NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bill of No Rights is actually just common sense. Notice in the modern world how few people have many of the opposite of those rights, such as free healthcare. Nobody in the world has free healthcare, it will cost you something in the end.

yeah, but the Bill is worded in a way so as to make each person rely upon themselves to survive - going so far as to almost make certain Government aiding illegal, for instance council homes and the dole would be illegal as they are "not the government's responsibility" and as such, not supposed to happen.....

thats my take on it anyway.....

This bill is the stupidest one ever. Including the Common Sense Act.

Since the beggining of time, human beings have attempted to help eachother, the bill of no rights simply runs it fashist bulldozer over the basic rights all human beings deserve. This bill simply acts as a method with which you can do anything and everything your sick capitalist minds want.

well, it is nice to see that conservatives CAN get a bill through... however, it's loaded with that conservative cynicism that I and many others don't care for. And there are ten rights (Ten Commandments, anyone?)

i see it as a way to prevent many many frivolous lawsuits, which if you look at america, are happening all over.

suing mcdonalds for you being fat? you have GOT to be kidding me

The Bill has to be re-worded so it doesn't have the tinge of liberal fascism to it. Look at the non-smoking workplace law! Now all those old drunks that sit in a bar all day have to go outside to smoke, harrass people and such. And now the litter outside of bars has skyrocketed. Liberal fascism at work for you. They'll make you be healthy wether you like it or not.

Auskordarg throws its full backing behind the Bill of No Rights. People should learn to take responisibility and realise their place in society through hard work and common sense.

i am in complete agreement with...whoever started this topic. this bill would make a great law, in my opinion at any rate.

Wow, the BoNR may be the first ever UN proposal not passed!

Wow, the BoNR may be the first ever UN proposal not passed!

I sincerely hope not.

Skund Beckenstein, Foreign Secretary of the Dictatorship of Auskordarg

The Bill has to be re-worded so it doesn't have the tinge of liberal fascism to it.

It didn't sound liberal at all to me... It should be named "The Libertarian Bill of Rights." That would make a lot more sense.

Hmm. It seems the Bill of No Rights is only failing 4600-5500. This isn't nearly as bad as before. Hey who knows it might actually pass?

I hope so.

Wow, the BoNR may be the first ever UN proposal not passed!

I submitted "The Secure Project Treaties" and although sensible, I doubt ther will be enough publicity to pass them into the UN.... :cry: :cry:

Wow, the BoNR may be the first ever UN proposal not passed!

There have been a couple of others before...

yeah, but the Bill is worded in a way so as to make each person rely upon themselves to survive - going so far as to almost make certain Government aiding illegal, for instance council homes and the dole would be illegal as they are "not the government's responsibility" and as such, not supposed to happen.....

thats my take on it anyway.....

Why shouldn't people be able to survive independently? Are you suggesting we need federal aid to get food, as opposed to getting a job?

Come on, this is the best UN resolution ever. EVER. It is so representative of how a Utopian legal system would work perfectly, just having this gets rid of so much bureaucracy so judges and other civil servants can concentrate on more important things, like jailing rapists.

And don't give me any of that liberal facism crap. too much litter? Perhaps a national governement WANTS that, after all the UN represents all of it's nations and if some deranged dictator wants more litter, let there be litter! This is EXACTLY what the BONR stands for.
People will spend less time getting money out of misery and lying trickery, and more on cleaning the streets and rehabilitating drunk smokers.

VOTE YES ON BONR TODAY

This bill is exactly what it says it is. An open attack on human rights. A filthy and disgusting example of libertarian barbarism and immorality. If this bill passes, it will throw the world into an dark age of oppression and slavery, reducing human beings to raw material to be used and exploited by the all-powerful corporations.

This bill is exactly what it says it is. An open attack on human rights. A filthy and disgusting example of libertarian barbarism and immorality. If this bill passes, it will throw the world into an dark age of oppression and slavery, reducing human beings to raw material to be used and exploited by the all-powerful corporations.

rrrright... this is more hyperbole than I use when talking about affirmative action. Think of it as a Bill of Responsibility.

its all like what people want and what they are willing to do for it.....not what the government is willing to do for them when they arent willing to do it for themselves does it not make sense to you guys that if people dont want to help themselves thqan the government shouldnt help them either? :? but frankly i could care less if people helped eachother so thats why i voted for this act....yes i know im rude :twisted:

Err... Maybe there would be less arguement if the bill was summed up as

" You don't get anything for free, mate, we give you the means, but if you can't prove you are worth it, then you won't be able to spend your life stealing the government's money."

rrrright... this is more hyperbole than I use when talking about affirmative action. Think of it as a Bill of Responsibility.
That's because I am enraged. If we were standing in front of each other when I saw that resolution, I would have spat on your face. There's nothing I hate more than someone who tries to take away people's Liberty and Equality.

its all like what people want and what they are willing to do for it.....not what the government is willing to do for them when they arent willing to do it for themselves does it not make sense to you guys that if people dont want to help themselves thqan the government shouldnt help them either? [icon_confused.gif] but frankly i could care less if people helped eachother so thats why i voted for this act....yes i know im rude
The government is not some sort of separate entity with its own agenda who should mind its own business (or at least it shouldn't be). The government is the tool and the voice of the people.

It's not the government who does stuff for people. It's the people who use the government to do stuff for other people.

rrrright... this is more hyperbole than I use when talking about affirmative action. Think of it as a Bill of Responsibility.
That's because I am enraged. If we were standing in front of each other when I saw that resolution, I would have spat on your face. There's nothing I hate more than someone who tries to take away people's Liberty and Equality.

If you did that in Student Congress you would be ruled out of order and you wouldn't win any speaker awards :lol:.

Either way this INCREASES your liberty by establishing that other people can't mooch off of you.

This bill is the best thing to ever happen.

If you did that in Student Congress you would be ruled out of order and you wouldn't win any speaker awards :lol:
If I were in Student Congress I would first deliver a speech to explain why the bill is oppressive and unjust, then I would spit in your face once the meeting is over.

And anyway, impulsiveness is not my style. Carefully planned revenge and retribution is.

Either way this INCREASES your liberty by establishing that other people can't mooch off of you.
No it doesn't. It DECREASES your liberty by establishing that the capitalists can rip you off and oppress you as much as they like, and there's no way for you to strike back.

You cannot have liberty without equality. If people are not equal, then those at the top will restrict the liberty of those at the bottom.
And you also cannot have equality without liberty. If people are not free, that means that some of them have power and some don't. Therefore they are not equal.

With liberty, some people will INEVITABLY get ahead of others. Inequality is natural... some people will be smarter, stronger, etc., than others.

However if you wish to maintain equality, you must necessarily take away teh right of people to exploit their talents and get ahead of others.

In other words, liberty and true equality are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

liberty and true equality are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Exactly.
The world has never been fair, and never will be.
People are not created equal, and you cannot pretend the differences in intelligence, cunning and physical prowless do not exist, and that would be supressing individuality.

With liberty, some people will INEVITABLY get ahead of others. Inequality is natural... some people will be smarter, stronger, etc., than others.
Murder and rape are also natural. But that doesn't make them good, does it?

However if you wish to maintain equality, you must necessarily take away teh right of people to exploit their talents and get ahead of others.
Wrong. All people are born with talents and abilities. The only thing that separates them from each other is that each person has DIFFERENT talents and abilities. Rewarding some abilities more than others is subjective, and thus unjust.

People are not created equal, and you cannot pretend the differences in intelligence, cunning and physical prowless do not exist, and that would be supressing individuality.
If some people are better than others, then who gets to decide who is "better"? And how could you possibly claim your criteria are objective?

People are born different, but equal. There is no objective criteria to determine who is "better".

You have a choice between equality and tyranny.

With liberty, some people will INEVITABLY get ahead of others. Inequality is natural... some people will be smarter, stronger, etc., than others.
Murder and rape are also natural. But that doesn't make them good, does it?

However if you wish to maintain equality, you must necessarily take away teh right of people to exploit their talents and get ahead of others.
Wrong. All people are born with talents and abilities. The only thing that separates them from each other is that each person has DIFFERENT talents and abilities. Rewarding some abilities more than others is subjective, and thus unjust.

People are not created equal, and you cannot pretend the differences in intelligence, cunning and physical prowless do not exist, and that would be supressing individuality.
If some people are better than others, then who gets to decide who is "better"? And how could you possibly claim your criteria are objective?

People are born different, but equal. There is no objective criteria to determine who is "better".

You have a choice between equality and tyranny.

Murder and rape are ACTIONS. Inequality is a STATE OF BEING.

What you're saying is that people have different abilities, then...

So a blind person isn't OBJECTIVELY disadvantaged to a seeing person, he's just seeing differently.

And life isn't OBJECTIVELY better than death, death is just living differently.

And being smart isn't OBJECTIVELY better than being a moron.

An ability should be measured by HOW MUCH PEOPLE NEED IT. There are standards... how much your customers are satisfied. And how your abilities complement those of others to form the most profitable situation.

People may be created equal... but by what happens in life, they become unequal.

Murder and rape are ACTIONS. Inequality is a STATE OF BEING.
No problem. There are plenty of other examples for me to choose from.

How about oppressive tyranny? That is also a natural STATE OF BEING. Many primitive tribes have an all-powerful leader with unchallenged authority. And many modern nations still use a very similar system. Does that make tyranny a good thing?

And by the way, the free tribes live in a basically communist society, in which property is shared among all tribe members and decisions are taken in common. So even nature gives you the same simple choice: you can have either tyranny or equality.

So a blind person isn't OBJECTIVELY disadvantaged to a seeing person, he's just seeing differently.
No, but a blind person often has better hearing and more sensitive touch than a seeing person.

And life isn't OBJECTIVELY better than death, death is just living differently.
Since when are life and death talents or abilities? You're not making any sense; I suggest you go develop your basic English skills.

And being smart isn't OBJECTIVELY better than being a moron.
No it isn't. What if that moron happens to be an incredibly talented artist?

An ability should be measured by HOW MUCH PEOPLE NEED IT.
And that is SUBJECTIVE to the core.

Murder and rape are ACTIONS. Inequality is a STATE OF BEING.
No problem. There are plenty of other examples for me to choose from.

How about oppressive tyranny? That is also a natural STATE OF BEING. Many primitive tribes have an all-powerful leader with unchallenged authority. And many modern nations still use a very similar system. Does that make tyranny a good thing?

And by the way, the free tribes live in a basically communist society, in which property is shared among all tribe members and decisions are taken in common. So even nature gives you the same simple choice: you can have either tyranny or equality.

So a blind person isn't OBJECTIVELY disadvantaged to a seeing person, he's just seeing differently.
No, but a blind person often has better hearing and more sensitive touch than a seeing person.

And life isn't OBJECTIVELY better than death, death is just living differently.
Since when are life and death talents or abilities? You're not making any sense; I suggest you go develop your basic English skills.

And being smart isn't OBJECTIVELY better than being a moron.
No it isn't. What if that moron happens to be an incredibly talented artist?

An ability should be measured by HOW MUCH PEOPLE NEED IT.
And that is SUBJECTIVE to the core.

Murder and rape are ACTIONS. Inequality is a STATE OF BEING.
No problem. There are plenty of other examples for me to choose from.

How about oppressive tyranny? That is also a natural STATE OF BEING. Many primitive tribes have an all-powerful leader with unchallenged authority. And many modern nations still use a very similar system. Does that make tyranny a good thing?

And by the way, the free tribes live in a basically communist society, in which property is shared among all tribe members and decisions are taken in common. So even nature gives you the same simple choice: you can have either tyranny or equality.

So a blind person isn't OBJECTIVELY disadvantaged to a seeing person, he's just seeing differently.
No, but a blind person often has better hearing and more sensitive touch than a seeing person.

And life isn't OBJECTIVELY better than death, death is just living differently.
Since when are life and death talents or abilities? You're not making any sense; I suggest you go develop your basic English skills.

And being smart isn't OBJECTIVELY better than being a moron.
No it isn't. What if that moron happens to be an incredibly talented artist?

An ability should be measured by HOW MUCH PEOPLE NEED IT.
And that is SUBJECTIVE to the core.

Murder and rape are ACTIONS. Inequality is a STATE OF BEING.
No problem. There are plenty of other examples for me to choose from.

How about oppressive tyranny? That is also a natural STATE OF BEING. Many primitive tribes have an all-powerful leader with unchallenged authority. And many modern nations still use a very similar system. Does that make tyranny a good thing?

And by the way, the free tribes live in a basically communist society, in which property is shared among all tribe members and decisions are taken in common. So even nature gives you the same simple choice: you can have either tyranny or equality.

So a blind person isn't OBJECTIVELY disadvantaged to a seeing person, he's just seeing differently.
No, but a blind person often has better hearing and more sensitive touch than a seeing person.

And life isn't OBJECTIVELY better than death, death is just living differently.
Since when are life and death talents or abilities? You're not making any sense; I suggest you go develop your basic English skills.

And being smart isn't OBJECTIVELY better than being a moron.
No it isn't. What if that moron happens to be an incredibly talented artist?

An ability should be measured by HOW MUCH PEOPLE NEED IT.
And that is SUBJECTIVE to the core.

Murder and rape are ACTIONS. Inequality is a STATE OF BEING.
No problem. There are plenty of other examples for me to choose from.

How about oppressive tyranny? That is also a natural STATE OF BEING. Many primitive tribes have an all-powerful leader with unchallenged authority. And many modern nations still use a very similar system. Does that make tyranny a good thing?

And by the way, the free tribes live in a basically communist society, in which property is shared among all tribe members and decisions are taken in common. So even nature gives you the same simple choice: you can have either tyranny or equality.

So a blind person isn't OBJECTIVELY disadvantaged to a seeing person, he's just seeing differently.
No, but a blind person often has better hearing and more sensitive touch than a seeing person.

And life isn't OBJECTIVELY better than death, death is just living differently.
Since when are life and death talents or abilities? You're not making any sense; I suggest you go develop your basic English skills.

And being smart isn't OBJECTIVELY better than being a moron.
No it isn't. What if that moron happens to be an incredibly talented artist?

An ability should be measured by HOW MUCH PEOPLE NEED IT.
And that is SUBJECTIVE to the core.

This bill is exactly what it says it is. An open attack on human rights. A filthy and disgusting example of libertarian barbarism and immorality. If this bill passes, it will throw the world into an dark age of oppression and slavery, reducing human beings to raw material to be used and exploited by the all-powerful corporations.

"Dark age of oppression and slavery"? "Barbarism and immorality"? For making people assume some personal responsibility?? I love it! :roll:

Now, I could go on a ridiculous quoting binge of the sort you seem to enjoy and point out all your other silliness, but I am laughing entirely too hard. Thank you for making my day -- I applaud your superior satirical ability. :D

I take it that you're not used to reading for extended periods of time. If you had bothered to look down the page, you would have noticed the logical and common sense arguments I make against your thinly veiled fascism.

The irony of the situation is that in your capitalist paradise, a person with your reading difficulties would probably be starving to death in the street.

Ah, living in the world of "Harrison Bergeron," are we?

Wow, the BoNR may be the first ever UN proposal not passed!
No, the Cato Acts didn't make it either.

I can't really figure out whether I like or hate this proposal.

Nevertheless, I have voted for it, because my constituents have voted that I should.

Ugh. Can't we EVER get through a debate without personally attacking one another? There's your barbarism and immorality.

Personally I think if you interpret the Bill of No Rights in any manner other than the way it's presented--as a cynical but sorely-needed statement that nobody has the right to (see also 'the government is not obliged to give you') a life of luxury, free money, and free medical care without contributing anything to society in return--then you're just overreacting.

Passing the BoNR wouldn't plunge us all into the abyss or set the world aflame, people. It could stand to be worded a little better in some areas, but other than that there's little reason (at least as I see it) to scream about it.

I take it that you're not used to reading for extended periods of time. If you had bothered to look down the page, you would have noticed the logical and common sense arguments I make against your thinly veiled fascism.

The irony of the situation is that in your capitalist paradise, a person with your reading difficulties would probably be starving to death in the street.

On the contrary, I did indeed waste some perfectly good time reading your "logical and common sense" arguments, which I must say are neither of the above. You are merely spouting rhetoric, and not backing it up with anything more than "radical liberalism = good, any conservatism = bad".

Oh, and about my "thinly veiled fascism" -- if you could point out where, at any time whatsoever, I demonstrated fascism, I would be interested to see it. You'll notice I hardly even stated my position -- I merely said it was silly for you to warn of impending global disaster if someone wants to codify some good common sense. That is most certainly not fascism. So I guess you would be the one "starving to death in my capitalist paradise" since you so blatantly misinterpreted my plain, clear English.

But hey, I don't feel like arguing -- your obvious refusal to even consider the other viewpoint make it a futile exercise. I would merely point out that the proposal does NOT outlaw your lovely socialistic ideals ~ it just says that nobody can expect these things if they do not deign to at least try and do things for themselves.

If you did that in Student Congress you would be ruled out of order and you wouldn't win any speaker awards :lol:
If I were in Student Congress I would first deliver a speech to explain why the bill is oppressive and unjust, then I would spit in your face once the meeting is over.

And anyway, impulsiveness is not my style. Carefully planned revenge and retribution is.

Either way this INCREASES your liberty by establishing that other people can't mooch off of you.
No it doesn't. It DECREASES your liberty by establishing that the capitalists can rip you off and oppress you as much as they like, and there's no way for you to strike back.

Where does it say that?

You cannot have liberty without equality. If people are not equal, then those at the top will restrict the liberty of those at the bottom.

That's what governments do, coincidentally: restrict liberty.

And you also cannot have equality without liberty. If people are not free, that means that some of them have power and some don't. Therefore they are not equal.

Coincidentally, that's what governments do: make people unequal, politically.

Hint: you might want to tone-down your knee-jerk crap.

With liberty, some people will INEVITABLY get ahead of others. Inequality is natural... some people will be smarter, stronger, etc., than others.
Murder and rape are also natural. But that doesn't make them good, does it?

However if you wish to maintain equality, you must necessarily take away teh right of people to exploit their talents and get ahead of others.
Wrong. All people are born with talents and abilities. The only thing that separates them from each other is that each person has DIFFERENT talents and abilities. Rewarding some abilities more than others is subjective, and thus unjust.

Oh ick. It's Rawls. Oh ickickick.

Veil of ignorance = crap. Punishing those with talent = crap.

People are not created equal, and you cannot pretend the differences in intelligence, cunning and physical prowless do not exist, and that would be supressing individuality.
If some people are better than others, then who gets to decide who is "better"? And how could you possibly claim your criteria are objective?

People are born different, but equal. There is no objective criteria to determine who is "better".

The market process determines that.

You have a choice between liberty and tyranny. Pick one.

Why shouldn't people be able to survive independently? Are you suggesting we need federal aid to get food, as opposed to getting a job?

Stop being arrogant. You cannot get everything you can get outside the context of your society. Be kind and participate in return.

You have a choice between liberty and tyranny. Pick one.

That simple? Because you cannot process more than two possibilities at a time?

You have a choice between liberty and tyranny. Pick one.

That simple? Because you cannot process more than two possibilities at a time?

I was giving Constantinopolis a little ribbing. Check out page two of this thread and you will see why.

Hint: things like that help.

And frankly, where there is government, there isn't liberty.

every man for him self...


Vampress :twisted:

And frankly, where there is government, there isn't liberty.

Frankly, there is no liberty at all. Liberty from everything is impossible.

In other words, liberty and true equality are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Actually liberty and anything is mutually exlusive because there's no such thing as liberty.

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 posessions 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?

The ONLY thing this bill restricts is UN power. Any country still would have the right to a total collectivist, McDonalds-suing, self-responsibility-free state. Even if it was made with the intentions of restriction, you can get around it with the wording. I don't see what anyone's whining about, other than the frivolity of this thing.

The frivolty is annoying and is reason enough for it to fail.

The bill of no rights is terrible.

It would be fine, if pointless, except for article V.

Medical treatment being a basic human right, and all.

The bill of no rights is terrible.

It would be fine, if pointless, except for article V.

Medical treatment being a basic human right, and all.

I agree. And by the way, there is no such thing as "free" healthcare, it's paid by taxes. And you have to be quite cynical to deny your fellow less fortunate citizens medical care, just to save a few bucks.

And frankly, where there is government, there isn't liberty.

Frankly, there is no liberty at all. Liberty from everything is impossible.

Well isn't that nicely unsupported and bordering on a strawman.

The bill of no rights is terrible.

It would be fine, if pointless, except for article V.

Medical treatment being a basic human right, and all.

I agree. And by the way, there is no such thing as "free" healthcare, it's paid by taxes. And you have to be quite cynical to deny your fellow less fortunate citizens medical care, just to save a few bucks.

No, you just have to uphold the right of private property and know that theft is wrong to do that.

No, you just have to uphold the right of private property and know that theft is wrong to do that.[/quote]

So you are basically saying that healthcare is theft?