficial agreements which are made between members of society. "

I particularly agree with.


I'd actually be interested in debating some of the stuff from para three with you; if you want to message my country about it, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

As to how it fits in with BAAWA's idea of a hierachy of inalienable rights... well, it just doesn't.

Huh? Where did I say that? Quote me.

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

The reason I'd give it those grades is that the piece is overly-wordy, convoluted and redundant. It is stilted, academic prose that lacks impact, colour and flow.

huh? somebody is an english teacher over here... :o

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

The reason I'd give it those grades is that the piece is overly-wordy, convoluted and redundant. It is stilted, academic prose that lacks impact, colour and flow.

He's a philosphy professor. What do you expect?

anyway,
i TOTALLY agree with EVERYTHING in this bill...
and if any of you guys also think like me.. (great minds think alike! :lol: )
come check us out at SHADOW EARTH and feel free to join!

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

The reason I'd give it those grades is that the piece is overly-wordy, convoluted and redundant. It is stilted, academic prose that lacks impact, colour and flow.

He's a philosphy professor. What do you expect?

really? how do you know? (just curious)

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

The reason I'd give it those grades is that the piece is overly-wordy, convoluted and redundant. It is stilted, academic prose that lacks impact, colour and flow.

He's a philosphy professor. What do you expect?

I would expect him to be a little more succinct. I don't care if it lacks impact, colour or flow, but I think it's far to complex to serve as an introductory FAQ.

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

The reason I'd give it those grades is that the piece is overly-wordy, convoluted and redundant. It is stilted, academic prose that lacks impact, colour and flow.

He's a philosphy professor. What do you expect?

really? how do you know? (just curious)

1. One of my friends in the Yahoo Atheist vs Christian chatroom is a student of his.

2. http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~jnarveso/homepage.htm

You go to Waterloo?

I'm at UBC

What would make you give it those grades? I notice you provided no reasoning for your grades, which makes me suspect that you have none. Could you be troubled to provide said reasoning?

The reason I'd give it those grades is that the piece is overly-wordy, convoluted and redundant. It is stilted, academic prose that lacks impact, colour and flow.

He's a philosphy professor. What do you expect?

As a philosophy professor, I expect not much more (apart from at least a reasonable amount of compression). Once this is up for public consumption, I expect it to read like something for public consumption.

You go to Waterloo?

I'm at UBC

A friend of mine does. And has Narveson as a prof.

Voting "yes" to this proposal does not mean you believe in removing citizens' rights.

It means you believe they never had them in the first place.

That said, as a piece of satire, I find it amusing and somewhat valid (in a very pointed way); however, I do consider myself a socialist to some degree, and while I don't think people have the right not to be offended, I do think they have the right to affordable, quality health care.

The Bill of No Rights is simply the best proposal to ever hit the UN that I have ever seen. Every statement of every article is legitimate. Let's face it.. humans are born dumb and will always be dumb. People expect their futures to be handed to them on a silver platter. Sorry, the truth hurts. Even if this proposal was taken from an idea elsewhere, it should be seen and heard by everyone and voted FOR it. Apparently this bill hit a sour note to a lot of you. No offense but this proposal is as real as it gets and should be enforced even in reality.

The Bill of No Rights is simply the best proposal to ever hit the UN that I have ever seen. "

Yes it is, for two reasons: it has provoked lots of debate and also, it has brought out all the people of questionable capacity to reason or commiserate to the open. They voted for it.

No offense but this proposal is as real as it gets and should be enforced even in reality.

Enforce what? As far as I can tell this bill is not really a legal document. That is, it won't actually affect any laws. All it really does is attempt to clarify the definition of "rights". I suppose it could affect the interpretation of laws, but I hardly think NationStates is equipped to handle such a subtlety.
It's really more like a piece of advice: If you're going to argue for universal health care, or against that new luxury vehicle tax, don't just say that you have a "right" to free health care, or that you have a "right" to drive an SUV. That's just not valid. Society as we know it is based around selectively limiting people's "natural" right to do whatever they want.
That's just my take on it.

Just another post to note that this silly little proposal is going down the toilet in a 60-40 landslide.

Pogue

how can anyone be against the bill of no rights????? its the best proposal i've ever seen. come on people vote for it!

how can anyone be against the bill of no rights????? its the best proposal i've ever seen. come on people vote for it!

They're against it because it is nonsensical claptrap, which is a transparent attempt by the person which proposed it to force his or her ideology onto others. It is an extremist reaction which is just as bad as the extreme examples against which it rails with such fury.

Auskordarg throws its full support behind the Bill of No Rights.

Skund Beckenstein, Foreign Secretary of the Dictatorship of Auskordarg

Just another post to note that this silly little proposal is going down the toilet in a 60-40 landslide.


60-40 is hardly a landslide, compared to other votes which were as much of a difference as 90-10.

How close minded are you?? Your calculations may be true in your country, however, in some developing countries such as ours, the average income is at about 200$ a month.

And, contrary to what you might think, housing is sometime limited to 4 small walls and a roof build with the hands (and only the hands, no tools) of the persons who reside in it.

My friend, maybe you should switch the TV channel from time to time. Stop watching dallas and listen to CNN.

Ambassador Anthony Chartier
The Oppressed People of Twitus

The Commonwealth of BastardSword wishes it had joined the UN sooner and could have thrown full support behind this proposal.
Sadly it was defeated... it would have been a great proposal...though it only helps nations make their case what is a right...
The only people who argue are those who don't understand thr proposal...
It takes nothing away, but instead gives you full control over youir rights.
The people can't force a right just by saying it is a right unless the people as a whole agree it is or the ruler council or ruler if you are a dictator or kingdom.
I don't see the problem after reading most of the pages, skimmed a few in middle because late though.