NationStates Jolt Archive

The Morality Act

"Let it be known, that any nation, strong or weak, wealthy or poor, a UN member or not, must put the guaranteed human rights and needs of its citizens above all military spending. The UN should not allow any leader to abuse the spending of his/her country's resources for the sole purpose of improving the military. This is why i propose that all UN memmbers be required to spend atleast 10% more on programs which help their citizens than on machines of war. Head my words for to prosper in this world we must put war behind us and look to the needs of our children and all others who may need it."

I plan on proposing this to the UN soon, but i would like to get some feedback and support on it.

Doesn't the military help the people too?

Anyways, I don't spend much on the military so I guess this won't have much of an effect on me.

hmm... bit extreme and vague at the same time.

wouldn't really work....

make it a bit less extreme and more specific and you might have better luck...

hmm... bit extreme and vague at the same time.

wouldn't really work....

make it a bit less extreme and more specific and you might have better luck...

I dont see this proposal as extreme the least bit. I will put more detail into once i am positive i have the support on itto propose to the UN. Explain to me how forcing nations to spend more money, on hospitals, schools, and other needs like jobs than on the military is extreme. I see extreme as a nation who deprives people of their Natural Rights in order to keep up in arms.

We believe the spirit of your proposal is excellent, but would like clearer wording. We have compulsory military service in our country because we believe it helps mold better individuals, and it helps give our citizens excellent job training. We spend quite a bit on this measure and would have to vote against a proposal that sought to limit our contributions to it. People, after all, are still machines of war.

Also, in the interest of the spelling and grammar Nazis, you need to rephrase your last sentence to "Heed my words, for we must put war behind us and look to the needs of our children and all others who may need it to prosper in this world.

Also I don't think UN resolutions CAN be applied to non-UN-nations.

Also I don't think UN resolutions CAN be applied to non-UN-nations.

What i meant was that the UN should look down upon nations which spend more on the military. Not that they should enforce it since it is out of their jurisdiction.

Also, i stated before that I will go into further detail in my proposal once I know that the basic principle of it is supported.

I'm sure the Assemblies that form this Federation will decide to vote for this resolution.

We in the Isla Saudade support this resolution, as we see that many millions are unnecesarily spent in military, an inudstry that helps no one, except dictators.

When Nazi Germany attacked the UK, the military certainly helped the British.

When Nazi Germany attacked the UK, the military certainly helped the British.

Your ability to state the obvious is only surpassed by your ignorance towards the purpose of this proposal. This is not anti-military, its pro-human rights. Nations must not be allowed to spend more money on the military than on the needs and services of his/her citizens.

1) My post was in response to Isla Saudade's claim that the military "helps no one".

2) No legitimate government robs Peter to pay Paul. Welfare and other forms of social spending are NOT the proper role of any moral government.

who is robbing what? Are you saying that you put the needs of your military above the needs of your citizens?

So defense from outside invasions isn't a need? If it isn't, then yes, I do, and I'm proud of it--because I don't rob Peter to pay Paul.

So defense from outside invasions isn't a need? If it isn't, then yes, I do, and I'm proud of it--because I don't rob Peter to pay Paul.

Your logic is faulty because i could just as easily say I wont overpay Peter while neglecting Paul.

The fact remains that nations who spend more on the military then on the needs of its people should be outlawed. I am sure that your people would recall your sorry *ss if they knew where your priorities truly were.

So defense from outside invasions isn't a need? If it isn't, then yes, I do, and I'm proud of it--because I don't rob Peter to pay Paul.

Your logic is faulty because i could just as easily say I wont overpay Peter while neglecting Paul.

The fact remains that nations who spend more on the military then on the needs of its people should be outlawed. I am sure that your people would recall your sorry *ss if they knew where your priorities truly were.
None UN members will be free to spend more money on their militaries than on their people much more in fact and then wipe all the pansies who pass this stupid resolution off of the face of the earth.

Or this resolution could fail and the none UN nations would be stupid to try.

None UN members will be free to spend more money on their militaries than on their people much more in fact and then wipe all the pansies who pass this stupid resolution off of the face of the earth.

Or this resolution could fail and the none UN nations would be stupid to try.

The job of the UN is not to warmonger. It is there to discuss peoples difference in a non-violent way. I still think people are misundertsood in my proposal. I do NOT want to wipe out the military in every nation that is in the UN. What I want and what is needed is to make sure that the rights of the people are upheld, and the money which should be spent on hospitals, schools, special programs are not foolishly spent on the military. With this proposal, every nation must spend 10% more on these services then on that of the military...not completely obliterate it.

So you want to make it a requirement that all members in the UN be Socialists.

So you want to make it a requirement that all members in the UN be Socialists.


This has nothing to do with being capitalist or socialist. It has to do with the responsibilities of a nation's leader to his/her people. Look at North Korea and then tell me that this is wrong. This is why it is called the Morality Act.

What right do you have to tell us how to spend our budget? Stop trying to force your beliefs on other countries.

The Morality Act

"Let it be known, that any nation, strong or weak, wealthy or poor, a UN member or not, must put the guaranteed human rights and needs of its citizens above all military spending. The UN should not allow any leader to abuse the spending of his/her country's resources for the sole purpose of improving the military. This is why i propose that all UN memmbers be required to spend atleast 10% more on programs which help their citizens than on machines of war. Head my words for to prosper in this world we must put war behind us and look to the needs of our children and all others who may need it."

I plan on proposing this to the UN soon, but i would like to get some feedback and support on it.

You don't understand the biological factors behind war, do you? You must be one of those idealized folk. Every species on the planet, whether human or not, plant or animal, competes for territory, resources, food supplies, housing of some kind or another. This is called NATURE. Another word for the process is EVOLUTION.

If you think that wishful thinking is going to eliminate a basic biological impulse, I've got some bad news for ya.

So defense from outside invasions isn't a need? If it isn't, then yes, I do, and I'm proud of it--because I don't rob Peter to pay Paul.

Your logic is faulty because i could just as easily say I wont overpay Peter while neglecting Paul.

The fact remains that nations who spend more on the military then on the needs of its people should be outlawed. I am sure that your people would recall your sorry *ss if they knew where your priorities truly were.

Well the police and the military are both fulfilling my people's needs, and:

(Military Funding + Police Funding) > 1.1x Military Funding

So I'm in compliance already.

Note my military funding is tiny anyways, so I actually let my citizens keep most of the money they earn.

Also, in the interest of the spelling and grammar Nazis, you need to rephrase your last sentence to "Heed my words, for we must put war behind us and look to the needs of our children and all others who may need it to prosper in this world.

You forgot the ending quotation mark.

Also, in the interest of the spelling and grammar Nazis, you need to rephrase your last sentence to "Heed my words, for we must put war behind us and look to the needs of our children and all others who may need it to prosper in this world.

You forgot the ending quotation mark.

You see my point about the grammar nazis!

Renard would oppose this, it's the choice of a the government to spend what it wishes as it wishes.

I would oppose this because social services is NOT the role of government.

The role of government in economics is to SUPPLY and REGULATE public goods. In other words, Military, Police, Fire, etc.

I also believe government should subsidize education, but this is where I differ from pure capitalists.

So the fairly socialist and fairly capitalists agree on something. Wow!

:wink:

Idumea cannot support this proposal because it intrudes on the sovereignty of the world's nations. We feel that this type of intrusiveness is outside the bounds that the UN should set for itself.

That said, we applaud the direction. There is too much military spending in the world at the expense of the people's welfare. We feel that the UN could attempt to move the world in what we agree is the appropriate direction by offering, for example, Most Favored Nation trade status for those countries in compliance with UN economic and spending models. Such a step would not inpinge upon a nation's sovereignty and keeps choice alive in the equation.

Doesn't the military help the people too?

Anyways, I don't spend much on the military so I guess this won't have much of an effect on me.

Hell no. The military uses up far too much money that could be spent on hospitals, schools, etc. Do people want guns? Does a gun educate your child? Does a SCUD look after you when you're ill? No.

Doesn't the military help the people too?

Anyways, I don't spend much on the military so I guess this won't have much of an effect on me.

Hell no. The military uses up far too much money that could be spent on hospitals, schools, etc. Do people want guns? Does a gun educate your child? Does a SCUD look after you when you're ill? No.

OOC: But Scuds do make really big bangs. And big 'slodes are cool! :wink:

Doesn't the military help the people too?

Anyways, I don't spend much on the military so I guess this won't have much of an effect on me.

Hell no. The military uses up far too much money that could be spent on hospitals, schools, etc. Do people want guns? Does a gun educate your child? Does a SCUD look after you when you're ill? No.

You can always use the deck of an aircraft carrier as a basketball court, but just TRY to send a rehabilitated drug addict against a battallion of Iraqi tanks.

I personally think the government should reduce spending ACROSS THE BOARD. Lower taxes.

Who says we need to fight a batallion of Iraqi tanks? I'd much rather be well and be literste than be able to watch big bangs on my TV, which is what the horrors of war have been reduced to for CNN.

Who says we need to fight a batallion of Iraqi tanks? I'd much rather be well and be literste than be able to watch big bangs on my TV, which is what the horrors of war have been reduced to for CNN.

Fine, no Iraqi tanks. What if theoretically we get invaded by teh Canadians. Try to send a rehabilitated drug addict against them!

And if you havent noticed our education system ISNT WORKING. It's very well funded... over $10,000 per kid, but because of all this bureaucratic mismanagement and nonsense it isn't working.

The solution is to privaitze teh schools and let people pay for them with tax credits. Almost everyone will still get free education, it will be cheaper for the taxpayers, AND the quality of education will go up.

We have effectively disarmed, except for our self-reproducing mastodons and pterodactyls, and we pay for rheir care by charging sightseers admission to view them (from a safe distance).

Nevertheless, and although there are already a plethora of resolutions, this seems especially appealing and we will support it.

The Morality Act

"Let it be known, that any nation, strong or weak, wealthy or poor, a UN member or not, must put the guaranteed human rights and needs of its citizens above all military spending. The UN should not allow any leader to abuse the spending of his/her country's resources for the sole purpose of improving the military. This is why i propose that all UN memmbers be required to spend atleast 10% more on programs which help their citizens than on machines of war. Head my words for to prosper in this world we must put war behind us and look to the needs of our children and all others who may need it."

I plan on proposing this to the UN soon, but i would like to get some feedback and support on it.

Our nation has arranged to supply the needs of our population ourselves, rather than paying a cash wage to the National Workers. If they want it, we give it to them. That way they don't need to worry about things like BUDGETS and the National Bank only has to bother with ONE account. As the account is HUGE they've got plenty of work to do. The currency system here is barter, so if they want something extra from tourists, all they have to do is trade for it.

Also I don't think UN resolutions CAN be applied to non-UN-nations.


I think thats why we have armies. To force complience with what we think is best for them!

This will be my proposal once i receive 1 more endorsement:


The Morality Act


The leaders of all nations make desicions on how to use their budget to improve the their select country in a way they see fit. Some leaders balance out money spent on the military and money spent on the needs of his/her citizens. But, some nations spend way too heavily on the military and neglect the needs of their people. What I propose is this:

I. It is mandatory for all UN members to spend 10% more on services and programs like schools, hospitals, and rehabilitaion clinics then on guns, missiles, and other machines of war.

II. This law would only be enacted during peace time.

III.During war, the act is considered null and void until the war has been completed.

IV. All nations already in compliance with the act are not affected.

This does not call for the complete obliteration of the military. What this calls for is acknowledgement that the citizens of a nation are most important. Also, that the basic needs and services guaranteed by Natural Law are upheld.

Make the right decision for your people.

this bill is close to being proposed...discussion is a must!

IV. All nations already in compliance with the act are not affected.

We are concerned with this measure. It allows countries to fall into compliance before the bill is enacted so that they are not monitored later.

Naleth is currently at work reducing its military forces in favor of social services, and we whole-heartedly support your resolution. However, we agree with Gearheads that the 4th measure creates a signifigant loophole in the resolution, and request that this be fixed before it is proposed.

So your going to try and force other UN nations to always spend more on other services rather than the military. Well go for it, it just makes you all more easy targets during the next world war. However there is a loop hole. That being the police and the security services. Instead of limiting the military spending. Just funnel it all into the police. So that it can serve the dual purpose of security at home and aggresive force when needed.

In fact don't have a military at all. 10% more than nothing is still nothing and then UN nations can control their independent spending and spend as much as they want on the security services and police forces.

Instead of invading other nations, your police force can conduct aggresive investigations into crime against your nations populus by the offending nation. Just can pump on the money you use for WMD into the Judicial service and these judges (minute men) can then enact firey judgment for crimes against the state.

Who needs a military !!

No moral nation will support this horribly misnamed "Morality Act".