NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Bill of No Rights" says (among other things) that governments wouldn't be obligated to provide big-screen TVs, which raises the question: obligated by who? Clearly it means that no nation would be obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

So, is any nation currently obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens? Obviously not. Therefore, what would be the effect if this proposal became law? No effect, because it says that the UN doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens, and the UN already doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

Would the proposal stop the UN from at some time in the future passing a law requiring nations to provide big-screen TVs or health care to their citizens? No, because firstly the Bill has no proviso to bind future UN resolutions; and even if it did, it is a well-known parliamentary principle that past parliaments can't bind future parliaments with laws. Future parliaments are free to repeal any law they wish. The only thing binding a parliament is the constitution.

Therefore, the "Bill of No Rights" is pointless because it says that the UN won't do something it's already not doing, and it can't stop the UN from doing those things in the future if it wants to.

For these reasons, the Rogue State of Beable is voting "NO!" to the "Bill of No Rights", and encourages other nations to do the same.

CRACK A TUBE!
FREE BEER FOR EVERYBODY!

Ok, I'll copy and paste my answer to this from the OTHER thread that's already active about the same issue. Only because I want my view seen as much as you do.

Quote:
So when you say that governments wouldn't be obligated to provide big-screen TVs, that raises the question: obligated by who? Clearly you mean that no nation would be obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.


No it doesn't raise that question. It doesn't say 'Before this was passed you were obligated to buy your citizens big screen TVs'. It says 'If anyone were to ever content that it is a god given right that the government is to give then big screen TVs, you can deny them that TV that they don't NEED by showing them this resolution'.

Quote:
So, is any nation currently obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens? Obviously not. So what would be the effect if this proposal became law? No effect, because it says that the UN doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens, and the UN already doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.


Have you no foresight? Are you suggesting that it's BAD that the government can refuse to give out big screen TVs if they wish? Also, it's not saying the UN doesn't have to give out big screen TVs, it's saying YOU don't have to. The UN is not a separate body of governing. It is a collection of nations governing themselves. Resolutions do not just affect 'the UN', they affect YOU. Again, it's not saying you ARE obligated to give out big screen TVs, it's saying if anyone were to contend that you are you would have a written document to show them.

Quote:
So would the proposal stop the UN from at some time in the future passing a law requiring nations to provide big-screen TVs or health care to their citizens? No, because firstly the Bill has no proviso to bind future UN resolutions; and even if it did, it is a well-known parliamentary principle that past parliaments can't bind future parliaments with laws. Future parliaments are free to repeal any law they wish. The only thing binding a parliament is the constitution.


With that reasoning, EVERY resolution passed so far is 'worthless' because it doesn't have provisions for being binding as far as never being able to change what it affects. What's your point? That the UN has been a complete waste of time? Give me a break. ANY resolution can be repealed. You're only pointing that out because you don't agree with the resolution. You wouldn't be saying that if you supported it. Funny how it works that way.

No it doesn't raise that question. It doesn't say 'Before this was passed you were obligated to buy your citizens big screen TVs'. It says 'If anyone were to ever content that it is a god given right that the government is to give then big screen TVs, you can deny them that TV that they don't NEED by showing them this resolution'.


Dear Sir, I did not state nor imply that before this bill passed anybody was obligated to buy citizens big screen TVs. Indeed, I stated the opposite, that currently nobody is required to buy anybody a big screen TV (BSTV). If somebody was to say to you "You have to give me a big screen TV!", you can simply say "No", because currently you are not required to give anybody a BSTV. You don't need a resolution for that.


Have you no foresight? Are you suggesting that it's BAD that the government can refuse to give out big screen TVs if they wish?


I made no such suggestion, Sir. Any government is already empowered to refuse to give out BSTVs, simply by saying "No". They do not require a UN resolution for that.


Also, it's not saying the UN doesn't have to give out big screen TVs, it's saying YOU don't have to. The UN is not a separate body of governing. It is a collection of nations governing themselves. Resolutions do not just affect 'the UN', they affect YOU.


Again you misrepresent my position Sir. I did not state nor imply that the UN has to give out BSTVs.


Again, it's not saying you ARE obligated to give out big screen TVs, it's saying if anyone were to contend that you are you would have a written document to show them.


I need no such document. If anybody contends that I am obligated to give out BSTVs, I can simply say "No", if that is my desire. You will note that it is my position that currently, no nation is obliged to give out BSTVs, therefore, this Bill is pointless.


With that reasoning, EVERY resolution passed so far is 'worthless' because it doesn't have provisions for being binding as far as never being able to change what it affects.


Not true, Sir. The "Bill of No Rights" (BONR) seeks to prohibit something which does not exist, viz. governments being required to give out BSTVs etc. Therefore, the BONR is pointless because the activity it seeks to prohibit is already not being carried out. On the other hand, if there was a resolution which sought to ban "logging" for example, this would have an effect because many nations currently engage in logging. Not my nation, because we prefer Basket Weaving, Trout Farming, and Pizza Delivery industries. We are vehemently opposed to the disgusting practice of Cheese Exporting, but that is not the subject of this debate.

Similarly, a resolution requiring some action, such as the provision of FREE BEER FOR THE WORKERS would not be "worthless", because it would require a positive action if passed, and thus would have some noticeable effect. Compare this to the BONR, which has no positive actions at all.



What's your point? That the UN has been a complete waste of time?


My point is as I stated it: "The Bill Of No Rights Is Pointless".


Give me a break. ANY resolution can be repealed. You're only pointing that out because you don't agree with the resolution. You wouldn't be saying that if you supported it. Funny how it works that way.

One might well say that you are only arguing with me because you support the BONR. Funny that.

In summary: the BONR is pointless because it seeks to prohibit actions which are not currently being carried out; and because it can't stop future UN resolutions from requiring those actions anyway. If there were currently UN resolutions requiring member nations to provide citizens with BSTVs etc, then the BONR might have a use. But currently, it is a waste of time.


Yr hmbl srvt,
Brian Eable,
Prezident of the Rouge State of Beable

I would rather see proposals which weren't deliberately designed to cause arguments, and which have a positive effect. The current Bill seems to have been submitted purely as "revenge" for the Cato Act not being passed. It also says a bunch of stuff about rights that "people don't have", but because the UN isn't saying that people currently have those rights, it's pointless to have a bill saying that people don't have those rights.

Couldn't we try to use the UN for something more productive?

I would rather see proposals which weren't deliberately designed to cause arguments, and which have a positive effect. The current Bill seems to have been submitted purely as "revenge" for the Cato Act not being passed. It also says a bunch of stuff about rights that "people don't have", but because the UN isn't saying that people currently have those rights, it's pointless to have a bill saying that people don't have those rights.

Couldn't we try to use the UN for something more productive?

Like... world domination?

Ursoria would be less concerned about the BONR if we thought it really WAS pointless. But it's not. It puts the U.N. on record as endorsing a particular philosophical position, namely that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life. To be sure, the proposal does not directly forbid member states from providing those things to needy citizens as "privileges", but it does endorse and codify one particular view of human beings and their relation to society. Nations that support the BONR see no difference between social welfare and such things as slavery and genocide. If the BONR is enacted, it won't be long before the U.N. prohibits it completely. Then we can all live in a world-wide version of the Reagan-Bush United States.

Perhaps it would be better if we simply enacted a resolution to the effect that the United Nations should stick to its mission of adjudicating questions of truly global concern, and leave other questions to each individual nation. If the concervatives really ARE conservative, they can support such a resolution too!!!

Ursoria would be less concerned about the BONR if we thought it really WAS pointless. But it's not. It puts the U.N. on record as endorsing a particular philosophical position, namely that human beings do not have a right to the necessities of life. To be sure, the proposal does not directly forbid member states from providing those things to needy citizens as "privileges", but it does endorse and codify one particular view of human beings and their relation to society. Nations that support the BONR see no difference between social welfare and such things as slavery and genocide. If the BONR is enacted, it won't be long before the U.N. prohibits it completely. Then we can all live in a world-wide version of the Reagan-Bush United States.


The nation which proposed the Bill, "The Global Market", keeps saying that the Bill won't stop nations from providing things to their people if they want to. What's wrong? Don't you believe him?

The nation which proposed the Bill, "The Global Market", keeps saying that the Bill won't stop nations from providing things to their people if they want to. What's wrong? Don't you believe him?

No we don't. He's a dirty exploitator :lol:

But read it for yourself and get convinced that it's a dumb bill.

Like... world domination?

Well of course? We're all trying to do that here, ne c'est pas?

The "Bill of No Rights" says (among other things) that governments wouldn't be obligated to provide big-screen TVs, which raises the question: obligated by who? Clearly it means that no nation would be obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

So, is any nation currently obligated by the UN to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens? Obviously not. Therefore, what would be the effect if this proposal became law? No effect, because it says that the UN doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens, and the UN already doesn't obligate any country to provide big-screen TVs to its citizens.

Would the proposal stop the UN from at some time in the future passing a law requiring nations to provide big-screen TVs or health care to their citizens? No, because firstly the Bill has no proviso to bind future UN resolutions; and even if it did, it is a well-known parliamentary principle that past parliaments can't bind future parliaments with laws. Future parliaments are free to repeal any law they wish. The only thing binding a parliament is the constitution.

Therefore, the "Bill of No Rights" is pointless because it says that the UN won't do something it's already not doing, and it can't stop the UN from doing those things in the future if it wants to.

For these reasons, the Rogue State of Beable is voting "NO!" to the "Bill of No Rights", and encourages other nations to do the same.

CRACK A TUBE!
FREE BEER FOR EVERYBODY!

It's not referring to the UN, but to the nations of the UN. Furthermore, the only example you used to show the "pointlessness" of the bill whereas the UN doesn't give out free stuff etc. was TV's. You forget to mention health care, welfare, and the other articles related to this bill. the "Big-screen tv" was moreover a sarcastic humor entered into the bill. This bill is not "pointless", it is quite "pointful"... in fact, more "pointful" than this topic.

The Bill of No Rights is a very effective tool in furthering democracy as seen by the forefathers of the United States.

I would rather see proposals which weren't deliberately designed to cause arguments, and which have a positive effect. The current Bill seems to have been submitted purely as "revenge" for the Cato Act not being passed. It also says a bunch of stuff about rights that "people don't have", but because the UN isn't saying that people currently have those rights, it's pointless to have a bill saying that people don't have those rights.

Couldn't we try to use the UN for something more productive?

Like... world domination?

Cool! Can we have giant robots too? With guns and texan hats? Or would that be stateist?

The Bill of No Rights is a very effective tool in furthering democracy as seen by the forefathers of the United States.

And why should I care about what they thought? Moreover, what has their thought produced that was oh-so-greatly revolutionary?

Cool! Can we have giant robots too? With guns and texan hats? Or would that be stateist?

We could have nationally-flavoured robots and regionally flavoured robots if you so wish. Robots are fun right?

Dear Sir, I did not state nor imply that before this bill passed anybody was obligated to buy citizens big screen TVs. Indeed, I stated the opposite, that currently nobody is required to buy anybody a big screen TV (BSTV). If somebody was to say to you "You have to give me a big screen TV!", you can simply say "No", because currently you are not required to give anybody a BSTV. You don't need a resolution for that.

First, I'd like to say the BSTV is just an example, and not the sole use of the law. It can apply to a myriad of things. Don't limit it to just this.

I know you didn't say that! I was talking about what the bill said, not what you said. I said that the bill would state that *no one has the basic right to a BSTV* FOR EXAMPLE. The government can give it out if they want, but they don't HAVE to. We agree, see? We agree that no one should have to give out a BSTV. This proposal gives provisions for a senario in which someone contends that it's a basic right to recieve one from the government.

I made no such suggestion, Sir. Any government is already empowered to refuse to give out BSTVs, simply by saying "No". They do not require a UN resolution for that.

Ok the whole BSTV is just ruining the concept of this article. Forget it. What the article says is you don't have the right to material wealth. More power to you if you can get it, but the government doesn't HAVE to compensate you with material goods. That's all it says. The government doesn't HAVE to give you anything. If the government still wants to, fine, but it's THEIR decision.

Again you misrepresent my position Sir. I did not state nor imply that the UN has to give out BSTVs.

I'm not saying you specifically said it, I was explaining how the proposal could be interpreted.

I need no such document. If anybody contends that I am obligated to give out BSTVs, I can simply say "No", if that is my desire. You will note that it is my position that currently, no nation is obliged to give out BSTVs, therefore, this Bill is pointless.

This is not a proposal to limit the proliferation of BSTVs. It's a proposal to defend the governments right to not provide any form of welfare, including but not limited to BSTVs. This is as clearly as I can explain my interpretation.

Not true, Sir. The "Bill of No Rights" (BONR) seeks to prohibit something which does not exist, viz. governments being required to give out BSTVs etc. Therefore, the BONR is pointless because the activity it seeks to prohibit is already not being carried out.

Like I said, don't think of it as not demanding you to give out BSTVs. Think of it as not being forced into socialist practices such as the government spending tax dollars on wholesale material goods for all people. Or for that matter giving people monetary compensation, like welfare. Think of it as pre-emptive strike. There's already laws banning cloning of human beings, but no human being has ever been cloned (that we know of, but that's beside the point).

Similarly, a resolution requiring some action, such as the provision of FREE BEER FOR THE WORKERS would not be "worthless", because it would require a positive action if passed, and thus would have some noticeable effect. Compare this to the BONR, which has no positive actions at all.

I don't know. I think this has an indirectly positive action. Think of the noticable effect as 'national soverignty'. It's intangible, but we know it when it's there.

One might well say that you are only arguing with me because you support the BONR. Funny that.

Well yeah. I don't often argue with something I see right. That's an opinion. A provision for binding future resolutions isn't an opinion. It's something that's either there or it isn't. The resolution might be changed in the future, if social viewpoints change. I don't think that constitutes the resolution as worthless.

I made no such suggestion, Sir. Any government is already empowered to refuse to give out BSTVs, simply by saying "No". They do not require a UN resolution for that.

Ok the whole BSTV is just ruining the concept of this article. Forget it.

I should FORGET my BSTV??? But what of my God-given right to HAVE ONE????~

What the article says is you don't have the right to material wealth. More power to you if you can get it, but the government doesn't HAVE to compensate you with material goods. That's all it says. The government doesn't HAVE to give you anything. If the government still wants to, fine, but it's THEIR decision.

Is the idea then that any previous UN resolutions that would require a government to guarantee its citizens some degree of material wealth would be overruled? If so, which resolutions would be affected?

I need no such document. If anybody contends that I am obligated to give out BSTVs, I can simply say "No", if that is my desire. You will note that it is my position that currently, no nation is obliged to give out BSTVs, therefore, this Bill is pointless.

This is not a proposal to limit the proliferation of BSTVs. It's a proposal to defend the governments right to not provide any form of welfare, including but not limited to BSTVs. This is as clearly as I can explain my interpretation.

Defend it against what? GIANT KILLER ROBOTS?

-jwgh

The Bill of No Rights is a very effective tool in furthering democracy as seen by the forefathers of the United States.

And why should I care about what they thought? Moreover, what has their thought produced that was oh-so-greatly revolutionary?

They were the ones who found that men are created equal, that they all have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; (where pursuit is the key word.)and not only did this, but also instilled it upon a governmental structure that once firmly established led the world in civil rights and political freedoms, which at the turn of the 20th century became one of the greatest powers in the world, and as of now one of the most free, most productive, and best countries a person could live in. America! America! God shed His grace on thee!

I'm proud to be an American! where at least i know I'm free!

And i'll stand up! next to you, and defend her still today. Cause their aint no doubt i love this land! God bless the USA!

*I always wanted to do that*

Cool! Can we have giant robots too? With guns and texan hats? Or would that be stateist?

We could have nationally-flavoured robots and regionally flavoured robots if you so wish. Robots are fun right?

Red Robot World Domination.

www.explodingdog.com (there's a link somewhere).

And yes, robots rock... that gives me an idea for a resolution.

They were the ones who found that men are created equal, that they all have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; (where pursuit is the key word.)and not only did this, but also instilled it upon a governmental structure that once firmly established led the world in civil rights and political freedoms, which at the turn of the 20th century became one of the greatest powers in the world, and as of now one of the most free, most productive, and best countries a person could live in. America! America! God shed His grace on thee!

I'm proud to be an American! where at least i know I'm free!

And i'll stand up! next to you, and defend her still today. Cause their aint no doubt i love this land! God bless the USA!

*I always wanted to do that*

Well I was provoking you into that. Of course their thought has contributed lots to the liberalisation of the world. Great men, some of them.

:evil: However: "Led the world in political freedoms" except of course the right of man not to be property of someone else, right? If I'm not mistaken only Mexico out of all the vaguely Europeanised countries abolished slavery later than America.
And nowadays it is hardly leading anymore is it? In rights and freedoms?

And yes, robots rock... that gives me an idea for a resolution.

Can't wait. As long as it's not about negative reasoning again.

They were the ones who found that men are created equal, that they all have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; (where pursuit is the key word.)and not only did this, but also instilled it upon a governmental structure that once firmly established led the world in civil rights and political freedoms, which at the turn of the 20th century became one of the greatest powers in the world, and as of now one of the most free, most productive, and best countries a person could live in. America! America! God shed His grace on thee!

I'm proud to be an American! where at least i know I'm free!

And i'll stand up! next to you, and defend her still today. Cause their aint no doubt i love this land! God bless the USA!

*I always wanted to do that*

Well I was provoking you into that. Of course their thought has contributed lots to the liberalisation of the world. Great men, some of them.

:evil: However: "Led the world in political freedoms" except of course the right of man not to be property of someone else, right? If I'm not mistaken only Mexico out of all the vaguely Europeanised countries abolished slavery later than America.
And nowadays it is hardly leading anymore is it? In rights and freedoms?

as much as i complain about America's policies, we are still leading in political and civil freedoms. And the slavery deal was because of the southern economy. It depended on slavery, and thus they were reluctant to give it up.

as much as i complain about America's policies, we are still leading in political and civil freedoms.

Do we? I wonder sometimes, especially after the 2000 election and the voting irregularities in 2002. Check out blackboxvoting.com for more details--our political freedoms may be in graver danger than you think.

For these reasons, the Rogue State of Beable is voting "NO!" to the "Bill of No Rights", and encourages other nations to do the same.

The reforming state of Llamalicious agrees.

I think we're all getting off the topic here, which is that if the Bill of No Rights doesn't pass, we all get free big-screen teevees.

Doesn't everyone want a big-screen teevee? I know I do. Vote 'NO' on the Bill of No Rights! Sometimes a double negative is a positive!

For these reasons, the Rogue State of Beable is voting "NO!" to the "Bill of No Rights", and encourages other nations to do the same.

The reforming state of Llamalicious agrees.

Wow! That peacekeeping force is working FAST!

as much as i complain about America's policies, we are still leading in political and civil freedoms.

Do we? I wonder sometimes, especially after the 2000 election and the voting irregularities in 2002. Check out blackboxvoting.com for more details--our political freedoms may be in graver danger than you think.

hence why i complain about America's policies. I STILL believe that at the current time, the people hold many more civil freedoms (i'm iffy about political part of that) than other nations; ESPECIALLY when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

know what's REALLY pointless?? this message board. i'm off to do something worthy of life.

I think we're all getting off the topic here, which is that if the Bill of No Rights doesn't pass, we all get free big-screen teevees.

Doesn't everyone want a big-screen teevee? I know I do. Vote 'NO' on the Bill of No Rights! Sometimes a double negative is a positive!

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint. You're saying that if the BONER fails, then that means that people voted NO to NO Big Screen TVs (BSTVs), which is the same as voting YES to BSTVs! Which means that all UN member nations will be REQUIRED to supply their citizens with BSTVs, and it'll be all "The Global Market's" fault!

So once the BONER fails, we give all our citizens BSTVs (as required by the BONER failing), and then SEND THE BILL TO "THE GLOBAL MARKET" WHO CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS!

Sounds fair to me.

I rather like it that it made it to voting status, that way I could vote against it.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55467)
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

I think we're all getting off the topic here, which is that if the Bill of No Rights doesn't pass, we all get free big-screen teevees.

Doesn't everyone want a big-screen teevee? I know I do. Vote 'NO' on the Bill of No Rights! Sometimes a double negative is a positive!

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint. You're saying that if the BONER fails, then that means that people voted NO to NO Big Screen TVs (BSTVs), which is the same as voting YES to BSTVs! Which means that all UN member nations will be REQUIRED to supply their citizens with BSTVs, and it'll be all "The Global Market's" fault!

So once the BONER fails, we give all our citizens BSTVs (as required by the BONER failing), and then SEND THE BILL TO "THE GLOBAL MARKET" WHO CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS!

Sounds fair to me.

That isn't too prudent considering my population is 100 times larger than yours.

I think we're all getting off the topic here, which is that if the Bill of No Rights doesn't pass, we all get free big-screen teevees.

Doesn't everyone want a big-screen teevee? I know I do. Vote 'NO' on the Bill of No Rights! Sometimes a double negative is a positive!

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint. You're saying that if the BONER fails, then that means that people voted NO to NO Big Screen TVs (BSTVs), which is the same as voting YES to BSTVs! Which means that all UN member nations will be REQUIRED to supply their citizens with BSTVs, and it'll be all "The Global Market's" fault!

So once the BONER fails, we give all our citizens BSTVs (as required by the BONER failing), and then SEND THE BILL TO "THE GLOBAL MARKET" WHO CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS!

Sounds fair to me.

That isn't too prudent considering my population is 100 times larger than yours.

Then you should easily be able to afford to pay for a BSTV for each of my citizens! THANKS THE GLOBAL MARKET!!1!

I think we're all getting off the topic here, which is that if the Bill of No Rights doesn't pass, we all get free big-screen teevees.

Doesn't everyone want a big-screen teevee? I know I do. Vote 'NO' on the Bill of No Rights! Sometimes a double negative is a positive!

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint. You're saying that if the BONER fails, then that means that people voted NO to NO Big Screen TVs (BSTVs), which is the same as voting YES to BSTVs! Which means that all UN member nations will be REQUIRED to supply their citizens with BSTVs, and it'll be all "The Global Market's" fault!

So once the BONER fails, we give all our citizens BSTVs (as required by the BONER failing), and then SEND THE BILL TO "THE GLOBAL MARKET" WHO CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS!

Sounds fair to me.

That isn't too prudent considering my population is 100 times larger than yours.

Then you should easily be able to afford to pay for a BSTV for each of my citizens! THANKS THE GLOBAL MARKET!!1!

You are... i'm not gonna flame, im not gonna flame, i'm not gonna flame... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10... I think i'm going to go dwell on this privately in the sovereignty of my own home...

[quote=Futplex]So once the BONER fails, we give all our citizens BSTVs (as required by the BONER failing), and then SEND THE BILL TO "THE GLOBAL MARKET" WHO CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS!

Sounds fair to me.

That isn't too prudent considering my population is 100 times larger than yours.

Then you should easily be able to afford to pay for a BSTV for each of my citizens! THANKS THE GLOBAL MARKET!!1!

Yeah, this objection seems kind of silly. What, is the Rouge Nation of Beable supposed to get the teevees from a nation even smaller and poorer that it (the R.N. of B.) is? Even if such a place could be found, at best it could barely afford to provide itself with teevees, let alone the Rouge Nation of Beable! With respect, I don't think the great Global Market has completely thought these VITAL issues through.

Again, please check your facts before posting nonsense to these message boards; I know I always do.

Anyway, I hope the proposal fails and we get our teevees soon, because, believe you me, there isn't a whole lot to do on the picturesque but dull island of Futplex for entertainment.

Sincerely,
The Rogue Nation of Futplex

The people of Greater Trogdor eagerly await the delivery of their big screen television sets, courtesy of The Global Market.

It's funny: they always told us "You should count on The Global Market for prosperity, blah blah blah" but we always assumed they meant, you know, free trade and all that. Not a nation called The Global Market.

But hey, big screen TVs that won't cost a single thach-roofed cottage? Excellent.

Bill of rights is a brilliant amazing idea that is NOT a wate of people's time! everybody vote for it!!! :lol:

This will not only make crime higher but it will affect all citizens because how can one say they do not have the right to something.

I don't really need a big-screen TV. Can I have a new computer instead?

I don't really need a big-screen TV. Can I have a new computer instead?

Sorry! Computers aren't mentioned in the BONER! You can only have a BSTV, generously paid for by The Global Market, because it's HIS FAULT if the BONER fails and then everybody is entitled to a FREE BSTV!

So take your BSTV, shut up, and be happy with it.

PS: You might beable to pawn the BSTV, and use the money to buy a new computer!
PPS: Remember to thank The Global Market for being so kind as to provide free BSTVs to everybody in the world!

This Bill is a necessity. It isn't saying that there are nations necessarily doing the things stated within the articles, but it is saying that any issue can be debated to extremes. Everyone is entitled to happiness, but happiness is not easily defined. It could be argued that happiness is found in material possessions and for that right to be upheld, everyone should have the same posessions and they should be things like big screen televisions or sports cars. This bill is not trying to stop nations who are doing these things but setting logical limits on where rights provided by the state become the wants of the citizens, and if these distinctions aren't made either by legal precedent or by federal mandate then a socio-political morass can be created by any greedy, intelligent citizens who want to try to take advantage of the system, and as courts are presided over by a jury of peers, or citizens, they will want to rule in favor of what will bring them the same kind of excesses that the prosecution is seeking, elevating downright stupid issues to an alarmingly important federal judiciary level!! Can we really shoot down an issue that could stop these problems before they become taxing on the country or are we going to ignore this as another unnecessary bill because noone has done it yet, and wait until it actually happens for us to confront it?

PPS: Remember to thank The Global Market for being so kind as to provide free BSTVs to everybody in the world!

The Disputed Territories of Baconasia will send the The Global Market 1000 lbs. of extra-smoked bacon as a thank you gift for the BSTVs.

Oh! We can't wait! We already have the Ministry of Popcorn popping up enough scrumptious, buttery popcorn for the entire nation! Just remember -- you can't have "Pope Emperor" without "Pop!"

We can finally experience that latest hit show "Bosom Buddies" that everyone is talking about!!! And now everyone can watch "Baconasia's Funniest Police Brutality And Government Oppression Videos!" Hil-a-rious!!! And that show with the loser guy who talks to the puppet with the Bobcat Goldwaith voice!!! Fun for the whole family!

Is something that rich people with their own private clinics are behind, because it gives them a tax cut that lets them get more botox injections and facelifts so they don't look as hideous as their intentions.

I don't really need a big-screen TV. Can I have a new computer instead?
[. . .]
You might beable to pawn the BSTV, and use the money to buy a new computer!

While I'm in favor of voting NO on the BILL OF NO RIGHTS so we can all get free teevees, I have to caution my fellow nation the Rouge Nation of Beable against painting too pretty a picture.

The fact is, that once everyone on the planet has a big-screen teevee, their value on the open market is likely to plummet, so unless the great nation of Pogue Mahone manages to get a REALLY NICE flatscreen teevee with all the fixin's I doubt it would beable to get enough cash from selling it to buy anything better than an Amiga.

Unless ... I suppose we could introduce a proposal that henceforth 'computers' would be referred to as 'big-screen teevees' and vice-versa. Would that work?

The fact is, that once everyone on the planet has a big-screen teevee, their value on the open market is likely to plummet, so unless the great nation of Pogue Mahone manages to get a REALLY NICE flatscreen teevee with all the fixin's I doubt it would beable to get enough cash from selling it to buy anything better than an Amiga.

We would like to bring forth an objection to the implication by the honourable representative from Futplex that an Amiga is not a quality machine that any citizen would be proud to own.

We would kill to own an Amiga, why we believe that there are reports coming back from one of our northern provinces that a local warlord did in fact do just that. Of course, he has also killed for clean underwear, food, money, and a potato chip that looked like Buster Keaton, so he probably isn't the most reliable judge of the population's wants and needs.

Regardless, we formally request an apology from the honourable representative of Futplex, and until that time we shall propose that our citizens boycott all Fotplexian products in favour of products from other nations.

James John Jonston the Fifth
TNWSPITPATONDOSOTLian ambassador to the UN by right of bribery.

Read further than the first article before you vote! Read further and you'll notice that this all makes sence: It's not saying you have no rights, that there is no way you can aquire these things, but it is saying the government is not obligated to give you all these things. As the leaders of your country, how well do you think it will go if nobody worked because they were entitled to free welfare? Or if you had to provide everyone with a house and food... Your country would go broke in a second. All these articles make perfect sence, and if you vote against them, you are condeming your own government.

I rather like it that it made it to voting status, that way I could vote against it.

----------------
-President Z.D. Meier
Alliance of Democracy (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55467)
U.N. Delegate

http://images.art.com/images/PRODUCTS/small/10045000/10045608.jpg

I propose that we pass a resolution to give President Z.D. Meier a RIGHT to free dental care.

Let's see here.
We have the UN so it can solve international problems. OK, that's good.

But what the UN has turned into is some stinking nanny that intends to tell individual nations what they need to do within their own borders that have absolutely no effect on international affairs.

UN, stay out of our business that doesn't concern you.

This stupid Bill of No Rights has been around for a few years and was written by some narrow minded bigot (check out www.snopes.com ).

We will never support this kind of garbage. :evil: :evil: :evil:

I undersatnd that the bill is saying that we're not obligated to give our citizens these things. However why would a country decide to give all citizens wide screen tvs anyway? It would only lower the economy which could be spent on much more useful things! Also even if we were obliged to give evryone these tvs poor peeps wouldn't know what to do with them becuase they havn't got electricity. It would be more useful if the government were to make sure everyone had a home, before giving some kid on the street a tv.

The fact is, that once everyone on the planet has a big-screen teevee, their value on the open market is likely to plummet, so unless the great nation of Pogue Mahone manages to get a REALLY NICE flatscreen teevee with all the fixin's I doubt it would beable to get enough cash from selling it to buy anything better than an Amiga.

We would like to bring forth an objection to the implication by the honourable representative from Futplex that an Amiga is not a quality machine that any citizen would be proud to own.

Certainly. My apologies, noble nation of TNWSPITPATONDOSOTL. I of course meant to say 'Atari 2600'.

Regardless, we formally request an apology from the honourable representative of Futplex, and until that time we shall propose that our citizens boycott all Fotplexian products in favour of products from other nations.

You would willingly forgo PEZ over this issue? Strewth!

However why would a country decide to give all citizens wide screen tvs anyway? It would only lower the economy which could be spent on much more useful things! Also even if we were obliged to give evryone these tvs poor peeps wouldn't know what to do with them becuase they havn't got electricity. It would be more useful if the government were to make sure everyone had a home, before giving some kid on the street a tv.

You don't think that individuals who don't have electricity or homes wouldn't benefit from having big-screen teevees? Surely it's people like this who could most use the distraction of a 'Survivor' or a 'Charles in Charge' to take their minds off their plights!

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point.

I am for the Bill of No rights. In this case, the people will not have any reason to directly blame the government for their own lack of effort or self concious. The government can help these people in times of need, but it will not take action and give everybody and their brother a free house, car or a big screen Tv without earning it. The economy is a cycle, and if things aren't earned, there is no profit generated from it and thus leading the country into an economic depression or sorts.

I am for the Bill of No rights. In this case, the people will not have any reason to directly blaim the government for their own lack of effort or self concious.

Or apparent complete inability to spell correctly.

Thanks for pointing it out, I'm not going to bother editing it to spell it correctly.

*conscious

There you go, if my "complete inabilty" to spell one word is such an issue with you.

The fact is, that once everyone on the planet has a big-screen teevee, their value on the open market is likely to plummet, so unless the great nation of Pogue Mahone manages to get a REALLY NICE flatscreen teevee with all the fixin's I doubt it would beable to get enough cash from selling it to buy anything better than an Amiga.

We would like to bring forth an objection to the implication by the honourable representative from Futplex that an Amiga is not a quality machine that any citizen would be proud to own.

Certainly. My apologies, noble nation of TNWSPITPATONDOSOTL. I of course meant to say 'Atari 2600'.

Regardless, we formally request an apology from the honourable representative of Futplex, and until that time we shall propose that our citizens boycott all Fotplexian products in favour of products from other nations.

You would willingly forgo PEZ over this issue? Strewth!

On behalf of the people of TNWSPITPATONDOSOTL, I accept your apology.
Let the borders be opened and let the streets once again be flooded with cheap, imported PEZ!

However why would a country decide to give all citizens wide screen tvs anyway? It would only lower the economy which could be spent on much more useful things! Also even if we were obliged to give evryone these tvs poor peeps wouldn't know what to do with them becuase they havn't got electricity. It would be more useful if the government were to make sure everyone had a home, before giving some kid on the street a tv.

You don't think that individuals who don't have electricity or homes wouldn't benefit from having big-screen teevees? Surely it's people like this who could most use the distraction of a 'Survivor' or a 'Charles in Charge' to take their minds off their plights!

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point.

I think what they meant is that the nations who don't have electricity will have to invent it in order to watch the TeeVees. What's more impetus for the advancement of science that that?!!! These nations will be making SIGNIFICANT SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS just so they can watch the TeeVees!!!! It's win-win for everyone!!!

And furthermore, for the homeless people -- the TeeVees will spruce up their alleyways and cardboard boxes to make them more homey!!! Maybe the government will even put some sockets in the alleyways, so that more than one homeless person can watch their TeeVees!!! Then no one will be committing crimes, because they'll all be watching "Small Wonder" or "Alice" or "Donna Reed" or that show about the teenage witch played by that cute blond girl with the googly eye! Again, it's win-win!!!

Thanks for pointing it out, I'm not going to bother editing it to spell it correctly.

*conscious

There you go, if my "complete inabilty" to spell one word is such an issue with you.

You misspelled "blame" too. It's B-L-A-M-E, not B-L-A-I-M.

While I'm in favor of voting NO on the BILL OF NO RIGHTS so we can all get free teevees, I have to caution my fellow nation the Rouge Nation of Beable against painting too pretty a picture.

I note that the BONER has been OVERWHELMINGLY voted down. Because the UN has voted NO to NO Big Screen TeeVees (BSTVs), this is obviously the same as voting YES TO BSTVs!!!1!

Therefore, it's time for every country to start giving out BSTVs to all its citizens, and remember to send the bill to "The Global Market" who was the one who introduced the BONER, wording it so poorly that it was guaranteed to fail. It's HIS FAULT that all UN Members are now obligated to give their citizens BSTVs, so it's only fair that he will PAY!

Oh, and also remember to thank The Global Market for his kind generosity for handing out BSTVs to everybody in the world. THANKS!

It's pointless because it was rejected.

EOM